Monday
Debates
p.4.
Updated: 2011
The team is editing the debates for posting, which is why some parts are left blank.
Most of the debates were thrilling to watch.
Debating Society of the Philosophy Department conducts sessions of debate each month.
Atheists received an absolute thrashing. Followers of Richard Dawkins were ripped to pieces. They could not even handle simple reasoning, let alone impeccable logic.
Feminists were also ripped apart by some members of the student union. Exponents of feminism were embarrased by scientific evidence against their position. See page 5 for transcripts.
No Atheist had the ability to defend their stance by using only reason. Very few participants could even give any evidence for Evolution.
Some participants ran away, while other resorted to insulting the religious members on Channel 4.
Organised formal debates are continuing on Channel 4.
Here is a selection of what is going on TV in Britain.
more to follow...
Updated: 2011
The team is editing the debates for posting, which is why some parts are left blank.
Most of the debates were thrilling to watch.
Debating Society of the Philosophy Department conducts sessions of debate each month.
Atheists received an absolute thrashing. Followers of Richard Dawkins were ripped to pieces. They could not even handle simple reasoning, let alone impeccable logic.
Feminists were also ripped apart by some members of the student union. Exponents of feminism were embarrased by scientific evidence against their position. See page 5 for transcripts.
No Atheist had the ability to defend their stance by using only reason. Very few participants could even give any evidence for Evolution.
Some participants ran away, while other resorted to insulting the religious members on Channel 4.
Organised formal debates are continuing on Channel 4.
Here is a selection of what is going on TV in Britain.
more to follow...
Religions Evil
||
This debate took place on Channel 4
"Organised religion is the work of Satan"
April 2008
Discuss:
Debate Moderator Chairman Al:
No one else could have devised such a perfect plan to pitch human against human under the guise of "good".
Heselbine said:
I think I see the flaw in your argument...
Question: in the bible, how many deaths is god responsible for? How many is Stan responsible for?
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
... this is not about one religion or bible - if there was only one organised belief there would not be a problem.
Is the creation of many diverse religions, each basking in their own unique glory whilst intolerant of others a cunning plan by the dark one?
Mr Woolf said:
Quite remarkable: For once, you're right, Al.
Religion is, indeed, a curse.
Glad I'm not religious myself.
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
Although I am an athiest, I respect the right to individual belief - it is one of the things that makes life so interesting.
If I did believe in a god or gods I would not be impressed if my god thought that he needed religious "leaders" marketing their poxy little churches for their own gratification and self importance. My god would despair at those ill informed religious "experts" who thought that they knew him better than others and who were prepared to push their dogma forecably in an effort to dominate and be all powerful. My God would believe that only he is all powerful and that the church and its human ideas and rules is false idolatory.
- that, my friends is why organised religion should be regarded by all those who believe in a higher spirit, is the work of beast.
So does god think organised religion is healthy or unhealthy?
the purity of inner salvation versus the murky waters of indoctrination?
Omrow said:
Same silly line of reasoning can be used to say:
"Organised science is the work of evil."
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
I haven't seen the Royal Society flying planes into the buildings of their American counterparts.
Or factions within the Royal Observatory killing each other with car bombs because they are looking through different telescopes.
I haven't seen scientists recruiting vulnerable children and indoctrinating them on string theory and telling them that it is the truth and to hate those scientists who are disblievers.
Omrow said:
Chairman seems to be against organised religion.
Perhaps he would not mind a disorganised religion as much?
Lets take a guess as wild as his own:
Maybe its the existence of christians, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists that is stopping Atheists from eating their own babies?
What else would stop them?
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
morality, common sense, the rule of democratic law, self preservation...
Religion was poly filler for the minds of ancients who had millions of questions but only superstition and fear to answer them. Not for them to know that living on the palms of their hands are 150 different little micro organisms. Religion was a temporary gap filler until the human mind found logic and science.
Omrow said:
[quote: chairman had said: "I haven't seen the Royal Society flying planes into the buildings of their American counterparts."]
If you were honest and not blinded by your hatred of religious people, you would easily see how scientists are also part of slaughter and mayhem; infact the biggest mass murder of all time.
I will give you a clue:
Millions of innocent people in Hiroshima wiped out was actually a "fruit" of crazy scientists.
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
I hate no one. I love religious people, they add to the colour of life.
I hate all organisations that are false, illogical and harmful.
[Hiroshima?]
You may recall that it was Emperor Hirohito who brought the US into WWII.
The Japanese thought it entirely logical that people should obey their Emperor and worship him as a god. They sacrificed themselves in his name rather than surrender. It was just another religion that caused unnecessary suffering - again!
Omrow said:
I see.
You want to believe the American version of events.
Thats fine by me. Its a free country.
However, I have a few Japanese friends. They claim U.S. was the aggressor. Japan was only defending itself.
In anycase, your reply seems to shield scientists who do evil things, while you criticise religions.
Also, you seems to think that if Japan started the war, then that makes it all right for America to drop nuclear bombs, and, thereby murder millions of innocent people in Hiroshima.
Why not stick to being honest and fair?
jazzermonty said:
Omrow actually has a point here. Swap Japanese for English, and Emperor for Queen (or during WW2 King) and you pretty much have the same public obsession.
Sanj Singh said:
Yep, or we can use the example of the Germans and their adoration of Hitler, the Americans and their obsession with fighting their war on terror.
+ +
This debate took place on Channel 4
"Organised religion is the work of Satan"
April 2008
Discuss:
Debate Moderator Chairman Al:
No one else could have devised such a perfect plan to pitch human against human under the guise of "good".
Heselbine said:
I think I see the flaw in your argument...
Question: in the bible, how many deaths is god responsible for? How many is Stan responsible for?
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
... this is not about one religion or bible - if there was only one organised belief there would not be a problem.
Is the creation of many diverse religions, each basking in their own unique glory whilst intolerant of others a cunning plan by the dark one?
Mr Woolf said:
Quite remarkable: For once, you're right, Al.
Religion is, indeed, a curse.
Glad I'm not religious myself.
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
Although I am an athiest, I respect the right to individual belief - it is one of the things that makes life so interesting.
If I did believe in a god or gods I would not be impressed if my god thought that he needed religious "leaders" marketing their poxy little churches for their own gratification and self importance. My god would despair at those ill informed religious "experts" who thought that they knew him better than others and who were prepared to push their dogma forecably in an effort to dominate and be all powerful. My God would believe that only he is all powerful and that the church and its human ideas and rules is false idolatory.
- that, my friends is why organised religion should be regarded by all those who believe in a higher spirit, is the work of beast.
So does god think organised religion is healthy or unhealthy?
the purity of inner salvation versus the murky waters of indoctrination?
Omrow said:
Same silly line of reasoning can be used to say:
"Organised science is the work of evil."
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
I haven't seen the Royal Society flying planes into the buildings of their American counterparts.
Or factions within the Royal Observatory killing each other with car bombs because they are looking through different telescopes.
I haven't seen scientists recruiting vulnerable children and indoctrinating them on string theory and telling them that it is the truth and to hate those scientists who are disblievers.
Omrow said:
Chairman seems to be against organised religion.
Perhaps he would not mind a disorganised religion as much?
Lets take a guess as wild as his own:
Maybe its the existence of christians, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists that is stopping Atheists from eating their own babies?
What else would stop them?
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
morality, common sense, the rule of democratic law, self preservation...
Religion was poly filler for the minds of ancients who had millions of questions but only superstition and fear to answer them. Not for them to know that living on the palms of their hands are 150 different little micro organisms. Religion was a temporary gap filler until the human mind found logic and science.
Omrow said:
[quote: chairman had said: "I haven't seen the Royal Society flying planes into the buildings of their American counterparts."]
If you were honest and not blinded by your hatred of religious people, you would easily see how scientists are also part of slaughter and mayhem; infact the biggest mass murder of all time.
I will give you a clue:
Millions of innocent people in Hiroshima wiped out was actually a "fruit" of crazy scientists.
Channel 4 Moderator Chairman Al said:
I hate no one. I love religious people, they add to the colour of life.
I hate all organisations that are false, illogical and harmful.
[Hiroshima?]
You may recall that it was Emperor Hirohito who brought the US into WWII.
The Japanese thought it entirely logical that people should obey their Emperor and worship him as a god. They sacrificed themselves in his name rather than surrender. It was just another religion that caused unnecessary suffering - again!
Omrow said:
I see.
You want to believe the American version of events.
Thats fine by me. Its a free country.
However, I have a few Japanese friends. They claim U.S. was the aggressor. Japan was only defending itself.
In anycase, your reply seems to shield scientists who do evil things, while you criticise religions.
Also, you seems to think that if Japan started the war, then that makes it all right for America to drop nuclear bombs, and, thereby murder millions of innocent people in Hiroshima.
Why not stick to being honest and fair?
jazzermonty said:
Omrow actually has a point here. Swap Japanese for English, and Emperor for Queen (or during WW2 King) and you pretty much have the same public obsession.
Sanj Singh said:
Yep, or we can use the example of the Germans and their adoration of Hitler, the Americans and their obsession with fighting their war on terror.
+ +
Darwin TV
||
Charles Darwin - Richard Dawkins
This debate took place on channel 4
July 2008
John c1 said:
COMMENTS ON DAWKINS C4 PROGRAMME 040808
1. Dawkins was wrong to state that evolution proves there is no God. All it does is provide a good description of how life on earth has evolved from very simple basic organisms. How they arose, we still do not know.
2. He established that several of the children in the science class he took had beliefs rooted in religious history and teachings. He tried to encourage them to question how the world is and became as it is. However he kept stating that ‘we know’ the world is millions of years old, etc. This seemed just as dogmatic as the beliefs he was attacking. His approach did not encourage imaginative questioning. It was a thinly shielded attack on specific religious beliefs and teachings.
3. I think the two questions he was trying to raise were: how old is the earth and how did the variety of life we see today arise. The age of the earth is only relevant in this context in terms of the timescale over which evolution has taken place. Fossil records from layered strata deposits, development of enhanced capability species at higher strata levels, radio carbon dating, the relationship between species and modifications with isolation (as noted by Darwin) and the dying out of species are all consistent with a long term slow evolutionary development. This provides the simplest description of the world as we find it today.
4. This does not prove there is or is not a God. It does call into question specific descriptions in particular religious texts. These provided the best appreciation of the world in the time when they were written. To take advantage of more recent work to understand the world, how is arose and how it works does not cast doubt on the value of basic tenents of religious teachings – only specific features of religious texts. This would be more convincing and persuasive that a frontal attack.
Omrow said:
Professor Dawkins was shelled by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.
He had to concede there may be a God after all.
After that he has never made any attempts to confront thoe who can really grill him.
Now Dawkins sticks to convincing school kids.
Safe.
I watched Professor Richard Dawkins on Channel 4.
Dr Dawkins was "preaching" his belief about evolution of
men from monkeys as a "fact", when clearly it is still only a
"theory".
Like any religious zealot would, Dawkins was trying
to "convince" some school kids of his beliefs.
Perhaps Dawkins was "affraid" to take on some
men of science who express a few suspicions about the Darwin's theory.
These scientists would have been too tough for the doc.
I can say that in that one hour TV program, Dawkins was
trying his best to somehow avoid scientists who are his critics.
Of course, children had no chance against the doc.
I think Dawkins knew that.
Which is why he did not try the same tactics with the scientists.
So, me and some of my university friends did have
a good laugh while watching Dawkins promote Darwins ideas to kids.
Professor Dick Dawkins was not doing science.
Dick was simply preaching his faith in a theory that men came from monkeys.
Evolution is only a theory but Dawkins has every right to have faith in it as any other person.
But Dr Dick has no right to lie and claim that everyone accepts evolution as a FACT.
We know there are many great scientists who DO NOT accept evolution as an established fact. Some scientists have great doubts about the theory.
As long as it remains a theory, it can be proven to be false at some time in the future.
But Dick D would not listen to reason. He is as fanatic as any suicide bomber on his mission.
Dick Dawkins is an extremist scientist.
He gives bad name to science.
Shame on his intellectual power.
If he was really honest, Dawkins would debate the matter with his scientistfic rivals who doubt evolution.
But D Dawkins would not dare do that. He presents his so-called "evidence" only to kids as well as to those who already have blind faith in the monkey story. In other words, Dick always preaches to the converted.
His reasoning is lousy, and his methods very unscientific.
No wonder he is losing in schools, universities, and among honest scientists and philosophers.
Dick is simply happy that some faithful follow him.
So what. People follow the luney party as well. Why not Dick.
Charles Darwin was a dreamer who wanted a bit of attention.
Isn't it strange that scientists have still found no convincing proof of his "theory".
Evolution of men from monkeys still remains "a theory" over a hundred years after Darwin.
And some people suspect that it is likey to remain a "theory" for another 100 years.
Scientific community is divided over the issue.
Some back it. Others doubt it.
Scientists are not yet agreed that evolution is a FACT.
Until Evolution moves from being a "THEORY" to being a "FACT", it cannot be used against God.
Darwin thought that his wild guess would be established in a few years when proofs come to light.
The poor chap is still turning in his grave.
Monkeys are waiting.
Atheists are generally incapable of using simple logic.
If you listen to their leader Professor Dawkins, you cannot help but notice that he uses some of the most pathetic use of brain in order to advance his theories.
"We found bones dating from 2 million years ago, therefore, we don't need God anymore."
"Bible contains errors, therefore Jesus was phoney."
I mean, who buys this sort of rubbish?
Answer? Atheists.
Atheists blindly follow Dick Dawkins no matter how absurd his reasonsing.
Atheists need a bit more evolving.
Give Atheists a few million years and they will use logic better.
They seems to be still incapable of using their brain properly.
Even Dawkins makes a mess of reason.
He uses poor arguments in a desperate bid
to try to convert everybody to his absurd supersitions.
Its sad to see a "Professor" make a mockery of himself.
Most Atheists fear a good intellectual debate.
Mr Whizz said:
"Most Atheists"? or just one or two atheists that you are vaguely aware of.
It's precisely as a result of good intellectual debate that makes one an atheist!!
Omrow said:
I came across an interesting claim made in a major German newspaper SPIEGEL on 23 September 2008.
Adnan Oktar says in an interview with Daniel Steinvorth that evolution is false and based on deception:
quote: 'All Terrorists Are Darwinists' - Darwin's theory of evolution is the Devil's work.
Channel 4 has censored my criticism on Dawkins.
I proved that he was lying on the Darwin documentary. I think this was too much for the followers of Dawkins and those who believe in the tale of evolution. I suspect their ground was shaken. Hence they censored me. Free speech no more on Channel 4.
My entire evidence against Dawkins was censored here. You cant see it anymore.
Sidedpanic said:
Dawkins DEVOTES his time to proving there is no god whatsoever. Dawkins is a talented man and a great writer. The God dellusion is brilliantly written but not a brilliant book. His arguments always go from relevant questioning - faith insight or blindness? or a questioning of the spiritual. Both of which are fine, but then he always descends into atheist propaganda. He consistently talks about top scientists never being truely religious i.e. einstein, but never mentions those who actually are - even one of the most influential people working on the big bang theory is a catholic priest still to this day - and he never gave quotes where einstein spoke of his belief in god. I mean seriously if you are so selectful in quotations the pope would become a die hard atheist. My main problem with dawkins though, as mentioned above me, is his constant attack on a specific range of beliefs and religion.. fundamentalist christians - yes someone who is uneducated enough to not believe in evolution, can be made to look an idiot, well done - but when a different catholic priest to the one mentioned above but was also a physicist confronted Mr. Dawkins on a group discussion about the supernatural, he had nothing to say. His logic is incomplete. This is not to say anyones is complete but he speaks as if in facts to those who cannot raise the relevant argument. I just think it's a shame that a talented writer and evolutionary scientist has gone down the slippery slope of celebrity in order to convince people out of blindness.
I would like to point out, I myself am nothing more than a free thinker. So I will count myself out of the 'dillusion'.
--
Charles Darwin - Richard Dawkins
This debate took place on channel 4
July 2008
John c1 said:
COMMENTS ON DAWKINS C4 PROGRAMME 040808
1. Dawkins was wrong to state that evolution proves there is no God. All it does is provide a good description of how life on earth has evolved from very simple basic organisms. How they arose, we still do not know.
2. He established that several of the children in the science class he took had beliefs rooted in religious history and teachings. He tried to encourage them to question how the world is and became as it is. However he kept stating that ‘we know’ the world is millions of years old, etc. This seemed just as dogmatic as the beliefs he was attacking. His approach did not encourage imaginative questioning. It was a thinly shielded attack on specific religious beliefs and teachings.
3. I think the two questions he was trying to raise were: how old is the earth and how did the variety of life we see today arise. The age of the earth is only relevant in this context in terms of the timescale over which evolution has taken place. Fossil records from layered strata deposits, development of enhanced capability species at higher strata levels, radio carbon dating, the relationship between species and modifications with isolation (as noted by Darwin) and the dying out of species are all consistent with a long term slow evolutionary development. This provides the simplest description of the world as we find it today.
4. This does not prove there is or is not a God. It does call into question specific descriptions in particular religious texts. These provided the best appreciation of the world in the time when they were written. To take advantage of more recent work to understand the world, how is arose and how it works does not cast doubt on the value of basic tenents of religious teachings – only specific features of religious texts. This would be more convincing and persuasive that a frontal attack.
Omrow said:
Professor Dawkins was shelled by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.
He had to concede there may be a God after all.
After that he has never made any attempts to confront thoe who can really grill him.
Now Dawkins sticks to convincing school kids.
Safe.
I watched Professor Richard Dawkins on Channel 4.
Dr Dawkins was "preaching" his belief about evolution of
men from monkeys as a "fact", when clearly it is still only a
"theory".
Like any religious zealot would, Dawkins was trying
to "convince" some school kids of his beliefs.
Perhaps Dawkins was "affraid" to take on some
men of science who express a few suspicions about the Darwin's theory.
These scientists would have been too tough for the doc.
I can say that in that one hour TV program, Dawkins was
trying his best to somehow avoid scientists who are his critics.
Of course, children had no chance against the doc.
I think Dawkins knew that.
Which is why he did not try the same tactics with the scientists.
So, me and some of my university friends did have
a good laugh while watching Dawkins promote Darwins ideas to kids.
Professor Dick Dawkins was not doing science.
Dick was simply preaching his faith in a theory that men came from monkeys.
Evolution is only a theory but Dawkins has every right to have faith in it as any other person.
But Dr Dick has no right to lie and claim that everyone accepts evolution as a FACT.
We know there are many great scientists who DO NOT accept evolution as an established fact. Some scientists have great doubts about the theory.
As long as it remains a theory, it can be proven to be false at some time in the future.
But Dick D would not listen to reason. He is as fanatic as any suicide bomber on his mission.
Dick Dawkins is an extremist scientist.
He gives bad name to science.
Shame on his intellectual power.
If he was really honest, Dawkins would debate the matter with his scientistfic rivals who doubt evolution.
But D Dawkins would not dare do that. He presents his so-called "evidence" only to kids as well as to those who already have blind faith in the monkey story. In other words, Dick always preaches to the converted.
His reasoning is lousy, and his methods very unscientific.
No wonder he is losing in schools, universities, and among honest scientists and philosophers.
Dick is simply happy that some faithful follow him.
So what. People follow the luney party as well. Why not Dick.
Charles Darwin was a dreamer who wanted a bit of attention.
Isn't it strange that scientists have still found no convincing proof of his "theory".
Evolution of men from monkeys still remains "a theory" over a hundred years after Darwin.
And some people suspect that it is likey to remain a "theory" for another 100 years.
Scientific community is divided over the issue.
Some back it. Others doubt it.
Scientists are not yet agreed that evolution is a FACT.
Until Evolution moves from being a "THEORY" to being a "FACT", it cannot be used against God.
Darwin thought that his wild guess would be established in a few years when proofs come to light.
The poor chap is still turning in his grave.
Monkeys are waiting.
Atheists are generally incapable of using simple logic.
If you listen to their leader Professor Dawkins, you cannot help but notice that he uses some of the most pathetic use of brain in order to advance his theories.
"We found bones dating from 2 million years ago, therefore, we don't need God anymore."
"Bible contains errors, therefore Jesus was phoney."
I mean, who buys this sort of rubbish?
Answer? Atheists.
Atheists blindly follow Dick Dawkins no matter how absurd his reasonsing.
Atheists need a bit more evolving.
Give Atheists a few million years and they will use logic better.
They seems to be still incapable of using their brain properly.
Even Dawkins makes a mess of reason.
He uses poor arguments in a desperate bid
to try to convert everybody to his absurd supersitions.
Its sad to see a "Professor" make a mockery of himself.
Most Atheists fear a good intellectual debate.
Mr Whizz said:
"Most Atheists"? or just one or two atheists that you are vaguely aware of.
It's precisely as a result of good intellectual debate that makes one an atheist!!
Omrow said:
I came across an interesting claim made in a major German newspaper SPIEGEL on 23 September 2008.
Adnan Oktar says in an interview with Daniel Steinvorth that evolution is false and based on deception:
quote: 'All Terrorists Are Darwinists' - Darwin's theory of evolution is the Devil's work.
Channel 4 has censored my criticism on Dawkins.
I proved that he was lying on the Darwin documentary. I think this was too much for the followers of Dawkins and those who believe in the tale of evolution. I suspect their ground was shaken. Hence they censored me. Free speech no more on Channel 4.
My entire evidence against Dawkins was censored here. You cant see it anymore.
Sidedpanic said:
Dawkins DEVOTES his time to proving there is no god whatsoever. Dawkins is a talented man and a great writer. The God dellusion is brilliantly written but not a brilliant book. His arguments always go from relevant questioning - faith insight or blindness? or a questioning of the spiritual. Both of which are fine, but then he always descends into atheist propaganda. He consistently talks about top scientists never being truely religious i.e. einstein, but never mentions those who actually are - even one of the most influential people working on the big bang theory is a catholic priest still to this day - and he never gave quotes where einstein spoke of his belief in god. I mean seriously if you are so selectful in quotations the pope would become a die hard atheist. My main problem with dawkins though, as mentioned above me, is his constant attack on a specific range of beliefs and religion.. fundamentalist christians - yes someone who is uneducated enough to not believe in evolution, can be made to look an idiot, well done - but when a different catholic priest to the one mentioned above but was also a physicist confronted Mr. Dawkins on a group discussion about the supernatural, he had nothing to say. His logic is incomplete. This is not to say anyones is complete but he speaks as if in facts to those who cannot raise the relevant argument. I just think it's a shame that a talented writer and evolutionary scientist has gone down the slippery slope of celebrity in order to convince people out of blindness.
I would like to point out, I myself am nothing more than a free thinker. So I will count myself out of the 'dillusion'.
--
Saturday
God Evidences
||
This discussion took place on Channel 4:
"Logical Proofs for God"
October 2008
The Carpenter said:
Are there any?
More specifically, are there any that don't collapse the moment that you apply the logic used to establish that God exists to the God that's just been created?
E.g. The Cosmological Argument:
1 - Everything has a cause.
2 - Nothing can cause itself.
3 - A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4 - Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist (i.e. god).
(For the purposes of this discusion, I'll leave aside point 3) The conclusion draw in 4 directly contradicts 1&2, if everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause (otherwise not everything must have a cause).
Firstly, the idea that there are only 2 alternatives is bizarre, every culture ever discovered has had some myth or other about how the universe came into being.
Secondly, logic pays no attention whatsoever to whether the universe even exists. All it does is set out a rational framework in which we can examine whether an argument is coherent.
Thirdly, I was using the Cosmological Argument as an example of one of the proofs for God and showing how it trips over itself.
Fourthly, there are other similar proofs, all of which, in my experience, trip over themselves in one way or another.
Fifthly, of your list of "three illogical or vanishingly unlikely steps" none are illogical (& none of them are vanishingly unlikely, unless you're looking through the wrong end of your telescope again, but I was specifically asking about logical proofs).
So, does anyone know of any logical proofs that don't fall into this trap?
Omrow said:
Sorry Mr Carpenter.
Muslims do not claim that EVERYTHING has a cause.
Like top scientists, Holy Qoran also claims that everything INSIDE the Universe has a cause.
God is OUTSIDE the Universe.
Therefore, God is Causeless.
So, the real argument is this:
1. Everything in the Universe has a cause.
2. Therefore, Universe as a whole has a cause.
3. The Supreme Being is the cause of the Universe.
Greenjack said:
who says there is an "outside" the universe.
It could be the case that everything is inside the universe & god (certainly as the current religions portray him/her) simply does not exist.
Omrow said:
I would have thought it was simple logic for most people to understand.
1. Everything we know inside the Universe has a cause.
2. The cause of the all things in the Universe is outside the Universe.
3. Supreme Being is the Cause of the Universe.
Greenjack said:
your missing the point Omrow (& still not answered my post above). It would only be logical if you could actually prove that there is an "outside the universe", and that there is a supreme being.
The Carpenter said:
Somehow, you don’t quite get it do you Omrow? I mean, bless you for trying & everything, but really?
Well okay, lets start with my original question. – Are there are logical proofs for God that do not end up with the initial principles contradicting the final conclusion (see original example I gave)?
You see, logic works on the basis that you make an initial statement (or two or three) clearly outline your argument, then draw a conclusion.
So,
1 - Statement 1 – 1,2 & 3 are all distinct numbers
2 - Statement 2 – 1+1=2
3 - Argument (blah blah, whatever (probably divide something by 0))
4 - Conclusion – 1+1=3
Without having the slightest idea of what 1, 2 & 3 are (nor what the argument is) we can tell that either Statement 1 is wrong or statement 2 is wrong or that the conclusion is wrong. Either statement 1 is wrong (if 1+1=2=3 then 2 & 3 are not distinct); Statement 2 is wrong (& 1+1=/=2, but may =3); or the conclusion is wrong (& 1+1=/=3).
The important thing is that the argument should build on the initial statements and the conclusions drawn should be consistent with the statements.
I’ve re-numbered the points below, as they seem to fit together a bit better (feel free to disagree).
[quote:
1 God is OUTSIDE the Universe. – A statement
2 Therefore, God is Causeless. – A,...conclusion??
So, the real argument is this:
3. Everything in the Universe has a cause. – A statement
24. Therefore, Universe as a whole has a cause. – - A conclusion?
5. The Supreme Being is the cause of the Universe. - A conclusion ]
Firstly, we appear to have 2 statements & 3 conclusions and I’m struggling to link any of them together into a coherent argument.
(1) – Logically, a can be outside b, so I’ll take this as a statement (but see below)
(2) – From statements 1 & 3 (& by inference) we can conclude that anything outside the universe can exist without a cause, there is no reason to assume that God is (or isn’t) one of those things. “Outside the universe” could consist entirely of uncaused pink thimbles.
(3) I’m prepared to work with (3), on a logical basis (if you want I’ll point out the empirical flaws in it, let me know).
(4) There is no logical reason to assume that because things inside something have a cause the thing itself must have a cause (if I told you I had a bag of blue balls & asked what colour the bag was, what would your answer be?)
(5) Firstly, there is no logical reason to call this “cause” The Supreme Being, or God, nor anything else. Secondly, you’ve not established any reason why the universe should only have one cause
Finally, even if you were going to fill in the gaps between these statements & conclusions (ideally with an argument), you’d have established, at best, a non-interventionist (deistic) God. The moment God starts performing miracles/ contacting people within the universe, you would have a non-caused thing inside the universe, which contradicts (3).
[quote:
1. Everything we know inside the Universe has a cause.
- An empirical statement (see earlier post re flaws, or read something on quantum physics)
2. The cause of the all things in the Universe is outside the Universe.Another statement (so how does that work then?)
3. Supreme Being is the Cause of the Universe.A 3rd statement. Neither statement 1 nor 2 makes any claim about the universe having a cause. (Could be rephrased as ‘the Supreme Being is the cause of all the things inside the universe’ maybe?) ]
Could you fill in some of the gaps for me Omrow?
1 – We appear to be breaking ‘things’ down into caused things and uncaused things with only caused things existing in the universe. You’ve offered no definition on whether caused things can exist outside the universe as well, so either ‘the universe’ is a set consisting of everything that has a cause, or it is a subset of some of the caused things (with other caused things existing ‘outside the universe’). I’ll work on the assumption that you mean the former, feel free to correct me.
2 – Logically, there’s no reason to assume that the causes of the things in the universe were earlier things in the universe (& the cause of those things was earlier things ad infinitum). Could you offer a reason why the uncaused things must cause the caused things?
3 – You seem to keep wanting to refer to one Supreme Being, are you stating that there is only one uncaused thing? If so, what reason do you have to suggest this given so far all we’ve done is subdivide ‘everything’ into ‘caused things’ and ‘uncaused things’?
Omrow said:
Why do you insists on deliberately complicating things that are infact quite simple.
I will again say it as clearly as I can:
Physicists tell us that Universe did have a beginning. It is not eternal.
Now,
If everything "inside" the Universe has a cause, then the cause of the "entire" Universe cannot be inside the Universe. That cause has to be "outside" the Universe. Therefore, an "external force" is the cause of this Universe.
You may call that external force whatever you like. Why not call it a Supreme Being?
I can't make it any simpler than that.
Greenjack said:
[you said, quote: Physicists tell us that Universe did have a beginning. It is not eternal.]
I think we have to define "universe" here.
Do you mean the contents of the universe, i.e. planets ,
stars etc or the universe itself?
The physicists may be refering to the former.
Plus don't forget , they don't know for sure. It all theoretical.
Now,
[quote: If everything "inside" the Universe has a cause, then the cause of the "entire" Universe cannot be inside the Universe.]
Why not?
Just because you can't comprehend it.
[quote: That cause has to be "outside" the Universe.]
If there is an "outside". Then we have to ask what is outside the outside?
[quote: Therefore, "external force" is the cause of this Universe.]
Not necessarily. Nature is within the universe and is a creative force.
[quote: You may call that external force whatever you like. Why not a Supreme Being?]
Because it suggests an intelligent being rather than a force. Nature is far more feasible IMHO
The Carpenter said:
the question I originally asked was about logical proofs for God (that don’t fall into the trap of contradicting themselves), so what “physicists tell us” is a bit off track, but since no one seems to have a proof to put forward, we’ll look at this anyway.
[quote: "I will again say it as clearly as I can: Physicists tell us that Universe did have a beginning. It is not eternal."]
Physicists do indeed tell us that the Universe had a beginning. But just because something has a beginning, it doesn’t make it eternal. In fact, as one of the most common answers physicists will give to the question “What was there before the big bang?” is that time was created during the big bang and therefore there was no “before the big bang”.
Equally, physicists are currently unable to tell us whether the universe will have an end (this depends on the amount of matter (/ dark matter) and energy (/ dark energy) knocking around and whether gravity (/dark gravity) will cause the universe to eventually collapse back in on itself or continue expanding forever.
In the first instance then the universe would be eternal, but with a beginning, in the 2nd, if it was established that time would stop during “the big crunch”, then the universe would still encompass all of time, which sounds as close to a definition of eternity as any.
[quote:
If everything "inside" the Universe has a cause, then the cause of the "entire" Universe cannot be inside the Universe. That cause has to be "outside" the Universe. Therefore, "external force" is the cause of this Universe.]
So, in that case you need to establish that the universe hasn’t caused the things inside itself and that there is an “outside” of the universe.
I’ll give you a straight forward (i.e. 3D) example. We know that the earth is finite, therefore a finite thing must have an end (/edge). If we were to start walking across the earth looking for the edge when would we find it?
We all know we won’t, because the earth is round, now the universe could be a similar 4D (or more) shape, it could have no “end/ edge” or “inside/ outside” and yet also be finite. A quick search should find you mathematical models of mobius bottles to illustrate the point.
Assuming that you can establish there is an “outside” to the universe (a big assumption, I know), you still need to establish that this “external force” is both singular and intelligent/ moral (strictly speaking the latter is only necessary if you’re arguing from a theistic point of view rather than a deistic view).
[quote: "You may call that external force whatever you like. Why not a Supreme Being?"]
Why not call it the big bang? Why not call it uncaused pink thimbles?
Might I suggest the reason you want to call it/ them “a Supreme Being” is so you can use it to try and pretend you’re deriving some sort of morality from it/ them? And unless or until you can establish that there is one thing, that it is in anyway a “being” much less an intelligent/ moral being you have no logical justification for doing so?
Gand said:
Why does the creator have to be a god or a supreme being, couldn’t it be really stupid, say with the IQ of a chicken but with a natural propensity for universe creation.
Omrow said:
That would be true if only your type existed.
Unfortunately for you, the existence of intelligent people prove your dream wrong.
The Carpenters said:
Actually, Omrow, I'm pretty sure you'll find that chickens do exist.
Omrow said:
Yes indeed.
The existence of a "chicken" and an "ass" only goes to show
that if there is a God, He certainly has wit.
The Carpenter said:
..or possibly just the "ass" of a "chicken"?
But I was hoping to discuss something a bit more fundament-al.
Omrow said:
There is actually nothing wrong with the intellectual arguments for the existence of God.
Their logic is quite sound.
However, they are not enough to take you to God.
The Carpenter said:
There's plenty wrong with them. Want to demonstrate the errors in another? Take your pick...
Omrow said:
When U.S. did not want peace, it saw everything wrong with the diplomatic method.
Hence, Bush and Tony Blair illgeally invaded Iraq in 2003.
Similarly, when a person is not interested in God, then, naturally, he, like Tony Blair, would find everything wrong with pro-God stuff.
You dont have to be Einstein to see that.
The Carpenter said:
The only way humanity has ever advanced is be finding out what is wrong with the current explanations, then correcting them or replacing them.
If you can find me a logically coherent argument for God, I'll look at it seriously.
Channel 4 moderator, Chairman Al said:
why do we stop at the creator?
Isn't it rather simplistic to assume that there is a creator and beyond that nothing?
Surely if you believe in the concept of creation then you can't ignore the fact that even a creator has to be created.
God is a human concept and humans cannot cope with too many variables. Religion can only survive by keeping their concepts simple!
Omrow said:
One has to draw the line somewhere.
I think it should drawn at the most logical position.
However, good attempt by our chairman. But still flawed.
I can easily turn his "chair" around:
If you believe in the concept of an eternal universe, you should have no problem with the eternal God.
Merry Christmas!
The Carpenter said:
Agreed, now demonstrate that the most logical position to draw the line is after you reach God, rather than;
1 - the creator of God
2 - the universe causing itself
... and you might have a point.
Channel 4 moderator Chairman Al said:
How was the eternal universe created? - the theory that it has always existed is purely a cop out to satisfy the limitations of the human mind. Religion is a gap filler for the paucity of human comprehension.
Merry Mithras.
Sanj Singh said:
It is imperative for us not to argue for the sake of argument or to force our views upon one another. It is important to learn from each other and be TOLERANT.
Chairman Al said:
It is important not to have fixed views on the answer to the universe. Nothing can be achieved without a willingness to accept new learning.
Sanj Singh said:
Indeed, that point can be made to religious fanatics but sometimes we forget that even some Atheists too can be so fanatical when it comes to listening to anything oppossing their views.
jazzermonty said:
As an Atheist my problem is religious dogma. Atheism has no concept of dogma, only evidence (something organised religion has no concept of).
The Carpenter said:
I don't have the slightest problem listening to people opposed to my views, all I ask for is that the facts are clear and the reasoning sound.
That so many religious people (though not all) insist on providing neither clear facts nor sound reasoning is their problem & not mine.
P.S. My preferred spelling of argument is d.e.b.a.t.e.
Omrow said:
Fanatics exists in all spheres of life.
If you look carefully you will see that Atheists tend to be more dogmatic than religious people.
In fact, you will observe that most Atheists follow a blind faith.
Atheists are as bad as any other intellectually blind person. They often refuse to use reason.
The Carpenter said:
So Omrow, what is your answer to the question "What would convince you that you were wrong and that God doesn't exist?"
(If you can refrain from implying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, I'll tell you my answer to the question "What would convince you that you were wrong and that God doesn't exist?")
Omrow said:
There is no "rational" evidence against God.
The so-called arguments against God are ones that are made by unthinking Atheists who are deluded by their hatred of anything that they cannot yet comprehend.
If you listen properly, you will no doubt notice that all the statements made by most Atheists about God are actually outside the realm of human intellect.
If there was any "reasonable" evidence against God, Atheist "lords" like Richard Dawkins would not make fool of themselves by claiming, on one hand, that believers are deluded, while on the other hand, the same idiot admits that he cannot rule out the existence of God.
That is human irrationality at its most entertaining.
When Professor Dawkins says there MAY possibly be a God out there, then how on earth can he condemn those who say that there IS a God.
The Carpenter said:
Because his mind is open to the (vanishingly small) chance that there is a god, while yours is completely and utterly closed to the idea that there isn't.
What would convince you that there wasn't a god, Omrow?
Mycor said:
As has been said many times, you cannot disprove the existence of anything because you cannot look everywhere and no matter where you look there may be evidence somewhere where you haven't looked. All you can do is look in as many places as possible and if you find no evidence for something you conclude that on balance the likelihood of something existing is so small as to be considered negligible. On balance therefore you conclude that something doesn't exist but you leave open the tiny possibility that it may. That is logical and rational not silly, stupid, unthinking or any of the other such words that you choose to use.
Can you explain why it is logical to believe in a god, rather than just repeating it. Can you give us some of the evidence? Can you give an example of what you mean by 'If you listen properly, you will no doubt notice that all the statements made by most Atheists about God are actually outside the realm of human intellect'?
Omrow said:
That was good. I agree with you there.
But, I think you missed my point.
It is indeed reasonable to claim that there is probably no God.
Nothing wrong with that.
My point was about condemnnation.
jazzermonty said:
[ quote: There is no "rational" evidence against God. The so-called arguments against God are ones that are made by unthinking Atheists who are deluded by their hatred of anything that they cannot yet comprehend.]
Your getting this the wrong way round Omrow, it should read ..
There is no “rational” evidence FOR God.
Do you see the subtle difference here? Science isn't trying to disprove the existence of God, but can find no evidence for God.
Atheists aren't deluded by any manner of means. In fact their concious is heightened by the fact that God hides his face. Or more to the point God doesn't have a face.
And how's deluded here? Someone that can make a rational decision about their belief system, or someone who blindly follows their inherited doctrine?
Where did you find your religion Omrow?
Omrow said:
Place where any truth is found.
jazzermonty said:
Do you believe in the same scriptures as your parents?
Omrow said:
No I dont. I have my own brain.
Mycor said:
So you agree that it is reasonable to claim that there is probably no god. I also think we agreed that the Qur'an is open to interpretation, but you felt that one interpretation was more logical and reasonable than the others ie. that it is the word of Allah. Would you agree that you think this interpretation is logical and reasonable to you because you beieve in Allah, but to some one who reasonably claims that there is probably no god the interpretation that the Quran is the word of Allah is not logical and reasonable? You may disagree with them but do you agree that it is a reasonable view to hold?
Omrow said:
Yes. That would be rational.
I agree with you.
We all stand at different places. This gives us varying perspectives of the object we are studying.
There are indeed rational people who do not believe in God and they have read holy books such as the Qoran.
They say that there is only one thing wrong with Qoran: That is its claim to be from God.
Thats ok.
Those who do not yet believe in God, would, naturally, not believe any book claiming to be from God.
Even those who do believe in God may still reasonablly not believe that a particular book is indeed from God.
Thats all fine and reasonable.
jazzermonty said:
Now that were all friends again, are there any 'Logical Proofs for God'?
I say no, as God is neither
Testable
Measurable
Predictable
Omrow said:
God is too big for scientists.
Their tiny instruments are not enough to measure the Supreme Being.
You dont have to be an expert to figure that out.
The Carpenter said:
For some strange reason you've omitted those who used to believe in God & don't anymore. Fine & reasonable?
Omrow said:
I've never come across those.
Mycor said:
so you feel that people who do not believe in god can be rational, that it is reasonable for some one to think there is probably not a god and that it is reasonable for some one to think that the Qur'an is not the word of god.
Based on this I am trying to understand why you continue to call atheists silly, irrational and so on. My guess is it's to do with how you are defining atheism. Is it because you mean an atheist states that there is definitely no god, and believes there isn't one, even though, as we have discussed, it is not really possible to prove the non-existence of something?
If this is the case though, surely such people or only doing the same as you ie. they believe something to be true although it cannot be proven. I could understand therefore why you would say that such people are mistaken or wrong in your opinion, but to accuse them of being silly, irrational etc doesn't seem right. This works both ways of course, and shouldn't stop a discussion or debate on the subject but a think a more understanding language would help and would maybe avoid some of the confusion or misunderstandings which can arise.
Omrow said:
That was beautiful. I couldn't agree with you more.
Believers and Atheists can be both rational as well as irrational.
Its just the case that Athiests tend to be absurd more often in their beliefs and claims.
Any person can hold both rational and irrational beliefs.
Thats the beauty of human beings. If we all belived the same there would be no colour to life.
The Carpenter said:
Strictly something can be logical and not measurable or predictable, as these are more "scientific" traits than logical traits. Therefore, a god that is not testable/ measurable/predictable is not a scientific god.
So, on the evidence currently to hand that makes God neither scientific, nor logical, which is exactly the sort of attributes most imaginary beings have.
jazzermonty said:
Try goolging 'Logical proof's for God' and you will be amazed at what's out there.
Omrow said:
Scientifially speaking, for something to be a "proof", it needs to be quite solid.
The so-called "Logical Proofs" are not actually proofs for God's existence.
At best they are pointers.
+ +
This discussion took place on Channel 4:
"Logical Proofs for God"
October 2008
The Carpenter said:
Are there any?
More specifically, are there any that don't collapse the moment that you apply the logic used to establish that God exists to the God that's just been created?
E.g. The Cosmological Argument:
1 - Everything has a cause.
2 - Nothing can cause itself.
3 - A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4 - Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist (i.e. god).
(For the purposes of this discusion, I'll leave aside point 3) The conclusion draw in 4 directly contradicts 1&2, if everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause (otherwise not everything must have a cause).
Firstly, the idea that there are only 2 alternatives is bizarre, every culture ever discovered has had some myth or other about how the universe came into being.
Secondly, logic pays no attention whatsoever to whether the universe even exists. All it does is set out a rational framework in which we can examine whether an argument is coherent.
Thirdly, I was using the Cosmological Argument as an example of one of the proofs for God and showing how it trips over itself.
Fourthly, there are other similar proofs, all of which, in my experience, trip over themselves in one way or another.
Fifthly, of your list of "three illogical or vanishingly unlikely steps" none are illogical (& none of them are vanishingly unlikely, unless you're looking through the wrong end of your telescope again, but I was specifically asking about logical proofs).
So, does anyone know of any logical proofs that don't fall into this trap?
Omrow said:
Sorry Mr Carpenter.
Muslims do not claim that EVERYTHING has a cause.
Like top scientists, Holy Qoran also claims that everything INSIDE the Universe has a cause.
God is OUTSIDE the Universe.
Therefore, God is Causeless.
So, the real argument is this:
1. Everything in the Universe has a cause.
2. Therefore, Universe as a whole has a cause.
3. The Supreme Being is the cause of the Universe.
Greenjack said:
who says there is an "outside" the universe.
It could be the case that everything is inside the universe & god (certainly as the current religions portray him/her) simply does not exist.
Omrow said:
I would have thought it was simple logic for most people to understand.
1. Everything we know inside the Universe has a cause.
2. The cause of the all things in the Universe is outside the Universe.
3. Supreme Being is the Cause of the Universe.
Greenjack said:
your missing the point Omrow (& still not answered my post above). It would only be logical if you could actually prove that there is an "outside the universe", and that there is a supreme being.
The Carpenter said:
Somehow, you don’t quite get it do you Omrow? I mean, bless you for trying & everything, but really?
Well okay, lets start with my original question. – Are there are logical proofs for God that do not end up with the initial principles contradicting the final conclusion (see original example I gave)?
You see, logic works on the basis that you make an initial statement (or two or three) clearly outline your argument, then draw a conclusion.
So,
1 - Statement 1 – 1,2 & 3 are all distinct numbers
2 - Statement 2 – 1+1=2
3 - Argument (blah blah, whatever (probably divide something by 0))
4 - Conclusion – 1+1=3
Without having the slightest idea of what 1, 2 & 3 are (nor what the argument is) we can tell that either Statement 1 is wrong or statement 2 is wrong or that the conclusion is wrong. Either statement 1 is wrong (if 1+1=2=3 then 2 & 3 are not distinct); Statement 2 is wrong (& 1+1=/=2, but may =3); or the conclusion is wrong (& 1+1=/=3).
The important thing is that the argument should build on the initial statements and the conclusions drawn should be consistent with the statements.
I’ve re-numbered the points below, as they seem to fit together a bit better (feel free to disagree).
[quote:
1 God is OUTSIDE the Universe. – A statement
2 Therefore, God is Causeless. – A,...conclusion??
So, the real argument is this:
3. Everything in the Universe has a cause. – A statement
24. Therefore, Universe as a whole has a cause. – - A conclusion?
5. The Supreme Being is the cause of the Universe. - A conclusion ]
Firstly, we appear to have 2 statements & 3 conclusions and I’m struggling to link any of them together into a coherent argument.
(1) – Logically, a can be outside b, so I’ll take this as a statement (but see below)
(2) – From statements 1 & 3 (& by inference) we can conclude that anything outside the universe can exist without a cause, there is no reason to assume that God is (or isn’t) one of those things. “Outside the universe” could consist entirely of uncaused pink thimbles.
(3) I’m prepared to work with (3), on a logical basis (if you want I’ll point out the empirical flaws in it, let me know).
(4) There is no logical reason to assume that because things inside something have a cause the thing itself must have a cause (if I told you I had a bag of blue balls & asked what colour the bag was, what would your answer be?)
(5) Firstly, there is no logical reason to call this “cause” The Supreme Being, or God, nor anything else. Secondly, you’ve not established any reason why the universe should only have one cause
Finally, even if you were going to fill in the gaps between these statements & conclusions (ideally with an argument), you’d have established, at best, a non-interventionist (deistic) God. The moment God starts performing miracles/ contacting people within the universe, you would have a non-caused thing inside the universe, which contradicts (3).
[quote:
1. Everything we know inside the Universe has a cause.
- An empirical statement (see earlier post re flaws, or read something on quantum physics)
2. The cause of the all things in the Universe is outside the Universe.Another statement (so how does that work then?)
3. Supreme Being is the Cause of the Universe.A 3rd statement. Neither statement 1 nor 2 makes any claim about the universe having a cause. (Could be rephrased as ‘the Supreme Being is the cause of all the things inside the universe’ maybe?) ]
Could you fill in some of the gaps for me Omrow?
1 – We appear to be breaking ‘things’ down into caused things and uncaused things with only caused things existing in the universe. You’ve offered no definition on whether caused things can exist outside the universe as well, so either ‘the universe’ is a set consisting of everything that has a cause, or it is a subset of some of the caused things (with other caused things existing ‘outside the universe’). I’ll work on the assumption that you mean the former, feel free to correct me.
2 – Logically, there’s no reason to assume that the causes of the things in the universe were earlier things in the universe (& the cause of those things was earlier things ad infinitum). Could you offer a reason why the uncaused things must cause the caused things?
3 – You seem to keep wanting to refer to one Supreme Being, are you stating that there is only one uncaused thing? If so, what reason do you have to suggest this given so far all we’ve done is subdivide ‘everything’ into ‘caused things’ and ‘uncaused things’?
Omrow said:
Why do you insists on deliberately complicating things that are infact quite simple.
I will again say it as clearly as I can:
Physicists tell us that Universe did have a beginning. It is not eternal.
Now,
If everything "inside" the Universe has a cause, then the cause of the "entire" Universe cannot be inside the Universe. That cause has to be "outside" the Universe. Therefore, an "external force" is the cause of this Universe.
You may call that external force whatever you like. Why not call it a Supreme Being?
I can't make it any simpler than that.
Greenjack said:
[you said, quote: Physicists tell us that Universe did have a beginning. It is not eternal.]
I think we have to define "universe" here.
Do you mean the contents of the universe, i.e. planets ,
stars etc or the universe itself?
The physicists may be refering to the former.
Plus don't forget , they don't know for sure. It all theoretical.
Now,
[quote: If everything "inside" the Universe has a cause, then the cause of the "entire" Universe cannot be inside the Universe.]
Why not?
Just because you can't comprehend it.
[quote: That cause has to be "outside" the Universe.]
If there is an "outside". Then we have to ask what is outside the outside?
[quote: Therefore, "external force" is the cause of this Universe.]
Not necessarily. Nature is within the universe and is a creative force.
[quote: You may call that external force whatever you like. Why not a Supreme Being?]
Because it suggests an intelligent being rather than a force. Nature is far more feasible IMHO
The Carpenter said:
the question I originally asked was about logical proofs for God (that don’t fall into the trap of contradicting themselves), so what “physicists tell us” is a bit off track, but since no one seems to have a proof to put forward, we’ll look at this anyway.
[quote: "I will again say it as clearly as I can: Physicists tell us that Universe did have a beginning. It is not eternal."]
Physicists do indeed tell us that the Universe had a beginning. But just because something has a beginning, it doesn’t make it eternal. In fact, as one of the most common answers physicists will give to the question “What was there before the big bang?” is that time was created during the big bang and therefore there was no “before the big bang”.
Equally, physicists are currently unable to tell us whether the universe will have an end (this depends on the amount of matter (/ dark matter) and energy (/ dark energy) knocking around and whether gravity (/dark gravity) will cause the universe to eventually collapse back in on itself or continue expanding forever.
In the first instance then the universe would be eternal, but with a beginning, in the 2nd, if it was established that time would stop during “the big crunch”, then the universe would still encompass all of time, which sounds as close to a definition of eternity as any.
[quote:
If everything "inside" the Universe has a cause, then the cause of the "entire" Universe cannot be inside the Universe. That cause has to be "outside" the Universe. Therefore, "external force" is the cause of this Universe.]
So, in that case you need to establish that the universe hasn’t caused the things inside itself and that there is an “outside” of the universe.
I’ll give you a straight forward (i.e. 3D) example. We know that the earth is finite, therefore a finite thing must have an end (/edge). If we were to start walking across the earth looking for the edge when would we find it?
We all know we won’t, because the earth is round, now the universe could be a similar 4D (or more) shape, it could have no “end/ edge” or “inside/ outside” and yet also be finite. A quick search should find you mathematical models of mobius bottles to illustrate the point.
Assuming that you can establish there is an “outside” to the universe (a big assumption, I know), you still need to establish that this “external force” is both singular and intelligent/ moral (strictly speaking the latter is only necessary if you’re arguing from a theistic point of view rather than a deistic view).
[quote: "You may call that external force whatever you like. Why not a Supreme Being?"]
Why not call it the big bang? Why not call it uncaused pink thimbles?
Might I suggest the reason you want to call it/ them “a Supreme Being” is so you can use it to try and pretend you’re deriving some sort of morality from it/ them? And unless or until you can establish that there is one thing, that it is in anyway a “being” much less an intelligent/ moral being you have no logical justification for doing so?
Gand said:
Why does the creator have to be a god or a supreme being, couldn’t it be really stupid, say with the IQ of a chicken but with a natural propensity for universe creation.
Omrow said:
That would be true if only your type existed.
Unfortunately for you, the existence of intelligent people prove your dream wrong.
The Carpenters said:
Actually, Omrow, I'm pretty sure you'll find that chickens do exist.
Omrow said:
Yes indeed.
The existence of a "chicken" and an "ass" only goes to show
that if there is a God, He certainly has wit.
The Carpenter said:
..or possibly just the "ass" of a "chicken"?
But I was hoping to discuss something a bit more fundament-al.
Omrow said:
There is actually nothing wrong with the intellectual arguments for the existence of God.
Their logic is quite sound.
However, they are not enough to take you to God.
The Carpenter said:
There's plenty wrong with them. Want to demonstrate the errors in another? Take your pick...
Omrow said:
When U.S. did not want peace, it saw everything wrong with the diplomatic method.
Hence, Bush and Tony Blair illgeally invaded Iraq in 2003.
Similarly, when a person is not interested in God, then, naturally, he, like Tony Blair, would find everything wrong with pro-God stuff.
You dont have to be Einstein to see that.
The Carpenter said:
The only way humanity has ever advanced is be finding out what is wrong with the current explanations, then correcting them or replacing them.
If you can find me a logically coherent argument for God, I'll look at it seriously.
Channel 4 moderator, Chairman Al said:
why do we stop at the creator?
Isn't it rather simplistic to assume that there is a creator and beyond that nothing?
Surely if you believe in the concept of creation then you can't ignore the fact that even a creator has to be created.
God is a human concept and humans cannot cope with too many variables. Religion can only survive by keeping their concepts simple!
Omrow said:
One has to draw the line somewhere.
I think it should drawn at the most logical position.
However, good attempt by our chairman. But still flawed.
I can easily turn his "chair" around:
If you believe in the concept of an eternal universe, you should have no problem with the eternal God.
Merry Christmas!
The Carpenter said:
Agreed, now demonstrate that the most logical position to draw the line is after you reach God, rather than;
1 - the creator of God
2 - the universe causing itself
... and you might have a point.
Channel 4 moderator Chairman Al said:
How was the eternal universe created? - the theory that it has always existed is purely a cop out to satisfy the limitations of the human mind. Religion is a gap filler for the paucity of human comprehension.
Merry Mithras.
Sanj Singh said:
It is imperative for us not to argue for the sake of argument or to force our views upon one another. It is important to learn from each other and be TOLERANT.
Chairman Al said:
It is important not to have fixed views on the answer to the universe. Nothing can be achieved without a willingness to accept new learning.
Sanj Singh said:
Indeed, that point can be made to religious fanatics but sometimes we forget that even some Atheists too can be so fanatical when it comes to listening to anything oppossing their views.
jazzermonty said:
As an Atheist my problem is religious dogma. Atheism has no concept of dogma, only evidence (something organised religion has no concept of).
The Carpenter said:
I don't have the slightest problem listening to people opposed to my views, all I ask for is that the facts are clear and the reasoning sound.
That so many religious people (though not all) insist on providing neither clear facts nor sound reasoning is their problem & not mine.
P.S. My preferred spelling of argument is d.e.b.a.t.e.
Omrow said:
Fanatics exists in all spheres of life.
If you look carefully you will see that Atheists tend to be more dogmatic than religious people.
In fact, you will observe that most Atheists follow a blind faith.
Atheists are as bad as any other intellectually blind person. They often refuse to use reason.
The Carpenter said:
So Omrow, what is your answer to the question "What would convince you that you were wrong and that God doesn't exist?"
(If you can refrain from implying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, I'll tell you my answer to the question "What would convince you that you were wrong and that God doesn't exist?")
Omrow said:
There is no "rational" evidence against God.
The so-called arguments against God are ones that are made by unthinking Atheists who are deluded by their hatred of anything that they cannot yet comprehend.
If you listen properly, you will no doubt notice that all the statements made by most Atheists about God are actually outside the realm of human intellect.
If there was any "reasonable" evidence against God, Atheist "lords" like Richard Dawkins would not make fool of themselves by claiming, on one hand, that believers are deluded, while on the other hand, the same idiot admits that he cannot rule out the existence of God.
That is human irrationality at its most entertaining.
When Professor Dawkins says there MAY possibly be a God out there, then how on earth can he condemn those who say that there IS a God.
The Carpenter said:
Because his mind is open to the (vanishingly small) chance that there is a god, while yours is completely and utterly closed to the idea that there isn't.
What would convince you that there wasn't a god, Omrow?
Mycor said:
As has been said many times, you cannot disprove the existence of anything because you cannot look everywhere and no matter where you look there may be evidence somewhere where you haven't looked. All you can do is look in as many places as possible and if you find no evidence for something you conclude that on balance the likelihood of something existing is so small as to be considered negligible. On balance therefore you conclude that something doesn't exist but you leave open the tiny possibility that it may. That is logical and rational not silly, stupid, unthinking or any of the other such words that you choose to use.
Can you explain why it is logical to believe in a god, rather than just repeating it. Can you give us some of the evidence? Can you give an example of what you mean by 'If you listen properly, you will no doubt notice that all the statements made by most Atheists about God are actually outside the realm of human intellect'?
Omrow said:
That was good. I agree with you there.
But, I think you missed my point.
It is indeed reasonable to claim that there is probably no God.
Nothing wrong with that.
My point was about condemnnation.
jazzermonty said:
[ quote: There is no "rational" evidence against God. The so-called arguments against God are ones that are made by unthinking Atheists who are deluded by their hatred of anything that they cannot yet comprehend.]
Your getting this the wrong way round Omrow, it should read ..
There is no “rational” evidence FOR God.
Do you see the subtle difference here? Science isn't trying to disprove the existence of God, but can find no evidence for God.
Atheists aren't deluded by any manner of means. In fact their concious is heightened by the fact that God hides his face. Or more to the point God doesn't have a face.
And how's deluded here? Someone that can make a rational decision about their belief system, or someone who blindly follows their inherited doctrine?
Where did you find your religion Omrow?
Omrow said:
Place where any truth is found.
jazzermonty said:
Do you believe in the same scriptures as your parents?
Omrow said:
No I dont. I have my own brain.
Mycor said:
So you agree that it is reasonable to claim that there is probably no god. I also think we agreed that the Qur'an is open to interpretation, but you felt that one interpretation was more logical and reasonable than the others ie. that it is the word of Allah. Would you agree that you think this interpretation is logical and reasonable to you because you beieve in Allah, but to some one who reasonably claims that there is probably no god the interpretation that the Quran is the word of Allah is not logical and reasonable? You may disagree with them but do you agree that it is a reasonable view to hold?
Omrow said:
Yes. That would be rational.
I agree with you.
We all stand at different places. This gives us varying perspectives of the object we are studying.
There are indeed rational people who do not believe in God and they have read holy books such as the Qoran.
They say that there is only one thing wrong with Qoran: That is its claim to be from God.
Thats ok.
Those who do not yet believe in God, would, naturally, not believe any book claiming to be from God.
Even those who do believe in God may still reasonablly not believe that a particular book is indeed from God.
Thats all fine and reasonable.
jazzermonty said:
Now that were all friends again, are there any 'Logical Proofs for God'?
I say no, as God is neither
Testable
Measurable
Predictable
Omrow said:
God is too big for scientists.
Their tiny instruments are not enough to measure the Supreme Being.
You dont have to be an expert to figure that out.
The Carpenter said:
For some strange reason you've omitted those who used to believe in God & don't anymore. Fine & reasonable?
Omrow said:
I've never come across those.
Mycor said:
so you feel that people who do not believe in god can be rational, that it is reasonable for some one to think there is probably not a god and that it is reasonable for some one to think that the Qur'an is not the word of god.
Based on this I am trying to understand why you continue to call atheists silly, irrational and so on. My guess is it's to do with how you are defining atheism. Is it because you mean an atheist states that there is definitely no god, and believes there isn't one, even though, as we have discussed, it is not really possible to prove the non-existence of something?
If this is the case though, surely such people or only doing the same as you ie. they believe something to be true although it cannot be proven. I could understand therefore why you would say that such people are mistaken or wrong in your opinion, but to accuse them of being silly, irrational etc doesn't seem right. This works both ways of course, and shouldn't stop a discussion or debate on the subject but a think a more understanding language would help and would maybe avoid some of the confusion or misunderstandings which can arise.
Omrow said:
That was beautiful. I couldn't agree with you more.
Believers and Atheists can be both rational as well as irrational.
Its just the case that Athiests tend to be absurd more often in their beliefs and claims.
Any person can hold both rational and irrational beliefs.
Thats the beauty of human beings. If we all belived the same there would be no colour to life.
The Carpenter said:
Strictly something can be logical and not measurable or predictable, as these are more "scientific" traits than logical traits. Therefore, a god that is not testable/ measurable/predictable is not a scientific god.
So, on the evidence currently to hand that makes God neither scientific, nor logical, which is exactly the sort of attributes most imaginary beings have.
jazzermonty said:
Try goolging 'Logical proof's for God' and you will be amazed at what's out there.
Omrow said:
Scientifially speaking, for something to be a "proof", it needs to be quite solid.
The so-called "Logical Proofs" are not actually proofs for God's existence.
At best they are pointers.
+ +
Anti-Pleasure
--
This was a tongue-in-cheek discussion between Atheists and one of our recent converts to Islam, Ryback - Ray.
Ben and Omrow assissated Rayback somewhat, but he was fine on his own.
He is a funny student.
--
Why I love Heaven
Hi,
I am Ray, a recent convert.
I became a muslim after seacrhing around for a while.
I love the idea of life after death and thats why I converted to Islam.
I am still at university. I have many Atheists friends.
If you have any questions, then dont be shy, just ask me. I dont mind questions.
I hated the idea of death and thats it everyone ended. I wanted to know if there was more to exitence than ending up as worm food in the grave rotting away into nothing.
--
Replies n Bold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protium
The majority of religions sell their wares with a promise of eternal life.
Which particular aspect makes you sure Islam is the correct one?
Wanting something to be real doesn't make it real.
No it doesnt.
Ala was the best because He sounded the most reasonable God to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox
Come on. I hate the idea of death too. I am shit scared of it.
But not liking the idea doesn't change the fact.
I agree. That is my point too.
Not liking the idea of Heaven does not change the fact either.
Heaven is not there because I wished it to be there.
Life after death is there because God wished it to be there.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid
'he sounded the most reasonable God to me..."
sooo, does this mean then there's more than one god?
You took my words out of context.
When someone asked me:
"Which particular aspect makes you sure Islam is the correct one?"
I replied that:
When I searched world religions, Ala sounded the most reasonable God both mytphysically and scietifically, hence He must be the true Supreme Being. The so-called gods of other faiths sounded absurd to me. I believe they were invented as opium for the masses.
That is what I meant by the quote you gave.
I am not up for accepting unreasonble concepts. I study Astro-Physics at the University. I am new to religion. I was an Atheist two years ago. I do not know Arabic. I have never been to any muslim country. There are very few muslims where I live. Its mostly Christians and Atheists all around me.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protium
If you study and understand Astro-Physics how/why would you consider an irrational concept such as god?
Well, not all scientists are Atheists you know.
A few scientist are believers in God.
You should read more.
Your biased assumption that God is a fake,
does not make that wish come true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless
Sorry, I have been trying not to ask this question but
Ray you keep spelling it 'Ala'... is it not Allah or alah?
Or am I missing something?
Yes.
The sacred name and its sound is said to be powerful.
The research of its effects on human brain is being done by some Neurologists.
Ala is the name of the true God.
The name of God is spelt in various different ways in English and European languages.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox
Lol and the logical fallacies begin.
Yes.
If you truly knew logical fallacies, then you would
know how they really begin.
I will give you a clue.
They begin like this:
Quote:
Believe me, from experience...
--
I already knew that you were going to write that pathetic piece.
Now SUBMIT you stubborn individual !
--
I dont mind criticisms or questions.
Ala loves those who honestly question things.
Holy Prophet Mohamed told us that questions are the beginnings of scientific discovery and a path to knowledge.
However, if you guys are nothing but serial mockers, then I would
have no option but to surrender to you laughingly.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox
But, I will concede the questions may have been lost amongst the mockery, so here they are, plain and simple:
What evidence do you have that proves that there is a god?
What evidence do you have that proves that Allah is the God?
OK.
I will try to be reasonable with you, since you seems to have a good head on your shoulders.
You say you want to know the evidence.
But I say that you wont understand the evidence. Like a child who barely knows how to add numbers is certainly not capable of comprehending the formula for the area of a circle, let alone higher pure mathematics. He wont understand what the hell pi is. He will only yell what is this crap radius squared.
So, how can you see that the evidence for God on this paper in front of me is indeed real? You cant even see things in front of you.
Its going to have to be this way: Addition, then subtraction, then multiplication then division, then ratios, then other things, then onto radius and figuring out everything about the circle.
Without the scientific process, you will not get anywhere. You will remain in circles.
You still dont understand what pi is.
On a lighter note: Watch that movie called "PI".
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Well, you don't seem to have questioned your own faith very deeply.
If you cannot read the Arabic and dissect the content of your book, what makes you so sure your faith is right?
And where is your god now?
How can one perceive it directly?
God is not a phycical materical object which you can see with your eyes and touch with your hands.
As to questioning what I know to be true:
You dont question what you know to be correct.
You only question what you doubt.
Do you ever question if you have ten fingers?
Its not any book that led me to believe in Heaven.
It was pure logic, and the questioning of absurdetities.
You also asked about Arabic:
Not knowing Arabic is not a problem.
People who do not know German can still know the truth about Hitler's activities.
For you, I am using baby reasoning here because its your baby questions and objections that forces me to do this. If you grow up a bit, then we can talk proper logic as humans are meant to.
But if you continue to swing on trees like chimps, then I would still explain things but break them down into very simple parts for you to understand.
--
Sorry. I was answering the pretty chick at the door. You got to give it to them if they are gagging for it. Practise for my virgins in heaven.
Anyway, I have now re-edited the post to include replies to first part.
--
Please do bother to read my replies
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox
If that is how you think, I sincerely suggest you look for a new career. Your attitude already sets you up for fail in science.
And shows your complete lack of understanding of the scientific process. I would not even accredit you with a primary school science education let alone a tertiary one.
You would be surprised how good my professor says I am.
He does not agree with my research on God and Heaven, but he agrees with science parts of my studies.
Did you know scientific process is evolving all the time?
In your biased view, the scientific method might be stagnant, but in real life, it is advancing all the time.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Play the scientist. Give us some facts.
Mr Black.
You are a dishonest person. You lied about me.
You still expect to be given anything?
Dream on.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngmoigle
I'm only guessing, but here's what I think:
You are not at university.
You don't have any atheist friends.
You are not a muslim.
You are some sort of god botherer who thinks it might be fun to stir up the unbelievers.
You chose to portray yourself as a muslim in order to protect the deity in which you do believe.
Trouble is, you know nothing about Islam and that's why you seem like such a goose on this forum.
Well, there is no limit to the number of guesses that Atheists can make.
Guessing seems to be Atheists favourite last resort.
Most Atheists lack both facts and reason.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Where have I lied?
You say you're a lot of things, but all I have so far is attack and accusation.
Dont pretent that you dont know. You cant fool everyone.
You have lied about me in the "You want the Truth" thread.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
I bet you are no closer to sharing your "truth" with the group when I come back. Prove that you're not just here to troll.
After being caught lying, you need to prove your honesty before you wish to see the truth.
Liars are not worthy of anything but Hell.
--
My replies are bolded within Doer's post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoer
Come on now, you're not the first, and won't be the last. but before we dispell you, please at least try to show this 'evidence' which only you seem to understand.
Dispell me?
I expect nothing but censorship and absurdity from most Atheists.
Only a few Atheists I come across can think properly.
Most Atheists are incapable of basic reasoning.
They lack intellectual capacity to debate and evaluate evidence.
Who knows, maybe some of us might understand it after all, just have not seen it in your light yet.
Thats true. Some of you might indeed know more than just adding together two numbers, and, therefore, might understand what the formula for areas of a circle is.
Talking about atheist arrogant. Yet, making wild claims without evidence. 'Evidence' seems like such a precious commodity, that you somehow can't show?
It is most Atheists, like you, who wrongly assume, without logical backing, that there is no evidence for existence of a place like Heaven.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaar-Gilon
Please explain,Ray, how anything that is not material can exist and how it could possibly interact with the physical.
Ray something made of nothing (immaterial) is no thing!
And you talk about science!! Making claims that islam and thus allah is scientific yet by definition something that cannot be seen or touched because it is immaterial cannot be tested or measured and is hence outside the realms of science!!
Another explanation you need to make!
Ok.
Since you have asked some reasonable questions, I will attempt an answer. Its rare to see an Atheist with a head on his shoulders.
Scientists have suggested multi-dimentional existences.
They even said that there may be more than one type of universe which may be totally different than our own.
Bare with me. I cannt fully put into words what scientists have so far tried hard to explain. Even I dont fully understand quantum physics. I see the equations and believe in them, but I dont fully know how they work. Nobody does.
Scientists have not ruled out non-physical type of existence.
Ala is said to be similar to intellect. He is a Supreme Being. He is totally different to something we can imagine. Intelligence itself is not a material thing. You cant touch it or see it. Scientists say there a whole world beyond our censors.
I dont know if I am making sence or not. But we all know that science is still said to be in its infancy. Once science advances to a higher level, maybe we would detect other type of exitences. What sounded impossible 300 hundred years ago is reality today. What they could not detect then, scientists can detect in 21st century. Just because something is undetectable today, does not mean it will remain undetectable forever. That is not logal reasoning. We have to keep our minds open. Mocking scientific possiblities was done before. Lets not do that again.
--
If I ever stop posting here, it would only means that moderators have banned me.
They have already banned me from posting on other threads.
I am allowed to post only in this section.
I am not permitted to comment, or to begin a new topic on,
for example, Atheists in other sections of this forum.
Maybe they are affraid to intellectually take on a believer?
Who knows.
The fact, however, remains that they have censored me with a gagging order.
I can somewhat understand the suppression of free speech by Atheists.
They dont like their boat rocked. Its so cozy for them.
However, to be fair, I would have to say that
many Religion Forums on the internet also
deny Atheist the rights to freely express themselves.
On some faith forums, Atheists are forced to stay in the animal section.
That too is anti-free speech behaviour. Its not nice.
If I had my own forums, I would let anyone say whatever they liked.
No restrictions. I am a great advocate in REAL freedom of expression.
In my forums, there would be no denial of free speech.
Of cource, insults by members would hurt me, but I would not censor them at all.
I am tolerant of Atheists.
Thats is true freedom of speech.
Everything else is just a cheap pretence.
My holy book, the Koran, is greatest book of liberty and freeedom in the world.
Just read it and see.
It is shame that most of my muslim brothers and sisters do not read it properly.
Muslims and other believers in God do not really practise freedom nor democracy.
Prime Minster Tony Blair once said "the Koran is far ahead of its time".
Ala is the greatest provider of liberty.
You can insult Him, He wont rip out your tongue.
The fact is that Ala is the Supreme Being.
He gives you freedom to do whatever you like and say whatever you.
This is Ala's Earth.
If God wanted, He could have stapled the stupid lying mouths of you monkeys.
Ala has the Power to do this. But He does not do that.
--
I only advocated freedom of expression, and you guys are
condemning me as if I did a something terrible.
Whats wrong with you Atheists?????
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by NakedApe
Ray?
Are you there Ray?
Earth calling Ray. Come in Ray.
We seem to have lost Ray. What a pity.
I am here, and not going anywhere unless Im banned from these forums.
However, since I am restricted from posting on other sections here,
I can only talk in this "fantasy island" threads.
I am being denied freedom to defeat the godless Atheists.
I wonder why.
Anyway,
I am member of other forums such as Atheist Discussion.
Other forums do allow religious people a bit more freedom than you guys allow.
Go and see.
I can post anything anywhere.
Although they disagree with God and Heaven stuff,
there they dont gag believers as much as you guys do:
Anway, in that forum also, the 73 virgin topic was a riot.
They all ganged up on me.
I dont know why people object so much to muslims enjoying pretty women.
--
Sorry for the delay guys.
I got caught up with a Brazilian chick. She was hot.
Some of you made these remarks:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protium
Ahh.. You're back Ray.
Obviously you're very busy with your astro-physics study and I guess you missed my question. It really is a conundrum for me.. Can you explain if neutrinos have a rest mass?
You have no idea what exists beyond atoms.
Anway, dont try to change the subject.
We are talking about ladies here.
But you would rather talk about particles the size of your brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescence
The more I think and read about religion, the more I lose that deeply ingrained
"oh live and let live - I don't care what religion people practice as long as they are not doing it at my front door"
and move more towards "NO!
This retardation of humanity must be stamped out!!
So you want to wipe out believers.
You are actually no different than Al Qaeda who also want to wipe out infidels.
You both are oppressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoer
If you say that the 73 Virgins do not have the same feelings and understandings as an earth woman. They are programmed to want to serve you. Then basically, your saying you'll be doing robots.
Come to think of it, 73 is a small number for eternity. What happens when you get bored...
God says that these 73 virgins are so pretty that I would never get bored with them.
You only have to remember as to who made them.
Ala is the Best Designer in the Universe.
Divinely created virgins are God's unique work of art.
I just cant imagine how beautiful they must be.
I cant wait to get their and lay my eyes on my beauties.
Virgins of Heaven are said to be so good looking that in comparison even the prettiest Miss World would be vomitable.
I will be having endless romantic time with those beauties.
They are not robots. They are more fully feminine.
Real women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaar-Gilon
Try post something intelligible I dare you!
Perhaps you could answer Protiums question about nuetrinos and rest mass (or light and rest mass if you are so inclined).
Do you even know what intelligible is?
The problem is that most Atheists are so deluded in their own thinking that they cannot comprehend basic common sense things.
A 10 year old kid has more logic than Atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
And when muslims are "enjoying pretty women" are they not raping them?
This is the kind of Atheist irrationality I am talking about.
What kind of a question is that?
Do one have to rape in order to enjoy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus
OK Ray - I'm game. Start a thread on the Island and I'll take you on - Subject is your choice!
Ray - My boat is on offer to you. Rock away!
Are women not good enough for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoer
As for the 73 Virigins, what is a female muslim gonna do with them?
A handsome hunk.
--
I am not going talk about neutrinos because this topic is about Heaven and what pleasures awaits me there.
You can call me a liar. Thats ok with me.
You dont have to believe that I am studing science.
Atheists dont even believe in many scientists who disagree with them.
Thats due to the fact that Attheists are biased and brainwashed.
Atheists are biggest liars on Earth. Well most of them anyway.
Some are good honest people.
One more thing, in case you hadn't noticed, this topic is not about
the existence of God, as some of you tried to claim.
Look at the title of the thread. How blind can a person be.
The subject is about beautiful virgins as the reason why Heaven is so attractive a prospect for many religious people.
Most of you seem to hate the idea of sex outside this temporary life.
Whats wrong with you guys !!
--
Protium - The Fat Controller:
It would appear you have failed Ray. Good bye.
--
Fantasy Island
You want the Truth?
Talking of Bibles, there are two different versions of it.
One group says the true Bible is the one which the Pope says is true. It is the holy edition that contains full 73 books.
The other group, anti-Pope party has a different Bible, a cut down, censored version that has only 66 books.
It all sounds fishy to me.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Which bits of bible are good and which are bad, in your opinion, Ray?
Today, the Holy Koran is the only Book from God that exists it in its pure and original form.
It shows us exaclty where and how Bible was altered by certain vested interests.
I decided to become a Muslim because its the most rational ideology I have so far discovered.
I believe that Bible is corrupted.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
On what do you base your beliefs in the good of your book and the bad of the other book, Ray?
I would like some sources so I may study. These cites of exact places of corruption of the christian book, by the way, where may I discover them?
You dont even believe in God.
How on Earth can you accept Koran to be book sent by God.
This is simple logic. But you dont seems to even understand this much.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
I say you are engaging in circular reasoning, where you claim your book is true because it is true, so that should prove it is true.
Where did I say Koran is book of God because it says so.
You are putting words into my mouth.
Deception is a cheap tactics by most Atheist who know nothing about reason.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Then tell me why it is true, Ray, big chance for you. Off you go!
What are we going to do about the your lie?
Dont you think that is more important?
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Ray, you are stalling. I don't believe you can tell us how your book is true with logic.
Prove me wrong.
Oh, and some unfinished business:
On what do you base your beliefs in the good of your book and the bad of the other book, Ray?
I would like some sources so I may study.
These cites of exact places of corruption of the christian book, by the way, where may I discover them?
You are being devious after being caught lying.
You will not be able to evaluate any evidence because you have decieved. In a court of law you would be thrown out for lying.
Why have you not replied to my questions?
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Now where am I lying?
What specific thing have I said that is untrue, and
what is the truth of that lie?
Come up with some facts, Ray.
I quoted your lie about me.
Go up and read again what you had said.
I will quote your lie again:
"you are engaging in circular reasoning, where you claim your book is true because it is true, so that should prove it is true."
This is a lie. I said no such thing.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Well, don't worry about me: here's the big chance for you to tell everybody else the truth, Ray.
I am concerned about you.
Not only you lie, you flee when caught lying.
Thats worrying me.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Why not show the people what you're made of?
I have shown everyone here what you are made of.
You lie and then run.
Why do you speak for the people. Have they made you their spokesman?
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoer
I thought debating was won with points, more often than repeating that someone else is a liar, without proof.
I have given proof.
Go up and read it again.
He claimed that I believe Koran to be from God because the book says so.
I did no such thing.
He ought to show me where I said such an irrational thing.
Either show it, or apologise for putting words into my mouth which I did not utter.
I cant get any simpler than this.
--
This was a tongue-in-cheek discussion between Atheists and one of our recent converts to Islam, Ryback - Ray.
Ben and Omrow assissated Rayback somewhat, but he was fine on his own.
He is a funny student.
--
Why I love Heaven
Hi,
I am Ray, a recent convert.
I became a muslim after seacrhing around for a while.
I love the idea of life after death and thats why I converted to Islam.
I am still at university. I have many Atheists friends.
If you have any questions, then dont be shy, just ask me. I dont mind questions.
I hated the idea of death and thats it everyone ended. I wanted to know if there was more to exitence than ending up as worm food in the grave rotting away into nothing.
--
Replies n Bold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protium
The majority of religions sell their wares with a promise of eternal life.
Which particular aspect makes you sure Islam is the correct one?
Wanting something to be real doesn't make it real.
No it doesnt.
Ala was the best because He sounded the most reasonable God to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox
Come on. I hate the idea of death too. I am shit scared of it.
But not liking the idea doesn't change the fact.
I agree. That is my point too.
Not liking the idea of Heaven does not change the fact either.
Heaven is not there because I wished it to be there.
Life after death is there because God wished it to be there.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid
'he sounded the most reasonable God to me..."
sooo, does this mean then there's more than one god?
You took my words out of context.
When someone asked me:
"Which particular aspect makes you sure Islam is the correct one?"
I replied that:
When I searched world religions, Ala sounded the most reasonable God both mytphysically and scietifically, hence He must be the true Supreme Being. The so-called gods of other faiths sounded absurd to me. I believe they were invented as opium for the masses.
That is what I meant by the quote you gave.
I am not up for accepting unreasonble concepts. I study Astro-Physics at the University. I am new to religion. I was an Atheist two years ago. I do not know Arabic. I have never been to any muslim country. There are very few muslims where I live. Its mostly Christians and Atheists all around me.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protium
If you study and understand Astro-Physics how/why would you consider an irrational concept such as god?
Well, not all scientists are Atheists you know.
A few scientist are believers in God.
You should read more.
Your biased assumption that God is a fake,
does not make that wish come true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless
Sorry, I have been trying not to ask this question but
Ray you keep spelling it 'Ala'... is it not Allah or alah?
Or am I missing something?
Yes.
The sacred name and its sound is said to be powerful.
The research of its effects on human brain is being done by some Neurologists.
Ala is the name of the true God.
The name of God is spelt in various different ways in English and European languages.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox
Lol and the logical fallacies begin.
Yes.
If you truly knew logical fallacies, then you would
know how they really begin.
I will give you a clue.
They begin like this:
Quote:
Believe me, from experience...
--
I already knew that you were going to write that pathetic piece.
Now SUBMIT you stubborn individual !
--
I dont mind criticisms or questions.
Ala loves those who honestly question things.
Holy Prophet Mohamed told us that questions are the beginnings of scientific discovery and a path to knowledge.
However, if you guys are nothing but serial mockers, then I would
have no option but to surrender to you laughingly.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox
But, I will concede the questions may have been lost amongst the mockery, so here they are, plain and simple:
What evidence do you have that proves that there is a god?
What evidence do you have that proves that Allah is the God?
OK.
I will try to be reasonable with you, since you seems to have a good head on your shoulders.
You say you want to know the evidence.
But I say that you wont understand the evidence. Like a child who barely knows how to add numbers is certainly not capable of comprehending the formula for the area of a circle, let alone higher pure mathematics. He wont understand what the hell pi is. He will only yell what is this crap radius squared.
So, how can you see that the evidence for God on this paper in front of me is indeed real? You cant even see things in front of you.
Its going to have to be this way: Addition, then subtraction, then multiplication then division, then ratios, then other things, then onto radius and figuring out everything about the circle.
Without the scientific process, you will not get anywhere. You will remain in circles.
You still dont understand what pi is.
On a lighter note: Watch that movie called "PI".
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Well, you don't seem to have questioned your own faith very deeply.
If you cannot read the Arabic and dissect the content of your book, what makes you so sure your faith is right?
And where is your god now?
How can one perceive it directly?
God is not a phycical materical object which you can see with your eyes and touch with your hands.
As to questioning what I know to be true:
You dont question what you know to be correct.
You only question what you doubt.
Do you ever question if you have ten fingers?
Its not any book that led me to believe in Heaven.
It was pure logic, and the questioning of absurdetities.
You also asked about Arabic:
Not knowing Arabic is not a problem.
People who do not know German can still know the truth about Hitler's activities.
For you, I am using baby reasoning here because its your baby questions and objections that forces me to do this. If you grow up a bit, then we can talk proper logic as humans are meant to.
But if you continue to swing on trees like chimps, then I would still explain things but break them down into very simple parts for you to understand.
--
Sorry. I was answering the pretty chick at the door. You got to give it to them if they are gagging for it. Practise for my virgins in heaven.
Anyway, I have now re-edited the post to include replies to first part.
--
Please do bother to read my replies
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox
If that is how you think, I sincerely suggest you look for a new career. Your attitude already sets you up for fail in science.
And shows your complete lack of understanding of the scientific process. I would not even accredit you with a primary school science education let alone a tertiary one.
You would be surprised how good my professor says I am.
He does not agree with my research on God and Heaven, but he agrees with science parts of my studies.
Did you know scientific process is evolving all the time?
In your biased view, the scientific method might be stagnant, but in real life, it is advancing all the time.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Play the scientist. Give us some facts.
Mr Black.
You are a dishonest person. You lied about me.
You still expect to be given anything?
Dream on.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngmoigle
I'm only guessing, but here's what I think:
You are not at university.
You don't have any atheist friends.
You are not a muslim.
You are some sort of god botherer who thinks it might be fun to stir up the unbelievers.
You chose to portray yourself as a muslim in order to protect the deity in which you do believe.
Trouble is, you know nothing about Islam and that's why you seem like such a goose on this forum.
Well, there is no limit to the number of guesses that Atheists can make.
Guessing seems to be Atheists favourite last resort.
Most Atheists lack both facts and reason.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Where have I lied?
You say you're a lot of things, but all I have so far is attack and accusation.
Dont pretent that you dont know. You cant fool everyone.
You have lied about me in the "You want the Truth" thread.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
I bet you are no closer to sharing your "truth" with the group when I come back. Prove that you're not just here to troll.
After being caught lying, you need to prove your honesty before you wish to see the truth.
Liars are not worthy of anything but Hell.
--
My replies are bolded within Doer's post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoer
Come on now, you're not the first, and won't be the last. but before we dispell you, please at least try to show this 'evidence' which only you seem to understand.
Dispell me?
I expect nothing but censorship and absurdity from most Atheists.
Only a few Atheists I come across can think properly.
Most Atheists are incapable of basic reasoning.
They lack intellectual capacity to debate and evaluate evidence.
Who knows, maybe some of us might understand it after all, just have not seen it in your light yet.
Thats true. Some of you might indeed know more than just adding together two numbers, and, therefore, might understand what the formula for areas of a circle is.
Talking about atheist arrogant. Yet, making wild claims without evidence. 'Evidence' seems like such a precious commodity, that you somehow can't show?
It is most Atheists, like you, who wrongly assume, without logical backing, that there is no evidence for existence of a place like Heaven.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaar-Gilon
Please explain,Ray, how anything that is not material can exist and how it could possibly interact with the physical.
Ray something made of nothing (immaterial) is no thing!
And you talk about science!! Making claims that islam and thus allah is scientific yet by definition something that cannot be seen or touched because it is immaterial cannot be tested or measured and is hence outside the realms of science!!
Another explanation you need to make!
Ok.
Since you have asked some reasonable questions, I will attempt an answer. Its rare to see an Atheist with a head on his shoulders.
Scientists have suggested multi-dimentional existences.
They even said that there may be more than one type of universe which may be totally different than our own.
Bare with me. I cannt fully put into words what scientists have so far tried hard to explain. Even I dont fully understand quantum physics. I see the equations and believe in them, but I dont fully know how they work. Nobody does.
Scientists have not ruled out non-physical type of existence.
Ala is said to be similar to intellect. He is a Supreme Being. He is totally different to something we can imagine. Intelligence itself is not a material thing. You cant touch it or see it. Scientists say there a whole world beyond our censors.
I dont know if I am making sence or not. But we all know that science is still said to be in its infancy. Once science advances to a higher level, maybe we would detect other type of exitences. What sounded impossible 300 hundred years ago is reality today. What they could not detect then, scientists can detect in 21st century. Just because something is undetectable today, does not mean it will remain undetectable forever. That is not logal reasoning. We have to keep our minds open. Mocking scientific possiblities was done before. Lets not do that again.
--
If I ever stop posting here, it would only means that moderators have banned me.
They have already banned me from posting on other threads.
I am allowed to post only in this section.
I am not permitted to comment, or to begin a new topic on,
for example, Atheists in other sections of this forum.
Maybe they are affraid to intellectually take on a believer?
Who knows.
The fact, however, remains that they have censored me with a gagging order.
I can somewhat understand the suppression of free speech by Atheists.
They dont like their boat rocked. Its so cozy for them.
However, to be fair, I would have to say that
many Religion Forums on the internet also
deny Atheist the rights to freely express themselves.
On some faith forums, Atheists are forced to stay in the animal section.
That too is anti-free speech behaviour. Its not nice.
If I had my own forums, I would let anyone say whatever they liked.
No restrictions. I am a great advocate in REAL freedom of expression.
In my forums, there would be no denial of free speech.
Of cource, insults by members would hurt me, but I would not censor them at all.
I am tolerant of Atheists.
Thats is true freedom of speech.
Everything else is just a cheap pretence.
My holy book, the Koran, is greatest book of liberty and freeedom in the world.
Just read it and see.
It is shame that most of my muslim brothers and sisters do not read it properly.
Muslims and other believers in God do not really practise freedom nor democracy.
Prime Minster Tony Blair once said "the Koran is far ahead of its time".
Ala is the greatest provider of liberty.
You can insult Him, He wont rip out your tongue.
The fact is that Ala is the Supreme Being.
He gives you freedom to do whatever you like and say whatever you.
This is Ala's Earth.
If God wanted, He could have stapled the stupid lying mouths of you monkeys.
Ala has the Power to do this. But He does not do that.
--
I only advocated freedom of expression, and you guys are
condemning me as if I did a something terrible.
Whats wrong with you Atheists?????
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by NakedApe
Ray?
Are you there Ray?
Earth calling Ray. Come in Ray.
We seem to have lost Ray. What a pity.
I am here, and not going anywhere unless Im banned from these forums.
However, since I am restricted from posting on other sections here,
I can only talk in this "fantasy island" threads.
I am being denied freedom to defeat the godless Atheists.
I wonder why.
Anyway,
I am member of other forums such as Atheist Discussion.
Other forums do allow religious people a bit more freedom than you guys allow.
Go and see.
I can post anything anywhere.
Although they disagree with God and Heaven stuff,
there they dont gag believers as much as you guys do:
Anway, in that forum also, the 73 virgin topic was a riot.
They all ganged up on me.
I dont know why people object so much to muslims enjoying pretty women.
--
Sorry for the delay guys.
I got caught up with a Brazilian chick. She was hot.
Some of you made these remarks:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protium
Ahh.. You're back Ray.
Obviously you're very busy with your astro-physics study and I guess you missed my question. It really is a conundrum for me.. Can you explain if neutrinos have a rest mass?
You have no idea what exists beyond atoms.
Anway, dont try to change the subject.
We are talking about ladies here.
But you would rather talk about particles the size of your brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iridescence
The more I think and read about religion, the more I lose that deeply ingrained
"oh live and let live - I don't care what religion people practice as long as they are not doing it at my front door"
and move more towards "NO!
This retardation of humanity must be stamped out!!
So you want to wipe out believers.
You are actually no different than Al Qaeda who also want to wipe out infidels.
You both are oppressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoer
If you say that the 73 Virgins do not have the same feelings and understandings as an earth woman. They are programmed to want to serve you. Then basically, your saying you'll be doing robots.
Come to think of it, 73 is a small number for eternity. What happens when you get bored...
God says that these 73 virgins are so pretty that I would never get bored with them.
You only have to remember as to who made them.
Ala is the Best Designer in the Universe.
Divinely created virgins are God's unique work of art.
I just cant imagine how beautiful they must be.
I cant wait to get their and lay my eyes on my beauties.
Virgins of Heaven are said to be so good looking that in comparison even the prettiest Miss World would be vomitable.
I will be having endless romantic time with those beauties.
They are not robots. They are more fully feminine.
Real women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaar-Gilon
Try post something intelligible I dare you!
Perhaps you could answer Protiums question about nuetrinos and rest mass (or light and rest mass if you are so inclined).
Do you even know what intelligible is?
The problem is that most Atheists are so deluded in their own thinking that they cannot comprehend basic common sense things.
A 10 year old kid has more logic than Atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
And when muslims are "enjoying pretty women" are they not raping them?
This is the kind of Atheist irrationality I am talking about.
What kind of a question is that?
Do one have to rape in order to enjoy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus
OK Ray - I'm game. Start a thread on the Island and I'll take you on - Subject is your choice!
Ray - My boat is on offer to you. Rock away!
Are women not good enough for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoer
As for the 73 Virigins, what is a female muslim gonna do with them?
A handsome hunk.
--
I am not going talk about neutrinos because this topic is about Heaven and what pleasures awaits me there.
You can call me a liar. Thats ok with me.
You dont have to believe that I am studing science.
Atheists dont even believe in many scientists who disagree with them.
Thats due to the fact that Attheists are biased and brainwashed.
Atheists are biggest liars on Earth. Well most of them anyway.
Some are good honest people.
One more thing, in case you hadn't noticed, this topic is not about
the existence of God, as some of you tried to claim.
Look at the title of the thread. How blind can a person be.
The subject is about beautiful virgins as the reason why Heaven is so attractive a prospect for many religious people.
Most of you seem to hate the idea of sex outside this temporary life.
Whats wrong with you guys !!
--
Protium - The Fat Controller:
It would appear you have failed Ray. Good bye.
--
Fantasy Island
You want the Truth?
Talking of Bibles, there are two different versions of it.
One group says the true Bible is the one which the Pope says is true. It is the holy edition that contains full 73 books.
The other group, anti-Pope party has a different Bible, a cut down, censored version that has only 66 books.
It all sounds fishy to me.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Which bits of bible are good and which are bad, in your opinion, Ray?
Today, the Holy Koran is the only Book from God that exists it in its pure and original form.
It shows us exaclty where and how Bible was altered by certain vested interests.
I decided to become a Muslim because its the most rational ideology I have so far discovered.
I believe that Bible is corrupted.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
On what do you base your beliefs in the good of your book and the bad of the other book, Ray?
I would like some sources so I may study. These cites of exact places of corruption of the christian book, by the way, where may I discover them?
You dont even believe in God.
How on Earth can you accept Koran to be book sent by God.
This is simple logic. But you dont seems to even understand this much.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
I say you are engaging in circular reasoning, where you claim your book is true because it is true, so that should prove it is true.
Where did I say Koran is book of God because it says so.
You are putting words into my mouth.
Deception is a cheap tactics by most Atheist who know nothing about reason.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Then tell me why it is true, Ray, big chance for you. Off you go!
What are we going to do about the your lie?
Dont you think that is more important?
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Ray, you are stalling. I don't believe you can tell us how your book is true with logic.
Prove me wrong.
Oh, and some unfinished business:
On what do you base your beliefs in the good of your book and the bad of the other book, Ray?
I would like some sources so I may study.
These cites of exact places of corruption of the christian book, by the way, where may I discover them?
You are being devious after being caught lying.
You will not be able to evaluate any evidence because you have decieved. In a court of law you would be thrown out for lying.
Why have you not replied to my questions?
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Now where am I lying?
What specific thing have I said that is untrue, and
what is the truth of that lie?
Come up with some facts, Ray.
I quoted your lie about me.
Go up and read again what you had said.
I will quote your lie again:
"you are engaging in circular reasoning, where you claim your book is true because it is true, so that should prove it is true."
This is a lie. I said no such thing.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Well, don't worry about me: here's the big chance for you to tell everybody else the truth, Ray.
I am concerned about you.
Not only you lie, you flee when caught lying.
Thats worrying me.
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black
Why not show the people what you're made of?
I have shown everyone here what you are made of.
You lie and then run.
Why do you speak for the people. Have they made you their spokesman?
--
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoer
I thought debating was won with points, more often than repeating that someone else is a liar, without proof.
I have given proof.
Go up and read it again.
He claimed that I believe Koran to be from God because the book says so.
I did no such thing.
He ought to show me where I said such an irrational thing.
Either show it, or apologise for putting words into my mouth which I did not utter.
I cant get any simpler than this.
--
Godless always flee
--
[ Rayback's claim to Atheists that God is better than the Germans angered them and they ended the debate.]
Topic: Who will Burn in Hell
May 12, 2009
Hell is indeed a terrible place.
Whether you believe it exits or not, you cannot deny that the punishment by burning is most severe penalty ever designed.
And who designed it?
Lord of the Universe. God Almighty, the Creator Himself.
Normal thinking people love it when God kicks ass.
He does a lot better job than men can ever manage.
Atheists just want a Teddy Bear of a God, who lets them off whatever wrong and sin they commit on Earth.
Sorry, that type does not exist except in their illogical heads.
The Real Supreme Being is a God who is Merciful to good people and Punisher to evil mothers.
He has designed Hell just for sinners who are evil and who mock Him.
The rule is simple:
"If you mess up here, then prepare to be burned."
In the next life, there will be no mercy at all for evil wrong doers.
World's top thinkers have no problem with this concept.
Only criminals dont like the idea of punishment.
Tlaloc :
I can deny that punishment by burning is the most severe. Being immersed slowly in acid seems worse. Or being eaten alive by rats.
Rayback:
I agree, men are far more cruel than God can ever be.
Its always interesting to hear Atheists testify that even by creating a horrible place like Hell, God is still being lenient.
Baal:
It is quite an interesting phenomenon that, koran readers, at first just assume that the koran will agree with logic. They think that, as long as they stick to what is good and logical, then the koran will probably just support them with text.
Rayback:
And it does.
Who can be more logical than God.
God is the most logical being in the universe.
But you guys think Dawkins knows more.
Baal:
17 times in the Koran, it mentions how boiling water will be used to torture people. And then those humans, your friends and parents and sons, will be given new skin, so they can 'taste' the pain of torture every day. For eternity.
Now how come, 17 times the koran mentions hot water for the purpose of torture, and not even once, did koran instruct us to boil water to purify it? Imagine how many million lives would have been saved had the koran instructed us to boil water.
Rayback:
That was funny.
Atheist wants a loving God to instruct him to use boiling water.
J4m3z :
That is a very interesting insight there Baal, and I can testify that it is a fallacy that I fell victim to.
Rayback:
Yes.
And you cant blame God for that fall.
If you do, then you truly fall.
Baal:
You said: God is the most logical being in the univese.
What does "most logical" mean?
Rayback:
I would have thought that it is pretty obvious.
I guess not.
Ok, I will make it clear for you:
It means that God's logic is pure all the times.
True Believers' logic is pure 98 percent of the times.
Honest Atheists' and Agnostics' logic is pure 20 percent of the times.
Evil doers' logic is pure only 5 percent of the times.
Therefore to sum up:
God never slips.
We mortals can mess up either most of the times, or, some of the times.
-
Rayback:
One should consider all the words before replying or criticising.
That is where most Atheists stand accused of reading religious books and out of context pick verses irrelevant to the topic.
Most Atheists are incapable of making a coherent argument based on facts.
Only a few are reasonable and say things logically.
J4m3z:
And what the hell is with those percentages?
I guess it means you can use it against something you disagree with against an atheist.
"No, no! Look at these official percentages. They say you are only 20% logical! Therefore your probably wrong!"
Rayback:
Do you have different, a more accurate set of numbers?
-
Rayback:
Some deep questions.
My replies in black:
RIBS:
Why wouldn't GOD or Allah or Jesus, (or that invisible man in the sky!) just show up and let us crawl back in our holes in fear and start worshiping him day and night!!!
Because that would render your brain useless.
Why leave us in doubt?
Who is this us. 20 percent are in no doubt.
Why he has to send some middle-men to tell us about him?
Who would you prefer?
Why not part the See anymore like he did with Moses?
Do you know what happened to Moses?
Why can't he just burn us for not believing in him and wait until later to burn us and torture us in hell?
Because nobody likes to burn right now
Why his creation is not perfect, disease, hunger, poverty etc?
Creation is perfect. Even science says flu is good for you
Why most of his prophets and messengers were from (Israel) middle east?
Because dumbest people need more care.
Why that man whom I witnessed with my own eyes groping and feeling a women in Mecca just few meters away from Kaaba was not stroked dead and turned into a pile of dust for not respecting the presumably most holy places on earth?
Dont you think thats excessive penatly for feeling a pretty woman?
--
Rayback:
Because although I see you as a person who is deluded by Atheists' brainwashing, I dont see you as a dishonest person.
You may be an infidel, you are not a hypocrite.
The latter is far worse - scum of the Earth.
--
Our member RIBS asked more questions.
Again, my, RAYBACK's, replies are in bold and black.
[ If anyone else wants to dig in, by all means. Please use italics, or a color etc, to distinguish yourself. Kindly keep your sentences short. ]
RIBS:
Why wouldn't GOD or Allah or Jesus, (or that invisible man in the sky!) just show up and let us crawl back in our holes in fear and start worshiping him day and night!!!
Because that would render your brain useless.
Wow, you must be have Super brain to be able to see the proof of the existence of God, but also a Super evil to not let us know what it is!!
Its like going to the gym. If you excercise your brain and develop it to a human level, then you will see more. If you want to remain a monkey, thats your choice. You will only see trees.
Why leave us in doubt?
Who is this "us". 20 percent are in no doubt.
OK then, why keep 80% of the population in doubt?
Why not. This is not a democracy. God is not a politician who needs more votes to get into power. Sovereignty is His regardless. You need God. He does not need you, boy.
Why he has to send some middle-men to tell us about him?
Who would you prefer?
I personally prefer no door-salesmen. Obviously God could not sell his bullshit so he sends Jesus, Moses, Mohamed etc!
You still think God needs a man like you to believe in Him. And you have the right to keep thinking that. But the day you burn, you will think otherwise.
Why not part the See anymore like he did with Moses?
Do you know what happened to Moses?
Well didn't God save him and his followers by parting the Red sea, and then drowned the Pharo and his men? This what the Quran says!! But who buys that! Actually in a recent study they find that it was a tsunami!! Based on sea fossils on the Mountains in that area!!
Tsunami? You just love constantly updated propaganda, dont you.
Why can't he just burn us for not believing in him and wait until later to burn us and torture us in hell?
Because nobody likes to burn right now
yeah keep the fun for later!
Or, apply the penalty after a due process?
Why his creation is not perfect, disease, hunger, poverty etc?
Creation is perfect. Even science says flu is good for you
Are you retarded or something? Here, read this from a scientific and respected source (CDC):
"...The 1918 flu pandemic (commonly referred to as the Spanish flu) was an influenza pandemic that spread to nearly every part of the world. It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 100 million people were killed worldwide. An estimated 500 million people, one third of the world's population, became infected..."
That does not alter the scientists' claim. Science still says flu is good for the human body. They seem to agree with God.
Why most of his prophets and messengers were from (Israel) middle east?
Because dumbest people need more care.
Well, unfortunately for you, the dumbest people on earth now after Islam are the Muslims. So I guess it is time for another middle-man door-salesman to pass by!
Oh yeah. I agree. Arabs still do some pretty stupid things. And you maybe right, Jesus Christ is said to be coming back.
Why that man whom I witnessed with my own eyes groping and feeling a women in Mecca just few meters away from Kaaba was not stroked dead and turned into a pile of dust for not respecting the presumably most holy places on earth?
Dont you think thats excessive penatly for feeling a pretty woman?
Feeling a pretty lady with her consent and when she likes it is perfectly alright. But against her will and in a situation where she could not complain because which woman would scream in the middle of Haj telling people that that bearded asshole has fingered and touched her? She will be stoned I guess!
You didnt answer the question: Isnt your suggestion excessive? You want the playboy burnt down to dust. Some of your Atheist friends on this forum seems to think burn a person is cruel.
--
IsLame:
Rayback - You're making stuff up about your religion again. Being an infidel is just about the worst crime you could ever commit as a Muslim, hypocrisy is way down on the list of crimes according to the Islamic beheading priority list in the Quran.
Rayback:
I dont think you read the Holy Quran.
You dont know what you are talking about.
Atheists's bias and hatred often leads them to make untrue and absurd claims.
Hypocrites will get the worse burning in Hell, far worse than the Infidels.
Heartbomb:
Rayback: how you have come to your conclusions that the Qur'an does not condemn unbelievers.
Rayback:
What do you mean how do I know. I read the thing. Thats how.
I love that work of art. I know what it says.
It is not a cruel book so as to punish a person simply for not believing in something.
That would be so absurd thing to do.
You have got a completely wrong impression, my beautiful sister.
God is not a German you know.
Germans throw you in jail just for not believing an historical incident.
Can you believe that stupid law of theirs
A Just God would never do such a thing.
Its impossible.
--
Cheetah:
Smite 1 - don't say you weren't warned.
Rayback:
This means my expulsion from this forum is very near.
Well, its your house. Do as you will.
I will not say only those things which you like to hear.
I will always speak my mind. If you dont like it, then so be it.
I value honesty more than other things.
--
Rayback:
heartbomb.
I dont think they can take my answers.
Truth hurts them.
I dont think they will permit discussion for much longer.
You can see whats coming.
Soon, you may not see debate after they issue a ban.
They will move to kill the innocent debate. Knives are already out.
I would not hide, nor ran away, any person or a discussion.
Here has been shed blood by the so-called "open minded" Atheists.
--
On this topic we should stick with either saving people from Hell, or roasting them in the Eternal Fire.
I guess girls like anything that is a hot topic.
Thats why they dont fear Hell that much.
Because they seems to have different heat in mind.
--
From a debate on Logical Fallacies:
[Atheists gave a list of logical fallacies that people commit in a debate.
Rayback's reply earned him wrath of Atheists controllers of the debate. His suggestion was censored and later the debate was closed. Atheists could not handle his devestaging critcism. He was shaking their boat. They wanted him off. ]
Rayback:
For some strange reason one fallacy is never included
by the Atheists in their list of logical screw ups.
The fallacy of fleeing the debate when your arguments have been demolished.
Most Atheist dont like to be reminded of that fallacy.
They even deny its existence.
---
Oh I see.
I missed your point.
You are too sharp for me girl.
Thinking takes times with slow coaches like me.
In any case, you cant equate me taking time to bash the Atheists with fleeing.
Leaving the battefield is a cardinal sin.
Didnt you know that.
Even US Army punishes the chickens.
[grin]
--
Moderator - cheetah:
Stop trolling Rayback, or I will smite you.
-
Rayback:
I predict a ban coming up.
Banning people from talking is one of five Atheists great cop outs.
Thats ok. I dont mind.
If you dont want me here, just say so. I wont come.
The lady asked me a question and I replied.
She wanted to know how Arabic readers of the Quran can still be accused of not understanding its contents.
I gave her my answer.
Dont you think its up to her to read it and analyse it.
I dont even know what this trolling is.
Please do tell.
-
cheetah:
This is your last warning before we start handing out smites. I think we've been very patient too, given that you're clearly wasting everybody's time with nonsense claims.
-
Rayback:
Go ahead.
Make me a martyr for freedom of speech, liberty and open unrestricted debate.
You want to censor me.
Fine.
Take your sword and strike me down with your full hatred.
I can feel the anger flow through you.
In other debates, you wasted time with your pancake stories in the middle of important discussions.
This is your Atheist house, do as you will.
Go ahead, have one rule for believers, and have another for Atheists.
Thats your way.
Its an unjust way.
-
cheetah:
There's no anger or hatred, I'm just enforcing the rule against trolling. In future, when someone asks you what it says in the Qur'an about Hell, give them quotes from the Qur'an with your interpretation of those quotes. Do not give them stupid, goading comments about whether or not God is German.
-
Rayback:
I will NOT follow your dictates.
I am not your slave.
I will reply as I see fit.
It is up to the member, called heartbomb, to say whether my reply does or does not answers her question. Observers should keep their butts out. If she wants to continue then that right should not be denied her.
But you want to me give only those replies which YOU like.
Thats never going to happen. I think for myself.
If you want to hear only the things you like to hear, then go to a shrink.
I will speak my mind. If that hurts you, tough luck.
If you dont like it, then shoot me. Ban me from this forum.
I will live and speak a free man.
You can take my head, but you wont take my soul.
--
heartbomb:
So Darwin had low intellect? What about Dawkins? He's got a PhD. Those are just two educated Atheists I can think of, off the top of my head.
Rayback:
Dawkins gets cornered by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight BBC2.
PhD is not going to help you if you are thick.
Also, a South Korean scientist with a PhD got caught fabricating research. He was one of world most renowed scientists.
He falsified his lab work.
Very intellectual move.
I guess a PhD certificate impresses you.
-
heartbomb:
What about Stephen Hawking? It's not the PhD that impresses me, it's the fact that they have the ability to make rational decisions and JUSTIFY them. And please do give me a clip of this newsnight show, I don't believe anything you say unless you back it up.
-
Rayback:
Stephen Hawking?
I like that dude.
He is honest enough to admit when he does not know.
Did you know that Hawkins does not reject the existence of God?
Now thats a logical scientist who does not act like a fool.
Dawkins on the other hands is a complete idiot.
He can only handle children in a debate.
He fears talking to adults. They keep grilling him with simple logic.
He runs away all the time.
His documentary on Channel 4 about Darwin was a classic example of stupid Atheist scientist. He only talked to chidlren and presesnted his monkey theory to them.
He did not debate with one scientist who was his critic.
Dick Dawkins is a sad and scared scientist.
--
Topic: Most Religous People are Selfish Bastards!
Rayback:
Cheetah, you allow this kind of title for a debate?
Dont you think it is insulting?
Would it be alright if I were to make a similiar title against Atheists?
Cheetah :
You want to start a debate called "Most Atheists are Selfish Bastards"?
Oh, go on then, if you must.
Rayback:
No.
Not that one.
That would be copying.
I have my own imagination.
The Creator has granted me far more creativity than He has given to the monkeys.
I want to make a title:
"Atheists are Ignorant and Illogical Fools".
Or, something to that effect.
I know ladies will not like it.
--
Rayback:
You see, the Atheists, especially girls, dont like to be proven as fools.
Proving these to be ignorant is so easy that one can do it with one's eyes closed.
One does not even have to make any real effort to show how illogical and absurd the position taken by Atheists is.
If you look at few topics and debates here in which Atheists have been roasted, you can see why they are running scared.
heartbomb:
I find your tone still extremely condescending to the female members of this message board.
If you are unable to speak to both male and female members on equal terms, then you are extremely immature.
Rayback:
Do you speak to Atheists and Believers on equal terms?
I too find tone of some people very insulting.
RIBS:
In MHO religious men or women who molest children in Churches or Mosques or Synagogues for that matter are Super Bastards!! Religious people who preach and are paid for that (professional priests or sheiks) are Bastards! Do you deny that religious sheiks are not paid? I knew one Bastards that was an evil Muslim yet leads prayers on Fridays as if he was the most holy man on earth!!
Rayback:
People who spread lies are the biggest bastard of them all.
Hypocrites head this list, followed closely by Atheists.
Atheist scientists who are paid are pure evil and near the top of the list of bastards.
I guess the world is full of bastards of all types.
Everyone who has ever lied should re-check their birth certificates.
Heartbomb:
Does that mean atheists will burn in hell? You keep dodging that question. I'm not wasting my time on you anymore because it takes many attempts at getting a straight answer out of you.
Rayback:
I have answered that question after you gave verses of the Quran about disbelievers.
But you did not read it properly, you decided to run away and not continue that topic.
Your choice.
-----
Topic: Understanding the Qur’an: literary forms and style
osmanthus, Administrator: May 15, 2009, 05:13:48 AM »#
Now not being an expert on classical Arabic literature, to put it mildly, I have no idea if all this is accurate or if it is a load of bollocks. So apart from the godifying speechification how accurate a summary is this article?
Rayback:
Its a load of bollocks, to borrow your colourful phrase.
Who on earth writes such rubbish !!
You cannot catagorise a book whose author is Almighty Himself.
Its impossible.
God dares you to try. And He promises that you will fail at every attempt.
God is Unique. His work is unique. His word is Unique.
Quran is a Divine work of Art.
--
Rayback:
Cheetah, why do you have to mock everything.
Thats so immature.
You are like an overgrown child.
--
Rayback:
People who have higher intelligence all love the Holy Quran:
Its takes a poet to feel the Divine Force in his heart.
Dead hearts know no tremor.
Here is a quote:
Johann Wolfgang Goethe is one of Europe's greatest poets
Goethe on Islam:
Goethe said that there is "much nonsense in the doctrines of the church."
In his "Divan" Goethe stresses the value of the precious present moment rather than having the Christian attitude of only waiting for the next life and therefore, disgracing what God gives man in every moment of his life.
Goethe refuses the christian view of Jesus and confirms the unity of Allah in a poem of his "Divan":
"Jesus felt pure and calmly thought
Only the One God;
Who made himself to be a god
Offends his holy will.
And thus the right(ness) has to shine
What Mahomet also achieved;
Only by the term of the One
He mastered the whole world"
Besides Jesus and Muhammad - in the following verses Goethe also names Abraham, Moses and David as the representatives of the Oneness of God. It is a known fact that Goethe felt a strong dislike for the symbol of the cross. He wrote:
"And now you come with a sign ...
which among all others I mostly dislike.
All this modern nonsense
You are going to bring me to Schiras!
Should I, in all its stiffness,
Sing of two crossed wooden pieces?"
Goethe quite frankly wrote that it is a "cursed insolence ... to play with secrets that hidden in the divine depth of suffering" One should rather "cover it with a veil".
Finally, in the poem of the Seven Sleepers of his "Divan" Goethe calls Jesus a prophet:
"Ephesus for many years/ Honours the teaching of the Prophet Jesus. (Peace be upon the good one!)"
Goethe is fascinated by Saadi's metaphor of the "fly in love" flying into the light where it dies as the image for the Sufi. See here especially the poem of the "Divan" about the butterfly flying into the light "Blissful yearning? whose earlier titles were "Sacrifice of the self" and "Perfection". In the chapter about Rumi, Goethe acknowledges the invocation of Allah and the blessing of it:
"Already the so-called mahometan rosary by which the name Allah is glorified with ninety-nine qualities is such a praise litany. Affirming and negating qualities indicate the inconceivable Being; the worshipper is amazed, submits and calms down."
As a young man Goethe wanted to study oriental studies - but his father finally wanted him to study law; he always admired the first travellers to Arabia, he was fascinated by it and read everything they published about their trips. In 1814 at the time of his "Divan" Goethe trained himself with the professors for oriental studies Paulus, Lorsbach and Kosegarten (Jena) in reading and writing Arabic. After looking at his Arabic manuscripts and having known about the Quran, Goethe felt a great yearning to learn Arabic. He copied short Arabic Duas by himself and wrote: "In no other language spirit, word and letter are embodied in such a primal way."
Goethe writes that he intends "to celebrate respectfully that night when the Prophet was given the Koran completely from above"
He also wrote: "No one may wonder about the great efficiency of the Book. That is why it has been declared as uncreated by real admirers" and added to it: "This book will eternally remain highly efficacious/effective"
Still today we have the handwritten manuscripts of his first intensive Quran-studies of 1772 and the later ones in the Goethe and Schiller-Archive in Weimar. Goethe read the German translation of Quran by J. v. Hammer (possibly as well from the more prosaic English translation of G. Sale) out loud in front of members of the Duke's family in Weimar and their guests. Being witnesses Schiller and his wife reported about the reading. Goethe always felt the shortcomings of all the translations (Latin, English, German and French) and was constantly looking for new translations. In his "Divan" Goethe says:
"Whether the Koran is of eternity?
I don't question that!...
That it is the book of books
I believe out of the muslim's duty."
He studied Arabic handbooks, grammars, travel-books, poetry, anthologies, books on the sira of the Prophet Muhammad - and had a widespread exchange with oriental scholars about these matters. Goethe liked the German translation of Hafis' "Diwan" by Hammer (May 1814) and studied the different translations of Quran of his time. All of this inspired him to write his own "West-stlicher Divan" and of course many poems of the "Divan" are clearly inspired by and relate to different Ayats of Quran Goethe bought original Arabic manuscripts of Rumi, Dschami, Hafis, Saadi, Attar, Quran-Tafsir, Duas, an Arabic-Turkish dictionary, texts on matters like the freeing of slaves, buying and selling, interest, usury and Arabian scripts from Sultan Selim.
Goethe considered it not to be a mere accident but rather as meaningful incidents, in fact as part of his decree and signs of Allah, when in Autumn 1813 he was brought an old Arabic handwritten manuscript from Spain by a German soldier coming from Spain which contained the last Surat An-Nas (114). Later Goethe tried to copy it himself with the help of the professors in Jena who had helped him in finding out the manuscript's content in January 1814 he visited a prayer of Bashkir Muslims from the Russian army of Zar Alexander in the protestant gymnasium of Weimar.
See the letter to Trebra where he says: "Speaking of prophecies, I have to tell you that there are things happening these days, which they would not have allowed a prophet to say. Who would have been allowed some years ago to say that there would be held a mahommedan divine service and the Suras of Koran would be murmured in the auditorium of our protestant gymnasium and yet it happened and we attended the Bashkir service, saw their Mulla and welcomed their Prince in the theatre. Out of special favour I was presented with a bow and arrows which for eternal memory I will hang above my chimney as soon as God has decreed a lucky return for them."
In a letter to his son August he adds: "Several religious ladies of us have asked for the translation of the Coran from the library." Goethe's positive attitude towards Islam goes far beyond anyone in Germany before: He published on 24.2.1816: "The poet... does not refuse the suspicion that he himself is a Muslim." In another poem of the "Divan" Goethe says:
"Stupid that everyone in his case
Is praising his particular opinion!
If Islam means submission to God,
We all live and die in Islam."
Apart from Goethe's - the poet's - fascination for the language of Quran, its beauty and sublimeness, he was mostly attracted by its religious and philosophical meaning: the unity of God, the conviction that God manifests in nature/creation is one of the major themes in Goethe's work. During his first intensive Quran-studies Goethe copied and partly put right the text of the first direct translation of the Quran from Arabic into German in 1772.
Goethe wrote down different Ayats of Quran which teach man how he should see nature in all its phenomena as signs of divine laws. The multiplicity of the phenomena indicates the One God. The relation towards nature as the Qur'an presents it connected with the teaching of the kindness and oneness of God - as Goethe writes it down from the Ayats of Sura No. 2 - became the main pillars on which Goethe's sympathy and affinity towards Islam was based. Goethe said we should realize "God's greatness in the small" - and refers to the Ayat of Surat Al-Baqara, vers 25 where the metaphor of the fly is given.
Goethe was very impressed about the fact that Allah speaks to mankind by prophets and thus he confirmed the prophet Muhammad: In 1819 Goethe writes (referring to Sura "Ibrahim", Ayat 4) "It is true, what God says in the Quran: We did not send a prophet to a people but in their language." Referring to the same Ayat Goethe repeats in a letter to Carlyle: "The Koran says: God has given each people a prophet in its own language."
Goethe affirmed the rejection of the unbelievers' challenge to the Prophet Muhammad - to show them miracles where he says:
"Wonders I can not do said the Prophet
The greatest miracle is that I am."
In "Mahomet" Goethe wrote the famous song of praise "Mahomets Gesang". The meaning of the prophet is put into the metaphor of the stream, starting from the smallest beginning and growing to be an immense spiritual power, expanding, unfolding, and gloriously ending in the ocean, the symbol for divinity. He especially describes the religious genius in carrying the other people with him like the stream does with small brooks and rivers. On a handwritten manuscript of the Paralipomena III, 31 of the "Divan" Goethe writes on the 27.1.1816:
"Head of created beings / Muhammed".
Furthermore that true religion is shown by good action. Here Goethe especially liked the action of giving Sadaqa, giving to the needy. In several poems of the Divan, "Buch der Sprche" Goethe speaks about "the pleasure of giving" / "See it rightly and you will always give" - which already in this life is full of blessings.
Goethe is also well known for his rejection of the concept of chance/accident: "What people do not and can not realize in their undertakings and what rules most obviously at its best where their greatness should shine - the chance as they call it later - exactly this is God, who here directly enters and glorifies Himself by the most trifling."
The increasingly firm belief in the decree of God and the verse of a Divan-poem: "If Allah had determined me to be a worm;/ He would have created me as a worm." and more "they [-examples of metaphors used in the Divan -] represent the wonderful guidance and providence coming out of the unexplorable, inconceivable decree of God; they teach and confirm the true Islam, the absolute submission to the will of God, the conviction, that no one may avoid his once assigned destiny." resulted in his personal attitude of submission under the will of God, i.e. Goethe saw it as an order to accept it thankfully and not to rebel against it.
A deeply moving example from his own life was his reaction to the accident of his coach when he started his third journey to Marianne von Willemer (July 1816), who he intended to marry after Christiane had died about which he felt extremly unhappy. Goethe took this as a clear warning not to pursue his wish anymore and completely refrained from his original intention. After that Goethe wrote: "And thus we have to remain inside Islam, (that means: in complete submission to the will of God)..."
He said: "I cannot tell you more than this that also here I try to remain in Islam."
When in 1831 the cholera appeared and killed many people he consoled a friend: "Here no one can counsil the other; each one has to decide on his own. We all live in Islam, whatever form we choose to encourage ourselves."
In December 1820 Goethe wrote thanks for the gift of a book of aphorisms of his friend Willemer and says: "It fits ... with every religious-reasonable view and is an Islam to which we all have to confess sooner or later."
As a participant in the war of 1792 against France Goethe said that this belief in the decree of God has its purest expression in Islam: "The religion of Mohammed gives the best proof of this."
According to Eckermann's conversations with Goethe the latter said to the first speaking about the education of the muslims by constantly seeing opposites in existence, therefore meeting doubt, close examination of a matter and thus finally arriving at certainty: "That philosophical system of the mohammedan people is an excellent measure which one can apply to oneself as well as to others in order to know on which station of spiritual virtue we actually are."
About the unity of Allah Goethe said: "The belief in the one God has always the effect to elevate the spirit because it indicates for man the unity within his own self."
Goethe tells about the difference between a prophet and a poet and the confirmation of Muhammad as a prophet:
"He is a prophet and not a poet and therefore his Koran is to be seen as a divine law and not as a book of a human being, made for education or entertainment."
--
Hassan:
You need to prove that all intelligent people love the Qur'an (quoting an article about Goethe does not equate to: "People who have higher intelligence all love the Holy Quran")
Rayback:
Ok. Ok. Some idiots love the Quran too.
Jesus !!
The point is that you will love it only if, with no preconceived ideas, you have carefully read a good translation [like Pickthall's] three times all the way.
Goethe hated it first time. First reading was dreadful.
The second time round, he liked some parts of it.
The poet was in love with the Quran by the time he finished it third time.
--
Rayback:
I would not compare myself to Goethe.
--
heartbomb:
Pickthall's translation:
Hell verily will encompass the disbelievers. On the day when the doom will overwhelm them from above them and from underneath their feet, and He will say: Taste what ye used to do!--29:54-55
Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10
Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18
A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90
If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88
ALL taken from the Pickthal translation. Don't believe me? Look it up. I thought you said the Quran didn't say that unbelievers go to hell?
-
Rayback:
For any thinking person, the first quote you have given
explains all the rest you have quoted.
Shades lady shades.
Take them off.
Heartbomb:
No, oh wise rayback. Please do explain. I want to hear your input on this.
Rayback:
Are you taking the piss !!
If so, then we can create a pissing topic and do it all there.
What has that got to do with this forum or Pickthall.
Like Hassan, you are not just messing around are you?
You are not going to flee me are you.
Heartbomb:
We have a life outside the forum.
Hassan has things to do today.
I should be studying, but I'm staying here and discussing with you.
I think the least you could do is appreciate that.
Rayback:
Jesus Christ !!
Did you misunderstand what I had written.
What has all that got to do with running away from a discussion.
We can debate something over a week or even months whenever we have free time.
I am not asking to stay here all the time. I dont do
that either. We can take our time and reply. Thats alright.
I myself only come here and bash the monkeys when I got nothing better to do.
I am asking if YOU are going to run away like Hasan did.
In the above statement I was talking about Hassan who run way few days AFTER starting a debate with me.
In fact, he dared me to a duel.
Go see the debate on Hell.
Hassan could not take the heat.
He ran like a hyena from the jungle.
Hassan:
I wouldn't waste your time with Rayback, Heartbomb, he is not interested in having an proper discussion, but only in being evasive and playing the joker.
Rayback:
Yes.
She is not a fool like you to challenge me to a exclusive debate and then run way.
She is a wise woman.
I got a suggestion for you:
Learn from the lady.
Hassan:
Yes, I was a fool - a fool to think you wanted a proper discussion.
I know now, you are just a troll. (and I doubt that you are even a Muslim).
Rayback:
You still dont know. Therefore, you are still a fool.
When you really know what you did, then you
will learn, and maybe become a little more mature.
----
Topic: The Vatican vs. Amnesty International
Heartbomb:
My Catholic friend thinks the Vatican has done way more for the world than Amnesty International.
Rayback:
Its true.
Amnesty International is only a talking shop.
Whereas the Pope has teeth.
His Holiness can bite.
--
Topic: Absurd Doubts
2009-05-08
I know you guys consider me an infidel.
But if I may, I would like to you an important question.
You people say you do not believe in religion.
You claim that you have left false beliefs.
You do not accept holy men, and have decided to follow scientists.
I want to know something from you.
What exactly do you doubt?
Please tell me as to what is it that you actually doubt.
-
Cheetah:
Who claimed that? Nobody "follows" science, its not a faith.
Rayback:
Come on, you know what I mean.
Scientists are more trusted to you than any Prophet or holy man.
Right?
Cheetah: Wrong. Scientists tend to produce evidence for their claims, holy people don't. And like any sensible person I doubt anything that has no evidence to back its claims, whether its said by a scientist or a priest/imam.
Rayback:
Dont you think its better to presume innocence until proven guilty.
You are on a path of cruelty, Cheetah.
--
Rayback:
Can we please get back to the original question I asked?
Hassan said he doubts the existence of Hell. That's his number one doubt.
Perhaps the gentleman has a problem with the concept of severe punishment.
Our other member, Variable, asked about Joseph Smith.
Well, I think it is not nice to call any man a liar until you are sure that he is lying. I think thats common sense. Cheetah is cruel to convict people without proving them guilty.
Homer asked about drinking holy water to cure a disease.
It think, if any you were "convinced" that a glass did contained holy water, then you too would drink it for your illness than trust man-made remedies.
--
heartbomb :
I'd very much like to know what your doubts are, Rayback. I'm very curious.
Rayback:
Ok.
I doubt the integrity of bad scientists like Richard Dawkins.
They are fanatics worse than religious fanatics.
By the way, nice name kid.
-
Rayback:
Osmanthus, fanantic religious scholars tend to exploit uneducated people and hence brainwash them with their own interpretations that are quite contrary to the original teachings of their God or Holy men.
Bad scientists also manipulate people who are gullible and program them into accepting certain ideas that are opposite to actual findings of science.
For example, a top genetic expert in South Korea was arrested for faking research and passing it on to his students as genuine discoveries.
MrSilly:
...the existence of Hell ranks top...
I'll offer my second biggest source of doubt, and that is regarding destiny (or 'qadr') and judgement. If God is an all-knowing creator, then he knows exactly what each of his creations will do, even before he has created them (thus the notion of destiny). But if the purpose of life on earth is to be judged in the afterlife, then the all-knowing creator did not need to bother with creation, since he already knows the outcome. Likewise, if he is all-knowing, and creator of all, then he created and thus determined what each of his creations would do in their lives. This makes the whole notion of creation with subsequent judgement nonsensical.
Rayback:
Brilliantly put.
I doubt such a scenario as well.
It does not make sense at all.
Aliadiere:
I doubt the integrity of pseudo scientists who have actually studied fine arts who pretend to be knowledgable about biology and evolution. Anyway, the first major doubt that i had has already been mentioned - the concept of predestination. In about 2005, it started to puzzle me and I bought a book from the Islamic Propagation Centre (an accurate name for the business), and I read the book and it still puzzled me and didn't make much sense. I asked someone about these ayat: 2:6-7 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
Rayback:
Some Atheists also accuse religious people of being stubborn. There is whole debate here on the subject. They claim that no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to some religious fanatics, they are so brainwashed that they will never leave their delusions.
Its a fair criticism. And it is a true observation. Some religious nutters are totally closed off.
That criticism is exactly what the verse is making about some Atheists: That no matter how good the reason, or, even if they were shown a divine miracle, they would dismiss it as a trick, and reject all reasonable arguments.
After a certain number of chances given to them to use or abuse their God given-intellect, God says that as a punishment He has sealed their mind. They will now burn in Hell.
I also do not accept predestination. But you have to ask is that what is being presented in the verses?
Honest thinkers would never have double standards in evaluating things.
Any serious researcher should use their intellect to its best capacity and not follow what suits their wishes and desires.
If a person is not truly objective then he will only hear whatever he LIKES to hear.
Truth never fits the biased.
-
Variable :
So then you don't doubt Joe Smith? If you have any doubts about Joe Smith, you're cruel. By your own criteria. In any case, you have written "Are you afraid to debate?". You're not really debating. You ask people these questions to stir them up, but don't come back with any thing of substance. You give these half answers that don't mean anything.
Rayback:
The "substance" does not go down your throat well. Your last sentence is witness to that fact.
I think you fear the "stir" because your boat is not stable.
People like Variable are afraid they might get crucified.
You asked about Mr Smith. I have no reason to doubt him. I have herd bad things about him, but thats all hearsay. God demands that we do not base our decisions on hearsay. That would be unfair. Therefore, until I study the gentleman, I have to assume he is innocent.
Osmanthus:
Variable has nailed that one nicely. I'm willing to bet that rayback will completely avoid that point about his own "cruelty". I also agree that rayback is not debating in any meaningful sense of the word. Someone who stood by a sig like his would be willing to clearly state their position up front and then deal what whatever was thrown at them. So far he's been as reticent as he possibly could be while still getting people to pay attention to him. He's not debating. He's simply trolling.
Rayback:
Me and you both know that most people are incapable of having a serious debate. This is a fact.
That is why the fleas flee.
Its take bottle to battle.
--
MrSilly:
You said: I also do not accept predestination. But you have to ask is that what is being presented in the verses?
Do you believe that Allah is all-knowing and the creator of all? Simple yes or no. If Allah is all-knowing, then he knows the exact narrative of each of his creations, even before he has created them. Within Islamic scholarship, it is described how Allah recorded everything that will happen on Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuud. If Allah is the creator of all, then everything he creates is according to what he already knows they will do throughout their life. This is the philosophical framework of destiny (or 'qadr'). Just think, Allah created you in the knowledge of your entire life narrative. He therefore created this narrative. He destined you to do exactly what you are doing in this life. If it is already known and decided what you are going to do in your life before you are created, where exactly is the free will? So why do you not accept predestination? Do you not believe that Allah is all-knowing and the creator of all? If you don't, then our work is done,
because you are therefore not a Muslim because you deny the existence of Allah.
Rayback:
This is a big issue and requires another a topic on its own.
However, to give you a simple reply, knowing does not mean determining. These are two different things, if you can see that.
You made a lot of unnecessary conclusions. You were incapable of, or, unwilling to see other possibilities.
I think our member coolred38 has spotted the fallacy of your objection.
-
osmanthus:
Ah. Bold text. That's a great debating technique. It adds so much more validity to your points. By the way, I notice you're still not responding with anything of substance. You're trolling for sure.
Rayback:
I think that is a matter of opinion.
One man's substance is another man's bullshit.
I think you can see that. I have faith in you.
By the way, I used bold not to boldify the "nails" - they are excruciating enough in themselves - but rather only to make the answers distinct from the questions.
--
Rayback:
One member quoted these words of God: Quran, chapter 3:54 says:
"and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers"
If you have any brain left inside your head, then you can see to whom it refers.
It clearly says God deceives the deceivers.
What your problem with that.
They deserve to be mislead and thrown in Hell.
Did you expect God to give dishonest people pancakes?
-
Shaneequa :
rayback, are you a fundamentalist Muslim?
Rayback:
Not at all.
-
Rayback:
While you ladies talk about pancakes, may I reply to a remark by the silly gentleman:
MrSilly said: I agree totally with your statement. The issue is that Allah is all knowing and the creator of all. This in combination means that Allah determines the narrative of his creations. If you belive that Allah is all-knowing and the creator of it, it is the logical conclusion, and since the all-knowing and all-creating nature of Allah are absolute, then it is an absolute conclusion. Tell enlighten me as to what the "other possibilites" are. I'd be thrilled to hear your "absurd doubts" on this matter
Rayback:
Some on Silly.
Predestination is a deep subject.
I mean its deeeeeep.
A dive in the Ocean is out of the question for people like you.
You dont even like getting your feet wet in a puddle.
--
Jack Torrance:
Ah but doesn't your gang believe that 'your' God made man in the same image as himself - which would include vengeance for vengeance sake - and 'your' God is pretty good at retribution too.
Rayback:
Did you expect God to give dishonest and evil people pancakes?
Shaneequa:
....but do you see the problem with this? It is saying that your god is no better than men.
Rayback:
Since when can you "see".
Normal thinking people love it when God kicks ass a lot better than men can ever manage.
You want a Teddy Bear of a God, who lets you off whatever wrong and sin you commit on Earth.
Sorry, that type does not exist except in your illogical head.
The Real Supreme Being is a God who is Merciful to good people and Punisher to evil mothers.
He has designed Hell just for people like you. If you mess up here, then prepare to be burned. No mercy for evil wrong doers.
Anway, I thought I should do a new Hell topic for those sad souls who will end up in Firel.
Who will Burn in Hell
-
Shaneequa :
There is hell. And God is all-powerful....but he is not a man that he should lie. If your god can lie, that disqualifies him from being God.
Rayback:
Who said God can lie?
You assume too much.
-
Rayback:
Be happy with your pancakes while you have that chance here.
Because as they say:
Hell hath no pancakes.
--
J4m3z:
Is God justified in deceiving deceivers exactly because they did the same act before God did it? If so, does that mean I can kill the child of the murderer of my child?
Rayback:
The child is innocent, why on earth would you want to punish an innocent human being.
God punishes only the guility.
He is not like you to take His wrath on innocent people who had nothing to do with the crime.
God is Just.
God says He deceives the deceivers.
People like you want to deceives the mother of the deceviers.
Poor innocent woman being targeted by Atheists.
--
Shaneequa:
You guys, I want to talk to rayback. Let me talk to rayback.
Rayback:
What do you want to talk about?
As you know this is not a private topic.
I started it for everyone.
If you knew the opening remark, you will see that I asked every member to give an example of something in which they have real doubt.
It can be seen that most doubts that Atheist harbour in their heart are mostly silly and absurd doubts.
They are not real logical doubts. They have no validity.
Atheists are deluded by their unreasonable doubts.
Its tragic and ironic.
--
heartbomb :
My doubts lie in the fact that you're not who you say you are
Rayback:
If we ever meet, you can touch me and be assured that I am real.
You doubting Thomas.
Sojournerlumus:
I don't doubt anything - doubt does not even enter my lexicon in any way shape or form, except to wonder who you are and what you are. Twinkle, twinkle, little star?
Rayback:
You dont doubt anything?
Now thats pretty good. You must have a very clear head.
And what you mean who am I.
Ok.
Let me introduce myself:
I'm Rayback....
Hi there.
--
heartbomb :
Well according to that logic, god isn't real
Rayback:
You can touch me
You cant touch God
I can touch you
Just allow me
God will touch thee
Just make thyself worthy
--
heartbomb:
My boyfriend has saved several lives, and by that I mean he has saved them from DYING.
He is an atheist. He hasn't been touched by god. What makes you more worthy than him?
Rayback:
I dont know your boyfriend. He seems a good guy.
If I talk to him, then maybe I could give you an answer.
Maybe your boyfriend does not like God to touch him?
For example,
A girl may be worthy of being touched, but if she is bent lesbo,
then no matter how good she is, no matter how many lives she saves,
it is obvious that no man will touch her because she is not interested in men.
One has to be interested in God instead of monkeys.
The Supreme Being does not force himself on anyone.
God is not a rapist.
That should be sufficient for a thinking lady like you.
--
J4m3z:
If a man was rejected by a lesbian and he later kidnapped her, burnt her skin off and then gave her new skin and repeated the same thing over and over again, simply because she was not interested in him... that kind of reduces his chances of being morally perfect.
Rayback:
I agree with you. I have said that before.
God would not do that.
You assume too much against the Almighty.
Maybe its due to prejudice?
heartbomb :
This is heartbombs boyfriend. I have always been open to new ideas and religions and have looked into more than a few. I like the complexity of the stories and the idea that someone is watching over us, to protect us and to guide us. However i find it to be just not true. It's not that im not open there is just nothing there. No one has ever proven god to me and faith is ignorance. Not that i would ever praise the man who designed this world.
Rayback:
There you go. That bold bit says it about you.
You are an art critic only interested in your own greatness.
You think YOU can judge God's design of the universe for its aesthetic value?
Whoa.
You are one "Hell" of a critic.
[smile]
Dont take it personally Mr boyfriend.
--
J4m3z:
You mean God doesn't send anyone to hell after they die?
Rayback:
Oh He does.
Hell is no joke.
When did I say God does not send anyone to Hell.
That would make the creation of Hell a useless exercise.
God does nothing useless.
Heartbomb:
Not aesthetic value, moral. Anyone who has the power to stop all of the evil in the world and doesn't is worth nothing to me. I see him as a man that watches a rape and does nothing. I don't mean to insult you its just my view.
Rayback:
Does nothing?
Oh I see.
You mean you too now want that rapist to burn in Hell?
How nice.
I think you and me a lot more in common than meets the eye.
I knew it.
You are indeed a good man.
I could feel the force flow through you.
[grin]
By the way, you did not insult me. You spoke honestly.
Good luck.
-
heartbomb :
My boyfriend is away at the moment, will be back to reply to you soon. But I must add that I can see why you believe the Qur'an (or whatever holy book you supposedly follow). You obviously take whatever meaning you want out of what's written down to fit your agenda.
Rayback:
Thanks. Dont we all do that?
God has given me that right.
He has also given you the right to do with your life as you see fit.
Me and you will one day stand before Him and account for our actions in this life.
There is no escaping from that Supreme Court.
heartbomb:
The punishment must fit the crime. And yes if there is a hell some people deserve to be there, but few.
Rayback:
How many and of what type?
What should happen to rapists?
Heartbomb:
God has given rights (supposedly) to do with you as you see fit, but then punishes you for it...he is not benevolent, he is not powerful,
Rayback:
Do you think God punishes you just for having some rights?
You need to sleep. Give that brain a bit of rest.
Maybe then you will think a bit more clearly.
--
J4m3z:
rayback, You mean God doesn't send anyone to hell after they die? But I thought that people in hell were tortured and one of the punishments is that a person's skin will be burnt off and then will be given new skin so that they can re-suffer the pain, and again and again for ever. Is that not true?
Rayback:
Why dont you answer the question:
When did I say God does not send anyone to Hell.
J4m3z :
Oh, sorry, I didn't see a question mark.. Well, actually... you can work out what my answer is from my reply... Oh well I'll put it simply: When I used the thought experiment of a man torturing a lesbian because she rejected him, I was trying to compare the man's actions to God's actions. That is, the man was replicating the kind of torture that somebody who went to hell would suffer. To this you replied that God would never do anything similar to the man in my example would do because God isn't cruel like that. I was confused because God clearly does do things to people who reject him which are even worse than what the man in my thought experiment did; that is, he sends them to hell. That is why I asked doesn't God send anyone to hell after they die?
Rayback:
Yes, but the question I asked is when did I say God sends you to Hell for simply rejecting Him?
--
heartbomb:
I just got tired of your condescending tone and decided it would be more productive to talk to a pancake than to talk to you.
Rayback:
And your tone is quite insulting. Yet I put up with you.
If you dont like my tone, than indeed let pancake be your challenger.
Easy target.
I suspect you have a good chance of winning against one.
--
Shaneequa:
Hi Rayback, Have you always been a Muslim?
Rayback:
Nope.
I started to use my brain to think and, therefore, I opened my eyes.
I converted.
Its the only rational way.
Atheism is absurdism. You can tell from these, and other debates.
-
heartbomb:
And you say my tone is insulting. Let's not make this petty, I'd like to think you're better than that (even though I have my doubts).
Rayback:
Alright. Agreed.
You are a nice woman.
You have a good boyfriend.
Hmm...
You two remind me of the verse in the Quran:
"God decrees nice girls for nice men. And good men for good ladies."
--
Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment.
--
Anyway,
A more brutal verse on the next page said:
Bitches deserve dogs. And dogs deserve bitches.
Sorry.
Sometimes God can say some very hard things as well.
In society we can see His decrees being fulfilled.
--
heartbomb:
Ah, of course, the Qur'an would not be complete without it's brutality.
-
Thats right.
Full Justice would never be complete without a place of Ultimate Penatly.
HELL !!!!
We cant deny reality.
One can run but one cannot hide.
Day of Accountability is coming closer and closer with every breath.
Im sorry to remind everyone but,
Every beat of the heart is a step closer to death.
There is no escape.
Scientists cannot help you here.
--
heartbomb:
Are you a good human being because you are afraid of hell, or are you a good human being because you empathize with people and don't want to hurt them?
Rayback:
I dont fear hell.
I love you because God has placed your love in my heart.
I love people for being creatures of my creator.
We are one family.
I dont see you as different than me.
You are me.
It pains me to see you hurt.
--
An example for Atheists who cannnot comprehend the above bit:
Its like you love your brother because he is comes from your mother.
You are your brother.
--
heartbomb:
Next question: Do you live your life by the teachings of the Qur'an AND Hadith? Or just the Qur'an?
-
Rayback:
Neither.
No book should dictate anyone's life.
Its an absurd idea.
-
How do you define your morals?
-
Come on girl, whats with all this questioning.
We are drifting away from the subject.
People will accuse us of hijacking the topic.
Your questions are deep and worthy of discussions.
You've got a good head screwed on your shoulders.
--
heartbomb:
Why don't you answer the question, and if someone wants to object to my words, then we will take it from there
-
Oh Boy.
You are one tough cookie.
Ok.
I get my morals from my bird.
She teaches me everything of importance.
-
Your bird?
Do you think it's wrong that the Qur'an says non believers will go to hell?
--
I never said Quran says that. You say it. You read it like that.
There is nothing that is wrong in the Quran.
Its your biased reading that makes you see things wrongly.
-
heartbomb:
My parents read Arabic fluently and understand it. They have read it in it's Arabic form. Also, many members of this forum can read and understand Arabic, and can back me up that the Qur'an in fact does say that.
Rayback:
So, you yourself have not read the Quran, have you.
That's ok.
You are relying and basing your judgement on
someone else's readings of it. Even if they be hostile to it.
At least you are honest.
-
heartbomb:
Which translation do you follow and do you read/understand Arabic fluently?
By the way, my first sentence claimed that MY PARENTS read and understand Arabic fluently. My parents are still Muslim.
-
Rayback:
Did you read it with shades on or shades off.
I gave research by top German poet Goethe on a debate on Quran:
Understanding the Qur’an: literary forms and style
He had his shades on during his first reading of the Quran
When he took them off third time around.
Wow. Light was too brilliant for him.
Goethe bowed down before the Holy Book.
You see,
Shades protect you against harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun.
And they make you look cool.
However,
Shades do not protect you from making wrong and harmful assumptions about people or about God.
Yellow looks blue and red looks green.
Maybe you didnt know what fact.
-
heartbomb:
You didn't answer my question.
Do you or do you not know how to read Arabic and understand it fluently?
If not, which version (translation) of the Qur'an do you read and accept?
-
Oh sorry. I thought I had told you.
Pickthall.
-
Most Atheists are known for their flights.
It is illogical to run from any debate you participate in, especially the one which you started.
Fleeing is both unintellectual and unmanly.
But what would monkeys know about either of these two things.
They need a bit more time to evolve before they are in a position to comprehend human matters.
--
heartbomb:
I have taken the rest of this Quran related debate to the Understanding the Quran topic.
-
Well done.
Finally !!!
Now can we move back to the topic?
Absurd doubts that Atheist hold in their silly heads.
Do you guys really consider that all your doubts are genuine and vallid.
Or, do you think some of them are actually quite trivial and stupid.
Honest and important doubts are acceptable.
But ill-thought suspicions are not good.
One should not live their life in such a manner.
What do you think.
-
heartbomb:
Being a skeptic does not make one absurd, curiosity is not a sin.
-
Suspicion, generally, is not wrong.
But sometimes it is.
Have you heard the saying: Curiosity killed the cat.
What do you think a wrong suspicion can do to your relationship.
Wreckage
-
heartbomb:
If there is no real reason for me to believe in a god, since I am already a good human being, and I have not seen evidence to prove the existence of god, I do not need him in my life.
Curiosity killed the cat? I'm still alive and thriving!
-
You dont need God today.
Ok. Thats fine.
Do you think you might need Him one day?
-
heartbomb:
Do you need god? I thought you got all your morals from your bird?
-
Rayback:
Thats a question.
I need an answer.
You are a girl.
Dont be evasive.
Thats men's fifth prerogative.
Didnt your boyfriend tell you that.
-
heartbomb:
I find that very insulting. I hope that you retract that comment as it has very little relevance to the debate whether I am a man or a woman.
Rayback:
Only a boy would find it insulting.
You are not her boyfriend are you?
If you are, then your evasiveness is acceptable.
-
J4m3z:
This debate has no substance. It reminds me of a very abstract dream I have where work of some sort is being done by a small space, but it is petty work and then a giant space works and it works efficiently, and you can compare the works of each.
heartbomb:
My approach to rayback may be different to yours, and if it is not exciting enough for you to read, then don't. You are free to pose your own questions to rayback, and I will do likewise.
-
J4m3z :
Can I ask a question? "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
-
Rayback:
That is another hijacking of the topic question.
It belongs in another debate.
-
Where is my critcism of the list of logical fallacies?
Where is it gone?
I gave evidence that this list is incomplete.
I suggested an addition which Atheists refuse to include in the fallacy list.
-
Cheetah:
Your post was moved here because it was off topic. Don't hijack debates, please.
Rayback:
Yes, thank you.
You have moved this post which is about the earlier remarks I had made.
Where is the missing post I wrote last week on the Logical Fallacies debate?
Can you also please bring that post so we can all discuss it here.
I know you did not like to see it in the other topic.
--
J4m3z:
You said to heartbomb: You need to sleep. Give that brain a bit of rest. Maybe then you will think a bit more clearly.
Seriously rayback, your debating etiquette is rancid! Where is your manners?
Rayback:
I love her. And, as you know, its all fair in love and war.
Since most monkeys do not know anything about manners,
one has to reply in their own language.
But she is fine. She knows how to talk.
She is a good woman on the inside. Cant you tell?
-
Rayback:
By the way, sorry for replying so late to you.
I was in the middle of doing her, and, therefore, did not notice your well intended criticism of me.
Sometimes, these sessions - I mean discussions, can be intense.
One has to concentrate on the other whom one values if one wishes to get anywhere.
-
heartbomb:
Okay, so we have members of this forum that have read the Qur'an in Arabic and are aware of what is written in it. So how can you say they are ignorant about what is in it?
-
Rayback:
Reading and understanding are two different things.
I think that much should be obvious to everyone.
You can train a monkey to read Shakespeare, but I think you would still call the primate ignorant of its contents.
Similarly, most Atheists basic lack comprehension skills due to their low intellect and their clear bias against logic.
-
[Rayback was challeneged by Hassan to one to noe debate on brutality of Hell as a punishment:]
Topic:
Hell; Just or Unjust & Excessively Cruel Punishment?
Hassan said:
OK, Rayback.
I say Hell is an excessively cruel and unjust punishment.
For God to keep people alive so that they can be made to suffer agonising pain over and over, because God Himself failed to provide undeniable proof of his existence (let alone undeniable proof that Islam is true) is quite clearly an excessively cruel and unjust punishment. (and that's putting it mildly)
What say you Rayback?
Rayback:
To you Hell might be excessive, but to another person it might be just the penalty that a particular dude deserves.
Hassan:
btw that is not an answer.
You need to prove that Hell is indeed a Just punishment and not excessively cruel - and that God is Just as you claimed.
Who would deserve such a punishment?
Hassan:
I will make it more clear:
Like I said, perhaps to you no person on Earth can ever deserves to be thrown in Hell.
But I think if you were to ask around in society, even Atheists will tell you, that although they do not believe in Hell, they too think that some nasty people need to burn in the Fire.
I have asked my Atheist friends at the University about the concept of Hell.
They denied existence of Hell.
However, when pressed, they most of them admitted that Hell would indeed be a fitting end for certain few individuals who had carried out unimaginable crimes.
Obviously, you dont agree with them.
Thats your choice.
Therefore, you calling it "unfair" does not make it unfair.
You are not the only judge.
The Supreme Court has 9 Honourable Judges.
That was no sarcasm. This is a serious debate, so far.
Cheetah: So what kind of crimes deserve Hell then?
Rayback:
No cheating cheetah.
You are good, but let Hassan brush his skills here. He specifially requested this topic.
The boy is young and passionate. He has a bright future in the arena.
I think its his favourite stick with which he beats the deluded religious fanatics.
Cheetah: Hassan already asked you the same question and you didn't answer it.
Rayback:
The question is subjective.
I have said in so some many words.
One man's villain is another man's hero.
But you guys want to force your stuff only.
Im only saying be open minded.
Dont close your brain.
-
Rayback:
Ok.
Hassan's words are in quotes.
My replies in bold black.
"What so and so says or doesn't say is not evidence."
Exactly. Your claim does not make Hell an unjust penalty.
"The evidence that it is unjust and cruel are very clear."
They are not. To many others they are wishful thinking.
"It is not simply my opinion, but the conclusion of reason, logic, and justice."
Yes. Indeed. It is a conclusion of YOUR reasoning. It is NOT a conclusion of everyone's reasoning. There is no concensus on this issue.
"First of all Justice:
It is not justice to punish someone for something that is not their fault, namely not believing."
I totally agree. It would be cruel to burn an innocent person.
Hell is only for those who are at fault.
"Belief is subjective."
Bingo.
It is YOUR belief that Hell is excessive.
"There is no undeniable evidence of God and there is no undeniable evidence Islam is true."
Hassan. Please dont go all over the place. Read the title of your own debate.
If you wish to talk about God then I dont mind. But lets finish this, shall we?
"Therefore an unbeliever cannot be blamed for not believing."
Unless he deliberately closed his eyes to the truth.
"Secondly Excessive punishment.
An infinite torture for a finite "crime" is bad enough (even if they were rapists, mass murderers etc...) But infinite torture for not believing in something that is not undeniably clear is excessive."
I agree with you.
A just God would not burn anyone for simply not having believed in their life on Earth.
"You will not find any Supreme Court Judges ruling that even the worst rapist be tortured for the rest of his life. (Unless perhaps in a despotic country)."
Look again. You will find such penalties handed out.
"God's punishment is far worse than that - he does not just let them die - or punish them untill they die.
He keeps them alive forever! So they can be tortured in agnoy for ever.
Hell is both unjust and excessive.
If you wish to disprove that, you need to bring more evidence than what so an so says.
Show me how it is Just?
Show me how it is not excessive?"
What will "show it" to you?
Most intelligent people, including reasonable Atheists, do not say it is excessive. They say its fair for certain nasty people.
You claiming that Hell is an unjust place to which NO ONE deserve to go is a value judgement. It is not an objective argument. Other judges disagree. They prefer Hell remain opened. Hassan clearly doesnt.
-
Rayback: I totally agree. It would be cruel to burn an innocent person.
Hell is only for those who are at fault.
Cheetah: And who are those people? What faults deserve eternal punishment in Hell?
Rayback:
Some major screw ups.
Each Judge on the Supreme Court would decide those for himself.
Cheetah: Why can't you answer the question? Its a very simple question - what kind of wrongdoing deserves eternal punishment in Hell?
Rayback:
Like I said, this is Hassan's topic.
He was desperate to get Hell out of the way.
So please, just sit back, have some popcorn, and watch him "rip me".
Cheetah: Like I said Hassan already asked you this question and you failed to answer. What's the problem, anyway - its a very simple question. Anyone who believes in Hell and has a mental age greater than 12 has some idea of what crimes Hell is used to punish. Are you perhaps ashamed to answer the question because you know your answers will sound pathetic to a skeptical audience?
Rayback:
I have given an answer.
You simply missed it. Cheetah.
Anyway, BerberElla.
Im only indulging Hassan, because he said he was serious about discussing this subject properly.
Obviously, it has been on his mind.
And I would not run away from debate, especially from a nice guy like Hassan who simply asked to talk about our respective beliefs about Hell.
Cheetah: You didn't give an answer, you gave a meaningless response which evaded the question.
Rayback: I did answer.
You didn't get its meaning which is why it was meaningless to you.
IsLame asked: Rayback, I must have missed it, but what religion do you believe in?
Rayback: Hell.
BerberElla: I will wait until he has realised that before I rip you to you pieces.
Rayback: You are gonna give me Hell?
Oh no.
I think its time for me to start repenting.
Cheetah can be so sunny sometimes.
Thats why I like the animal.
Glen said: If it holds that Hell is subjective and those who deseve to go there is a matter of personal opinion, then so too must be the same for heaven, and who deserves to go there. If something is so subjective, so that any meaning can be bent to its cause, it doesnt really mean anything at all does it?
Rayback:
Good attempt there Glen.
You show an ability to reason.
You would be right, if, as you rightly said: "if" Hell itself was subjective.
However,
Hell is not subjective.
But who actually deserves to go there and for how long is.
That is what we are discussing.
Can I request you guys not to aid Hassan.
The boy has shown promise to take care of himself.
Allow him to win the battle by himself.
He seems a good sport.
Glen: lol ok smarty pants just replace my reasoning with 'who goes there' instead and voila!!! lol who goes to hell and heaven are subjective concepts (and actually you might find hell and heaven are subjective, out of this little topic discussion...) that are so far apart in different peoples views that you cant define who goes where in a concrete way,
all i know is ill see you in hell.... lol
Rayback: Thank you Glen. You are a smart man.
BerberElla: Hell is subjective. Each religion sets it out differently, people have different imaginations so their image of hell will be a personal one, so of course hell itself is subjective.
Rayback:
You promised to take me to the hot place.
We might be convinced otherwise once we get there.
Quote from: hassan
Sorry my friend, but you can't avoid this question as it is CENTRAL to the argument over whether Hell can be called in any way Just.
If there is no undeniable evidence for God or Islam then no-one can be blamed for not believing in God or Islam.
Therefore God's punishment is unjust.
Reply:
Hassan, make up your mind, are we discussing your chosen subject or not?
Read the title of your own debate again to help you remember what the topic is.
Quote from: hassan
Are you saying that the unbeliever really knows that Islam is true, but pretends he doesn't believe it?
And as I asked you before (but you keep avoiding) are you saying that an unbeliever deliberately chooses to be tortured for eternity in Hell rather than enjoying an eternity of bliss?
Reply:
Please. Do bother to read the replies properly.
I did say that it would indeed be unfair to burn anyone simply for not believing in something.
Quote from: hassan
That's not what the Qur'an says.
The Qur'an clearley says that those who don't believe will be burnt in Hell.
Reply:
I would say that you didnt read the book properly. There is your problem.
I suggest you take those shades off when reading any book, let alone the very words of God.
It is the shades that will take you to Hell.
They can only protect you from the sun for a while.
Quote from: hassan
LOL... enough with these claims! Even if it was relevant, (which it is NOT, since what most people say is not proof that it is true.)
unless you can show me actual evidence of what most people say then your claims are meaningless.
Reply:
You say what most people say is not proof; and yet you want evidence of what most people say?
BerberElla:
I fixed your quotes, the way you laid it out is confusing.
Use the quote feature, or type out:
Code: [quote] your text in the middle [/quote]
Rayback:
Thanks. You are too kind.
But, dont you be fixing other things of mine.
You are a dangerous woman.
IsLame: What religion do you believe in? Does anyone know why he is avoiding answering this question, or at least tell me what religion he believes in as he wont tell me himself?
Rayback: Islame boy, Cant you take a hint.
I have answered your question.
You just dont accept the answer.
Its a hell of a religion.
IsLame: I dont understand why you are avoiding answering this simple question. If you are embarrassed to admit your beliefs, then you should really stop believing in it? Let me ask in a different way. Different people find different religions appealing. Which one do you find appeals to you the most?
Rayback:
I find Hell very a appealing concept.
Even more appealing to me are the 73 beautiful virgins lined up on the other side.
I do not let into my heart anything I am ashamed of.
I am very proud of my beliefs.
I love the heavenly ladies; and I praise the Supreme Being who created Hell as a deserving punishment for evil men.
Hassan: OK, Rayback, I'm getting the impression you are playing a game with me. But I will try again - I will only ask you 2 questions - I would really appreciate a clear and direct answer. You said:
"Hell is only for those who are at fault... ...he deliberately closed his eyes to the truth."
1. Are you saying that the unbeliever believes that Islam is true, but deliberately pretends he doesn't believe it?
2. Are you saying that an unbeliever deliberately chooses to be tortured for eternity in Hell rather than enjoying an eternity of bliss?
---
Rayback:
Hassan, you think I'm playing a game.
Dont you think we need to clear that before we carry on.
-
[ no reply]
-
13 May 2009:
I think its safe to say that my challenger Hassan has fled from the battle field.
Nearly all Atheists flee at the end.
---
J4m3z:
Eternal hellfire is, by definition, an excessive punishment. Whether excessive punishment is cruel or not, I guess you can discuss, but I guessing the majority of people in the world would say that excessive punishment is cruel because it is excessive.
Rayback:
I dont think so. Polls show otherwise.
Majority of people in the world accept Hell and say its a "just end" for those who "deserve" it.
Also, what is excessive to one might be fair to another.
This is a subjective call.
Similiarly, cruel.
Frying the brain of a convict on an electric chair in Alabama may be cruel to you.
But the Judge who passed the sentence, and most Americans, as well as relatives of the victim, say its not cruel at all.
So, you cant prove "badness" of Hell from your personal "feelings".
You have to bear in mind that other people also feelings that might be different than yours.
But you made a good attempt J4m3z.
At least you know how to talk in a civilised way.
Most Atheists simply dont know how to debate. Thats why they run away and make all sort of excuses.
-
J4m3z:
It is not excessive by definition because a poll says so?
There is something deeply wrong there.
Rayback:
I didnt say that.
You did not read my reply carefully.
I said polls disgree with you when you say "most people" say its excessive.
Any thinking person knows that polls cannot define what is and is not excessive.
Thats common sense.
--
J4m3z:
I never said most people say it is excessive, I said it is excessive by definition.
Rayback:
May I remind of what you had said:
J4m3z: “Eternal hellfire is, by definition, an excessive punishment. Whether excessive punishment is cruel or not, I guess you can discuss, but I guessing the majority of people in the world would say that excessive punishment is cruel because it is excessive. In which case, Muslims as well as many other religious believers have to do a lot of re-thinking. This is why I think eternal hell is excessive by definition.”
Rayback:
Basically you claimed that Hell is terrible and muslims need to rethink BECAUSE most people in the world agree say so.
It is you who need to conduct a proper poll.
It is you that needs to remember your own claims.
The fact is that the "majority of people" DISAGREE with you.
You are imagining a survey that supports you.
---
Rayback:
He thinks muslims need to ditch Hell because "majority of the people" in the world would be against the idea of Hell as a punishment.
Well, thats is not the case.
Majority of the people on Earth love the idea of Hell.
Most people like to see Hitler burn forever and ever.
He burned 6 million Jews. So why shouldnt he go to Hell.
It seems to me that you guys have neither sympathy for Nazi victims nor sense of justice.
Most people rightly think that Nazis were evil for killing Jews.
They like the nasty people to burn in it forever and ever.
--
Are you guys Holocaust deniers?
How can you say that Nazis dont deserve to go to Hell?
--
Topic: Why I love Heaven
May 06, 2009
Whether you are going to heaven or going to hell, thats none of my business.
I dont want to change your course.
Go where ever you want to go.
Me?
Im going to enjoy 73 beautiful virgins on the other side.
Polygamy is allowed in Paradise; on a mass scale.
Thats my road to Eternal Pleasure.
I hope you dont mind me heading that way?
At the moment Im not done my university studies. These are pain in the arse. But one has to get educated and earn a living.
However, university life is good. Its very nice. Some very pretty things to enjoy with my time while I am here. I can only thank God for that. He so looks afters the needs of men.
Fell free to ask me anything you like. I am a very open minded person. I can tolerate anything you throw at me.
I love free speech and currently I am running for president of students union.
-
Q: How come you get an extra virgin?
Rayback:
I dont.
Most people get one less.
-
I just love having 73 chicks around me.
I dont think any man would really mind that kind of situation.
Since, I cant have them all here, I guess I would have to wait till I enter that gate.
What good would eternity be without women?
It would be pretty boring if there were no virgins to enjoy.
So, God being so considerate, knows what men really like.
Thats why He has booked everything for me in advance.
-
There will be no jealousy in Heaven.
If your wife makes it there, then she can remain with you, provided you two were lovers in this life.
Otherwise, she can would get a handsome hunk as a new husband forever. A real man.
I think she might be given to someone who had loved her in this life. A secret admirer, who couldnt get her in this life.
God is to Merciful to everyone. Everyone who is heading there.
The rest of you will a big stick up shoved up while your ass is on fire.
-
BerberElla:
Of course you can not prove from any of the islamic texts that anything you said above is even true. There are no hadiths that talk of women getting a hunk of a man, or a secret admirer.
rayback:
What did you think 73 virgins are for?
I thought this is all common sense.
You didnt really think that women would be turned into nuns and handed prayers beads?
There is no celibacy in Heaven.
God did not create males and females only to order them to suppress their desires.
That would have been cruel.
Creator is compassionate. Humans are passionate.
Ladies and Gentlemen, all get to fulfill their fantacies in Heaven.
Pleasure is one of the best rewards we look forward to.
I just cant wait to get my hands on 73 of the most beautiful virgins in the galaxy.
-
She [BerberElla] just does not want to believe in life of pleasure and joy.
Whatever the reason for her denial, the fact is she reject the concept of eternal existence.
Thats fine with me.
Im not trying to take her there. No one can. You can only do that yourself. She dont want to go. Its her choice.
As for me, I know it exists. And I love it already.
--
BerberElla said:
No you do not KNOW it exists, you believe it does, there is a difference.
rayback:
No.
It is you who BELIEVE that I do not know.
You do not know that I do not know.
[ Breakfast was good but lunch is better ]
-
BerberElla:
Why, have you been visited by god? some kind of extra personal proof that us mere mortals have yet to be granted? Because if not then it's all just guesswork and faith on your part. Anyway truth is your claims show someone who doesn't really know the ins out of islam, so you are mostly working off of a fantasy.
rayback:
You have freedom to believe whatever temporarily makes you happy.
However, I think its better to accept what is correct.
But I do agree with you, there is indeed a big difference between having knowledge and having faith.
-
BerberElla:
What you THINK is correct. Why is it not you who is making themselves temporarily happy with delusions of heaven and virgins awaiting? You believe your way is right, I believe it is not, neither one of us can prove who is right on something like god or heaven being real, can't you see that? So you agree that you are simply one of faith, rather than one possessing some factual knowledge?
rayback:
I said I agree with your statement that believing and knowing are two different things.
I think its foolish to believe in something that is not true in order to make yourself temporarily happy.
What is the point of deluding yourself with falsehood.
Its insult to human intelligence.
God says even animals dont do that.
If you seek short term joy, then you might as well take ecstasy pill to do that.
BerberElla said: Guess the question is really which one of us is using the delusion and falsehood to get through life.
rayback:
Wow.
You are indeed capable of reaching the truth.
I never doubted had brains.
-
I would have been quite happy with just 12 beautiful girls around me.
But it was God who wants to increase this wonderful gift to 73 virgins. Thats about every type of beauty I can think of.
There is no way I am going to refuse this kind of an award.
-
BerberElla:
You are not even taking into consideration the way they feel.
rayback:
But I do.
Please; you are making undue presumptions regarding my behaviour in bed.
I would here give a full description of the best way, were it not for the fact that it would offend good women and also upset the Almighty.
Suffice it to say that I am most sensative and gentle when it comes to the ladies.
Its the only way one can make the flower bright and colourful.
You dont think Im a brute who is going to jump on a woman like a wild beast?
BerberElla:
Ugh, you just really don't see it do you. You are objectifying women, to you the ultimate woman has no personality, and is programmed to serve you.
You do not desire the whole of a woman, or the personality, you want a robot, hence you are objectifying women into sexual gratifiers.
You may be all slow and careful sexually towards them, but ultimately it is a robot you are after since your are deluded about what a real woman is like.
rayback:
More presumptions.
I suppose I can overlook this habbit, since intentions are noble.
There is nothing like a real woman. She is a rare creature.
I dont like robots. They cant teach you anything. You see, Im still a student.
So robots are out. But a woman... now she can teach you things to an advance level.
But you are right, in bed, I see only one thing: I dont want to discuss intricacies of life and existence etc with her in that position. Neither would she if she is a full female.
In there, yes, I want her to serve me. I just want to enjoy her, and to give her enjoyment.
Bed is not place for anything else.
Once done, then comes all the other stuff... stuff which it seems you are suggesting be given in bed.
It think you would agree its all about priorities.
-
BerberElla:
Again either a pretence of not understanding me, or you really don't understand me.
Are you telling me that a houri is capable of teaching you anything?
rayback:
Oh yes.
You didn't really think 73 virgins are dumb blondes, did you?
They are said to be some of the sharpest ladies in the Galaxy.
Nothing compares to them on this Earth.
I will be their best pupil ever.
BerberElla:
There is nothing to indicate that they have any programming except in the art of having large eyes and being see through, and being able to grow a hymen over and over again.
rayback:
What could possibly indicate their intelligence to you, Barberella?
You dont even know such ladies exist.
-
If Barberella assume that about me, then what can I do?
She is free to think whatever she likes.
However, I do know that there is a lot more to 72 heavenly virgins Heaven than meets the eye.
They were not made only for enjoying in bed.
But Barberella thinks they are only good for one thing.
Physical pleasure is only a small part of the of the purpose for which they have been created.
Currently, I am concentrating only one aspect of that purpose.
When I get to ravishingly beautiful virgins, I know that I am sure to discover a lot more of their inner beauty.
BerberElla:
So basically you are just making up bullshit to add on to the empty and boring promises of nothing but sex machines that is actually offered?
King Tut:
His trolling man. Why you wasting your time. This guys an armature he should learn from the professional.
rayback:
His Highness feels threatened. He shouldnt. His seat is safe.
Barberella, I am saying that we are given very little information about the personalities of those ladies.
At the moment all Im told is that these women are absolutely beautiful.
I dont know anything else.
When I get to Heaven, I will discover what they are really like.
You want to be know more about them here on earth.
I would love to do that but I am restricted only by what God has revealed about them. He decided to entice men with only their beauty.
I dont have a problem with that. I dare not have a problem with God's wisdom.
It seems to me that to you intimate sensual relationship in Heaven is unacceptable.
Bed brothers you. It shouldn't.
I might me wrong. Please correct me.
BerberElla:
Rayback it might help if you made a topic about milkshakes and bees, it helped KT.
rayback:
His Highness still needs milkshake?
Hmm.. I get it.
Thanks kid.
I'll keep that in mind.
King Tut:
I want to, today find a girlfriend, and hold her hand and walk in the park. Am too stressed out and depressed I need some motivation.
rayback:
"A girlfriend".
Thats says everything.
-
----
CONFUSED!!! WHAT IS AN ATHIEST???
Athiest is a person who had rejected God.
One who think he knows more.
----
You know you're bored when...
May 06, 2009
This is an interesting topic.
Anyone up for a good boring talk?
King Tut said: give me your number
rayback:
Phone?
No. It has to be in your face kind of thing.
it wont work.
I dont think you have reception in the cave where you are sitting.
-
When you have top friends whom you love to be with, then you would never get bored.
Boredom is being without them.
No?
----------------
Topic: Fighting to remain faithful?
BerberElla said:
Don't you think it's strange to have to fight to remain faithful to god? or do you think that faith should be easy?
I was mulling this over a few days ago, on the one hand I can see the appeal to some, to believe that their fight to remain faithful inspite of all the overwhelming evidence against it will lead to heaven, yet on the other hand I think that faith shouldn't be a struggle.
At times I felt strongly that god wanted me to struggle to keep faith because real faith needs to be tested, you know the whole religious way of thinking that leads to those kind of conclusions, at other times it didn't really make any sense that one needed to embark of a jihad of the self to keep faith.
Has anybody else given much thought to the mini jihad and if so what conclusions did it lead you too?
rayback:
Nothing is free.
I think this should be enough for any thinking person:
why should Paradise be cheap
your eyes see it as pile of heap
for top job you study your ass off
God the top boss aint like you a blob
-
BerberElla:
Your analogy isn't right, Islam is the job, you are then fighting your natural dislike of the companies ethical practises in order to remain in the job because the "pension" appears desirable. This is wrong, to fight to be a person you do not really want to be simply to gain a reward is wrong. And what was the blob comment for?
rayback:
I wil try to explain more easily:
In top office, you wear a certain uniform and you leave your stuff at home as your boss demands. Similiarly, heaven demands that you shed certain of your attitudes.
Otherwise, your application for the eternal job gets binned.
You have to follow the rules of the office you are trying to gets in to.
I would have thought that is common sense.
By the way, the blog comment was to the lazy bosses who ruin their company or office because they dont discipline their workforce. They go bankrupt. Paradise is never allowed to go bankrupt, because only the highly qualified will be allowed in that High Office.
-
BerberElla:
Firstly I understood you, I think you are wrong, doesn't matter how patronising you make the tone of your reply, in my eyes you are still wrong. Why? because you do not seem to understand what I am saying.
Let me cut and paste it once again and bold it for you to see:
Islam is the job, you are then fighting your natural dislike of the companies ethical practises in order to remain in the job because the "pension" appears desirable.
I am talking about fighting to remain faithful, not being faithful because you actually agree.
Your analogy assumes that the job is worth it, that the person wants the job more than anything. My analogy says the job is already theirs by default of being muslim, it is whether they want to stay in the job, produce the hard work, turn a blind eye to the company trafficking in slaves, or other such stuff that would make staying in the job abhorrant, all because the pension sounds to good to turn down.
rayback:
You got it wrong lady.
You need to re-tune to the reality.
You simply fail to see what religion actually is.
Let me break it down further.
Religion is not the job.
Religion is the "application" to get the job.
Office of Paradise is the job.
Comprehende?
-
BerberElla:
Can you not even see how wrong that is? You are saying that you spend your life dedicated to religion in order to then go on and get the reward which is a job, a JOB is the reward? No, the job is work, religion is work, heaven is not work, the pension is not work, they are both at the end of the road. What is so hard to understand about that? Seems to me that it is you with the comprehension problem here and the bad analogy.
rayback:
Ok.
If you say so.
I dont like to mess with anyone with fangs.
All my blood is for my love.
-
Glen:
The struggle, the bad things that happen, we all suffer together. Even physical pain we all feel everyday, hunger, thirst. I dont view these things as a test of faith, but as reality and a reality nobody can escape. therefore when i feel hunger in my body on a morning i know how those poor people who die every day through no food must feel, therefore i see the 'fight' as a way to develop a stronger spirit, to realise and have sympathy for fellow living beings wo all have these things going on, the mini jihads! We all lust, it can cause distress in our hearts and minds let alone Gods! so we should understand and not be ashamed, so we can talk and overcome together. We are all mini freedom fighters, we should fight from the oppression that hurts us, our own greed and hate, and learn to reach others to overcome theirs. For me thats where God can be reached.
Not easy at all eh!
Rayback:
Excellent reasoning. Unbiased and realistic.
Glen, as you can read above, some people dont like to clean things.
They dont like struggle.
They wants to be spoon fed.
However, thats not how universe was designed, nor its laws set.
Barbrella:
You're chatting bullshit again hairyback.
Rayback:
Ok. I take it back.
You must be seeing a lots of spoons in the sky.
I am the last to doubt a lady's astronomical observations.
--
Definition Of Brainwashed
Rayback:
Do students get brainwashed in schools and collages?
Government's National Curriculum.
Is education not brainwashing kids?
Think about it.
-
Cheetah:
There is a difference between education and propaganda.
rayback:
So if we get taught in history that babylonians were evil and Romans were good, is that education or propaganda?
To Americans, the Japanese were evil in WW2.
To the poor Japs, U.S. is most evil nation on earth for dropping nukes on Hiroshima.
One man's evil is another man's hero.
No?
Its all relative.
The position you take will decide your view.
--
Agnosticism or Atheism ?
Rayback:
Athiests and Agnostics are set to miss out on Eternity.
These are not my rules.
God makes them.
The rule says:
"Well before your time comes to leave this Earth, you have to have believed completely in God. And not just in any God, but the right God. One True God who is responsible for the Creation of this entire Universe."
If you do not fulfill this rule, whether buy choice or by accident, that does not matter, you are in one big deep hole in the next life. Its going to be pretty hot and painful hole. And there is no second chance. There is no turning back. Its a one way road that leads only in the forward direction.
Sorry boys, tough luck. Thats the rule.
---
Topic: New Research Demolishes Evolution by Harun Yahya
Rayback:
Dr. Richard Dawkins is not a Biologist.
He is Zoologist.
This is applied science of describing animals and their habitats.
What would any zoologist know about microbiology of Genetics and their mutations. #
They should stick to the zoos.
Richard Dawkins was cornered on BBC by Jeremy Paxman. During the interview Dawkins admitted that after all there is chance God might exit.
The Professor's admirers are said to be highly embarrassed.
-
IsLame said:
+1 he does not make claims like he is 100% sure god does not exist, like Muslims make 100% claim that Islam is tru & Allah 100% exists. Can I ask you what percentage you are sure of Islam & Allah?
rayback:
I think its not just muslims who are certian about God. If you ask around you will find that people of other religions also are very sure about God.
I speak to people of all sorts of backgrounds who study at the university. Even thinkers who are outside of religion, such as philosophers, some of them are also certain about God. They too are completely convinced.
-
Evolution does not need to be demolished.
Even its ardent exponents themselves do not present it as a fact.
It has shakey foundations. No need to bring it down.
-
They do not present it as a fact.
Because they are honest.
Deluded but honest.
-
a.ghazali said: You said they don't present it as a 'Fact'. So what do they present it as, if they are being honest? A lie?
Can you give an example of how they present it?
rayback:
I said they are honest and, therefore, they do not present it as a fact.
They know that Evolution is not yet a fact.
They present it as a hypothesis.
In the university we are taught that a hypothesis can in the future turn out to be true, or, it can turn out to be wrong.
-
All the books I have seen when I was collage and now at the University speak about the "Theory of Evolution".
Even after hundred years, no text book issued by our government says "The Fact of Evolution"
It makes you wonder.
-
If you are incapable of seeing a difference between "Theory" and "Fact", then even the most wisest being in the universe can't help you.
Your brain is done.
-
osmanthus:
if you are capable of seeing the differences but chose to pretend otherwise because it suits your agenda then you are dishonest. So which is it? Dullness or dishonesty?
rayback:
If you think carefully you will be able to spot other options besides the two you offered.
Astaghfirullah:
Why is it that all Muslims always refer back to the same argument of Allah closing other peoples minds and hearts? Cant you be original in your arguments for once?
rayback:
Did you know that no one is capable of out-performing the Supreme Being?
Well, now you know.
Its just not possible to have more talent than God.
-
osmanthus:
Which god? There is a veritable plethora of gods to choose from.
rayback:
What do you mean "which God"?
How many do you know of?
You dont believe in any.
How would you ever tell one from another.
Existence of two Supreme Beings is logically impossible.
Astaghfirullah:
world is proof of existence of itself. It's proof that it was made, formed, created by something, there are many explanations for what this could be. Your Allah is one of thousands.
rayback:
Many explanations?
Well, I chose the best explanation.
And this being a free country, you have the right to chose one from the gutter.
-
Quote from: osmanthus:
The existence of even one Supreme Being, to use your preferred term, is as logically impossible as the existence of two.
rayback:
Even top scientists like Hawkin do not say this.
If you really believe your claim, then it only shows you lack power to reason well.
You dont know what logic is.
-
sojournerlumus:
In the absence of an iota of evidence for the existence of any deity of any kind whatsoever, the honours of knowing about the same go to the first person to find any.
Rayback:
You might not know this in your closed off world, but let to tell you this: Many a one among scientists and great thinkers have found the evidence of which you speak. However, among them, I dont know know who was the first to get that honour.
osmanthus:
Prove to us that the existence of one "Supreme Being" is more logical than the existence of two "Supreme Beings". I'm willing to bet that you can't do it.
rayback:
How much?
--
Rayback:
Godel was one of the major thinkers of modern times.
He was known world wide as an expert in logic.
Godel said proper use of logic shows that [b]"God does exist"[/b].
He also accepted that there is an afterlife
“I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife."
He was not a muslim.
As a logical man, Godel abhored Atheists for their abuse of intellect.
-
sojournerlumus:
Name one scientist or so-called 'great thinker' who has found a shred of tangible evidence
Rayback:
Are you saying you do not know of one scientist who believes in God?
--
Topic: Western Ladies
I wanna know just one thing.
I hope someone here can give a satisfactory answer:
Why do women in the west convert to Islam?
I mean, if we look at our newspapers and television,
we see them constantly blast Islam as anti-women,
and yet the European and American ladies are accepting Islam !!
Why !!!
Should girls not reject Islam? Women should be the last people on Earth that convert to Islam.
So, why is this happening?
-
Is it true that ladies dont like ambiguities.
They dont like confusion and doubts. They love clarity.
That might be why they are rushing to convert?
So, maybe women like clear cut rules and laws.
They feel they need to be told exactly what is right and what is wrong?
Women see that only Islam offers such strict discipline.
Maybe women love being dominated.
And nothing dominates their soul like Islam does.
What do you think?
--
Topic: Prophet Muhammad hates Effeminate Men
Rashna said:
Prophet Muhammad hates Effeminate Men & Masculine Women! How mean, rude & unneccessary!
rayback:
I think women also dont like girly men.
Which girls would like to hang around a her boyfriend who is a weak and a sissy.
Women desire a REAL MAN.
Dont you think?
-
BerberElla:
Define a real man and a sissy just so we are clear where you are going with this?
rayback:
I think that might offend the "girls".
I think all women have an idea of what a real man is.
They dont need to be told.
Lionesses can sense a lion mile off.
Nature has given females a good nose.
-
BerberElla:
Your user title says "do you fear debates?" so why the fear of offending the women with vague insinuations that only a real lioness would know what you are talking about?
Rayback:
Oh boy, you're hard.
What have you been drinking.
I think you know exactly what I mean. You are qualified. A "Real Man" is a hero. Havent you heard the song "I need a hero". He is not a girly man.
Anyway, I hate to offend the ladies. Especially, if they are not used to the shocking stuff. Like a new bride, who has never been touched by a man before, she cannot be shown everything in one go. You want to sail the boat, not rock the ship. You see, one has to be gentle if one wants to enjoy the view of snow melting in ones hands.
Offending ladies is not part of good logical debates. Being good to women is sure way to get into heaven, here and there.
So... I dont want to lose the pleasures waiting for me on the other side.
-
I didnt not mean to upset you Barberella.
I hate to not reply to good people like you.
[ sentence removed out of care for your feelings ]
King Tut.
Tut. Tut. Bad boy.
I dont need anything here. University provides enough pizzas for me.
-
[sentence removed]
-
BerberElla:
Damn, what did the sentence say? If you have something to say, just say it and stop editing it out beause of fear of offending. It is your belief that women, and myself will automatically be offended based on our gender alone that is offensive here.
rayback:
It said something about drinking tea being a characteristic of a lovely person.
That, and bit about cakes.
Nothing to worry about kid.
-
Beans on toast is not for real men.
Were are here talking the whole shoulder or a leg. All roasted.
---
Topic: Muslim Men Get 72 Virgins in Paradise!
RIBS:
Muslim Men Get 72 Virgins in Paradise. Here! I found 50 virgins and still have to find the rest!
rayback:
Somehow I dont think any of those girls in the photo are virgins.
I think they have been enjoyed a plenty.
I would insist on a virgin.
BerberElla:
Is it because you fear she would have had better and bigger than you and therefore would not be satisfied with you?
rayback:
No.
Its because I dont like leftovers.
God knows what men like. He is so Bountiful.
-
Ribs:
I am sorry to say that I don't know who Richard Dawkins is. Can any one say a brief words about him? Is he a scholar interested in Religion?
rayback:
Dawkins is the idiot who admits God might exist, and still curses people who believe in God.
Can you believe that!!
He is suppose to be a Professor.
That is his level of reasoning.
Still lot of people respect such a man.
--
Topic: Quran, Apes and Pigs?
God has the power to turn apes into men - [although he doesnt] - and He has the power to turn men into swines.
I think your God is less powerrful if He is unable to do that. In that casue He is not Almighty and Powerful.
The true God could easily cause metamorphosis.
It would be no issue for Him.
--
Topic: From Religion to godlessness
Member Suprah gives a long story of his coversion from Islam to Atheism
Then he says:
[TO BE CONTINUED]
--
Rayback:
Thats right.
In Hell.
He gave us the Beginning.
He gave us the Middle.
He could not give us the End.
The poor guy doesnt know.
When you drop the torch, you are in darkness.
His End is in Hell.
Sorry, these are not my rules. I didnt make them.
You mess up, your plane will land in the Fire.
--
Topic : Questions I'd ask Allah after death
Tommy said:
I always hear both Christians and Muslim saying something in the nature of "You'll know once you're dead and standing before him" This got me thinking, if Allah can judge us by asking us questions about our lives, shouldn't we be able to do the same about him? Given that he wants to be called Omnibenevolent and all? So after my death, if I find myself standing before Allah waiting for him to give me his eternal sentencing, these are the following questions I'd ask Allah: - I have lived a good life. I never killed anyone for disagreeing with me, questioning me, or holding an opinion about me. Furthermore, I was against slavery, polygamy, marital rape, senseless murder, and homophobia for I was in complete support for human rights. I saw the value in education, thus I scrutinized the belief in something without proper evidence. Now Allah, if I'm wrong for advocating human rights, and I'm being sent to hell because of it, then I must ask...
Rayback:
If you did all that you would not be sent to Hell.
Someone had brainwshed you with wrong information about the Just God.
You will be in the other line.
Tommy:
[Quran says in 3:85] "Whoso seeketh as religion other than Islam it will not be from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter."
I rejected Islam because its against the things I've mentioned in my first question. Those are things that Quran finds permissible/advocates. So it doesn't matter if I lived my life being good, because I rejected Islam, I'll be one of the losers in the afterlife.
Rayback:
You cant speak FOR something you dont know.
Its like reading a medical book and interpreting it.
You would be a fool if you did that.
Therefore, you would go and ask a doctor to confirm if you have indeed read it properly or misunderstood what it says.
This is basic common sense.
-
Zaephon: According to her personal diary which is commonly known as the Quran, Allah disagrees with you.
Rayback: No. Its your poor reading ability that makes you think that.
Tommy: Okay then sheikh Rayback, interpret that verse for me. What DOES it mean, other than what can be taken literally?
Rayback: It is talking to muslims experts.
It is not addressed to ordinary people like you.
SmartAassMode: So you're saying that the koran is not for ordinary people to read?
Rayback: They can read it. But not everything applies to them.
PeruvianSkies: Where does it state that line is for experts?
Rayback: Do you think it should have been stated next to every line as to who that line is for?
Is that your level of thought?
PeruvianSkies: It would be helpful especially in a book that states it's word is clear (indicating anyone should be able to understand it).
Rayback:
Anyone?
You wish.
However, fortunately, God does not address the idiots.
He has His reasons.
I think I know what they are.
Cheetah:
Women don't get to have sex at all in Islamic Heaven. The houris are special zombie like things that only exist in heaven, they're not the souls of dead women.
Rayback:
Cheetah, who brainwashed you with all that falsehood.
They have done a good job on you.
Do you have any facts at all about what happens after death?
-
Rayback:
You learnt something today.
So, dont waste your time with God's Book.
You are not worthy of it.
It will roast you.
--
Topic: Moral Question To Atheists
Kope asked:
Is it sex before marriage ok?
Cheetah:
Sex between consenting adults is always ok. I know you're obsessed with the prurient side of morality Kope, but most of the human race have [b]cleaner minds[/b] than you do. Quit watching all that porn and you might find life a bit easier.
Rayback:
That reply shows Atheist have not abandoned the religious concepts completely.
Its impossible to do so.
--
[ Rayback's claim to Atheists that God is better than the Germans angered them and they ended the debate.]
Topic: Who will Burn in Hell
May 12, 2009
Hell is indeed a terrible place.
Whether you believe it exits or not, you cannot deny that the punishment by burning is most severe penalty ever designed.
And who designed it?
Lord of the Universe. God Almighty, the Creator Himself.
Normal thinking people love it when God kicks ass.
He does a lot better job than men can ever manage.
Atheists just want a Teddy Bear of a God, who lets them off whatever wrong and sin they commit on Earth.
Sorry, that type does not exist except in their illogical heads.
The Real Supreme Being is a God who is Merciful to good people and Punisher to evil mothers.
He has designed Hell just for sinners who are evil and who mock Him.
The rule is simple:
"If you mess up here, then prepare to be burned."
In the next life, there will be no mercy at all for evil wrong doers.
World's top thinkers have no problem with this concept.
Only criminals dont like the idea of punishment.
Tlaloc :
I can deny that punishment by burning is the most severe. Being immersed slowly in acid seems worse. Or being eaten alive by rats.
Rayback:
I agree, men are far more cruel than God can ever be.
Its always interesting to hear Atheists testify that even by creating a horrible place like Hell, God is still being lenient.
Baal:
It is quite an interesting phenomenon that, koran readers, at first just assume that the koran will agree with logic. They think that, as long as they stick to what is good and logical, then the koran will probably just support them with text.
Rayback:
And it does.
Who can be more logical than God.
God is the most logical being in the universe.
But you guys think Dawkins knows more.
Baal:
17 times in the Koran, it mentions how boiling water will be used to torture people. And then those humans, your friends and parents and sons, will be given new skin, so they can 'taste' the pain of torture every day. For eternity.
Now how come, 17 times the koran mentions hot water for the purpose of torture, and not even once, did koran instruct us to boil water to purify it? Imagine how many million lives would have been saved had the koran instructed us to boil water.
Rayback:
That was funny.
Atheist wants a loving God to instruct him to use boiling water.
J4m3z :
That is a very interesting insight there Baal, and I can testify that it is a fallacy that I fell victim to.
Rayback:
Yes.
And you cant blame God for that fall.
If you do, then you truly fall.
Baal:
You said: God is the most logical being in the univese.
What does "most logical" mean?
Rayback:
I would have thought that it is pretty obvious.
I guess not.
Ok, I will make it clear for you:
It means that God's logic is pure all the times.
True Believers' logic is pure 98 percent of the times.
Honest Atheists' and Agnostics' logic is pure 20 percent of the times.
Evil doers' logic is pure only 5 percent of the times.
Therefore to sum up:
God never slips.
We mortals can mess up either most of the times, or, some of the times.
-
Rayback:
One should consider all the words before replying or criticising.
That is where most Atheists stand accused of reading religious books and out of context pick verses irrelevant to the topic.
Most Atheists are incapable of making a coherent argument based on facts.
Only a few are reasonable and say things logically.
J4m3z:
And what the hell is with those percentages?
I guess it means you can use it against something you disagree with against an atheist.
"No, no! Look at these official percentages. They say you are only 20% logical! Therefore your probably wrong!"
Rayback:
Do you have different, a more accurate set of numbers?
-
Rayback:
Some deep questions.
My replies in black:
RIBS:
Why wouldn't GOD or Allah or Jesus, (or that invisible man in the sky!) just show up and let us crawl back in our holes in fear and start worshiping him day and night!!!
Because that would render your brain useless.
Why leave us in doubt?
Who is this us. 20 percent are in no doubt.
Why he has to send some middle-men to tell us about him?
Who would you prefer?
Why not part the See anymore like he did with Moses?
Do you know what happened to Moses?
Why can't he just burn us for not believing in him and wait until later to burn us and torture us in hell?
Because nobody likes to burn right now
Why his creation is not perfect, disease, hunger, poverty etc?
Creation is perfect. Even science says flu is good for you
Why most of his prophets and messengers were from (Israel) middle east?
Because dumbest people need more care.
Why that man whom I witnessed with my own eyes groping and feeling a women in Mecca just few meters away from Kaaba was not stroked dead and turned into a pile of dust for not respecting the presumably most holy places on earth?
Dont you think thats excessive penatly for feeling a pretty woman?
--
Rayback:
Because although I see you as a person who is deluded by Atheists' brainwashing, I dont see you as a dishonest person.
You may be an infidel, you are not a hypocrite.
The latter is far worse - scum of the Earth.
--
Our member RIBS asked more questions.
Again, my, RAYBACK's, replies are in bold and black.
[ If anyone else wants to dig in, by all means. Please use italics, or a color etc, to distinguish yourself. Kindly keep your sentences short. ]
RIBS:
Why wouldn't GOD or Allah or Jesus, (or that invisible man in the sky!) just show up and let us crawl back in our holes in fear and start worshiping him day and night!!!
Because that would render your brain useless.
Wow, you must be have Super brain to be able to see the proof of the existence of God, but also a Super evil to not let us know what it is!!
Its like going to the gym. If you excercise your brain and develop it to a human level, then you will see more. If you want to remain a monkey, thats your choice. You will only see trees.
Why leave us in doubt?
Who is this "us". 20 percent are in no doubt.
OK then, why keep 80% of the population in doubt?
Why not. This is not a democracy. God is not a politician who needs more votes to get into power. Sovereignty is His regardless. You need God. He does not need you, boy.
Why he has to send some middle-men to tell us about him?
Who would you prefer?
I personally prefer no door-salesmen. Obviously God could not sell his bullshit so he sends Jesus, Moses, Mohamed etc!
You still think God needs a man like you to believe in Him. And you have the right to keep thinking that. But the day you burn, you will think otherwise.
Why not part the See anymore like he did with Moses?
Do you know what happened to Moses?
Well didn't God save him and his followers by parting the Red sea, and then drowned the Pharo and his men? This what the Quran says!! But who buys that! Actually in a recent study they find that it was a tsunami!! Based on sea fossils on the Mountains in that area!!
Tsunami? You just love constantly updated propaganda, dont you.
Why can't he just burn us for not believing in him and wait until later to burn us and torture us in hell?
Because nobody likes to burn right now
yeah keep the fun for later!
Or, apply the penalty after a due process?
Why his creation is not perfect, disease, hunger, poverty etc?
Creation is perfect. Even science says flu is good for you
Are you retarded or something? Here, read this from a scientific and respected source (CDC):
"...The 1918 flu pandemic (commonly referred to as the Spanish flu) was an influenza pandemic that spread to nearly every part of the world. It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 100 million people were killed worldwide. An estimated 500 million people, one third of the world's population, became infected..."
That does not alter the scientists' claim. Science still says flu is good for the human body. They seem to agree with God.
Why most of his prophets and messengers were from (Israel) middle east?
Because dumbest people need more care.
Well, unfortunately for you, the dumbest people on earth now after Islam are the Muslims. So I guess it is time for another middle-man door-salesman to pass by!
Oh yeah. I agree. Arabs still do some pretty stupid things. And you maybe right, Jesus Christ is said to be coming back.
Why that man whom I witnessed with my own eyes groping and feeling a women in Mecca just few meters away from Kaaba was not stroked dead and turned into a pile of dust for not respecting the presumably most holy places on earth?
Dont you think thats excessive penatly for feeling a pretty woman?
Feeling a pretty lady with her consent and when she likes it is perfectly alright. But against her will and in a situation where she could not complain because which woman would scream in the middle of Haj telling people that that bearded asshole has fingered and touched her? She will be stoned I guess!
You didnt answer the question: Isnt your suggestion excessive? You want the playboy burnt down to dust. Some of your Atheist friends on this forum seems to think burn a person is cruel.
--
IsLame:
Rayback - You're making stuff up about your religion again. Being an infidel is just about the worst crime you could ever commit as a Muslim, hypocrisy is way down on the list of crimes according to the Islamic beheading priority list in the Quran.
Rayback:
I dont think you read the Holy Quran.
You dont know what you are talking about.
Atheists's bias and hatred often leads them to make untrue and absurd claims.
Hypocrites will get the worse burning in Hell, far worse than the Infidels.
Heartbomb:
Rayback: how you have come to your conclusions that the Qur'an does not condemn unbelievers.
Rayback:
What do you mean how do I know. I read the thing. Thats how.
I love that work of art. I know what it says.
It is not a cruel book so as to punish a person simply for not believing in something.
That would be so absurd thing to do.
You have got a completely wrong impression, my beautiful sister.
God is not a German you know.
Germans throw you in jail just for not believing an historical incident.
Can you believe that stupid law of theirs
A Just God would never do such a thing.
Its impossible.
--
Cheetah:
Smite 1 - don't say you weren't warned.
Rayback:
This means my expulsion from this forum is very near.
Well, its your house. Do as you will.
I will not say only those things which you like to hear.
I will always speak my mind. If you dont like it, then so be it.
I value honesty more than other things.
--
Rayback:
heartbomb.
I dont think they can take my answers.
Truth hurts them.
I dont think they will permit discussion for much longer.
You can see whats coming.
Soon, you may not see debate after they issue a ban.
They will move to kill the innocent debate. Knives are already out.
I would not hide, nor ran away, any person or a discussion.
Here has been shed blood by the so-called "open minded" Atheists.
--
On this topic we should stick with either saving people from Hell, or roasting them in the Eternal Fire.
I guess girls like anything that is a hot topic.
Thats why they dont fear Hell that much.
Because they seems to have different heat in mind.
--
From a debate on Logical Fallacies:
[Atheists gave a list of logical fallacies that people commit in a debate.
Rayback's reply earned him wrath of Atheists controllers of the debate. His suggestion was censored and later the debate was closed. Atheists could not handle his devestaging critcism. He was shaking their boat. They wanted him off. ]
Rayback:
For some strange reason one fallacy is never included
by the Atheists in their list of logical screw ups.
The fallacy of fleeing the debate when your arguments have been demolished.
Most Atheist dont like to be reminded of that fallacy.
They even deny its existence.
---
Oh I see.
I missed your point.
You are too sharp for me girl.
Thinking takes times with slow coaches like me.
In any case, you cant equate me taking time to bash the Atheists with fleeing.
Leaving the battefield is a cardinal sin.
Didnt you know that.
Even US Army punishes the chickens.
[grin]
--
Moderator - cheetah:
Stop trolling Rayback, or I will smite you.
-
Rayback:
I predict a ban coming up.
Banning people from talking is one of five Atheists great cop outs.
Thats ok. I dont mind.
If you dont want me here, just say so. I wont come.
The lady asked me a question and I replied.
She wanted to know how Arabic readers of the Quran can still be accused of not understanding its contents.
I gave her my answer.
Dont you think its up to her to read it and analyse it.
I dont even know what this trolling is.
Please do tell.
-
cheetah:
This is your last warning before we start handing out smites. I think we've been very patient too, given that you're clearly wasting everybody's time with nonsense claims.
-
Rayback:
Go ahead.
Make me a martyr for freedom of speech, liberty and open unrestricted debate.
You want to censor me.
Fine.
Take your sword and strike me down with your full hatred.
I can feel the anger flow through you.
In other debates, you wasted time with your pancake stories in the middle of important discussions.
This is your Atheist house, do as you will.
Go ahead, have one rule for believers, and have another for Atheists.
Thats your way.
Its an unjust way.
-
cheetah:
There's no anger or hatred, I'm just enforcing the rule against trolling. In future, when someone asks you what it says in the Qur'an about Hell, give them quotes from the Qur'an with your interpretation of those quotes. Do not give them stupid, goading comments about whether or not God is German.
-
Rayback:
I will NOT follow your dictates.
I am not your slave.
I will reply as I see fit.
It is up to the member, called heartbomb, to say whether my reply does or does not answers her question. Observers should keep their butts out. If she wants to continue then that right should not be denied her.
But you want to me give only those replies which YOU like.
Thats never going to happen. I think for myself.
If you want to hear only the things you like to hear, then go to a shrink.
I will speak my mind. If that hurts you, tough luck.
If you dont like it, then shoot me. Ban me from this forum.
I will live and speak a free man.
You can take my head, but you wont take my soul.
--
heartbomb:
So Darwin had low intellect? What about Dawkins? He's got a PhD. Those are just two educated Atheists I can think of, off the top of my head.
Rayback:
Dawkins gets cornered by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight BBC2.
PhD is not going to help you if you are thick.
Also, a South Korean scientist with a PhD got caught fabricating research. He was one of world most renowed scientists.
He falsified his lab work.
Very intellectual move.
I guess a PhD certificate impresses you.
-
heartbomb:
What about Stephen Hawking? It's not the PhD that impresses me, it's the fact that they have the ability to make rational decisions and JUSTIFY them. And please do give me a clip of this newsnight show, I don't believe anything you say unless you back it up.
-
Rayback:
Stephen Hawking?
I like that dude.
He is honest enough to admit when he does not know.
Did you know that Hawkins does not reject the existence of God?
Now thats a logical scientist who does not act like a fool.
Dawkins on the other hands is a complete idiot.
He can only handle children in a debate.
He fears talking to adults. They keep grilling him with simple logic.
He runs away all the time.
His documentary on Channel 4 about Darwin was a classic example of stupid Atheist scientist. He only talked to chidlren and presesnted his monkey theory to them.
He did not debate with one scientist who was his critic.
Dick Dawkins is a sad and scared scientist.
--
Topic: Most Religous People are Selfish Bastards!
Rayback:
Cheetah, you allow this kind of title for a debate?
Dont you think it is insulting?
Would it be alright if I were to make a similiar title against Atheists?
Cheetah :
You want to start a debate called "Most Atheists are Selfish Bastards"?
Oh, go on then, if you must.
Rayback:
No.
Not that one.
That would be copying.
I have my own imagination.
The Creator has granted me far more creativity than He has given to the monkeys.
I want to make a title:
"Atheists are Ignorant and Illogical Fools".
Or, something to that effect.
I know ladies will not like it.
--
Rayback:
You see, the Atheists, especially girls, dont like to be proven as fools.
Proving these to be ignorant is so easy that one can do it with one's eyes closed.
One does not even have to make any real effort to show how illogical and absurd the position taken by Atheists is.
If you look at few topics and debates here in which Atheists have been roasted, you can see why they are running scared.
heartbomb:
I find your tone still extremely condescending to the female members of this message board.
If you are unable to speak to both male and female members on equal terms, then you are extremely immature.
Rayback:
Do you speak to Atheists and Believers on equal terms?
I too find tone of some people very insulting.
RIBS:
In MHO religious men or women who molest children in Churches or Mosques or Synagogues for that matter are Super Bastards!! Religious people who preach and are paid for that (professional priests or sheiks) are Bastards! Do you deny that religious sheiks are not paid? I knew one Bastards that was an evil Muslim yet leads prayers on Fridays as if he was the most holy man on earth!!
Rayback:
People who spread lies are the biggest bastard of them all.
Hypocrites head this list, followed closely by Atheists.
Atheist scientists who are paid are pure evil and near the top of the list of bastards.
I guess the world is full of bastards of all types.
Everyone who has ever lied should re-check their birth certificates.
Heartbomb:
Does that mean atheists will burn in hell? You keep dodging that question. I'm not wasting my time on you anymore because it takes many attempts at getting a straight answer out of you.
Rayback:
I have answered that question after you gave verses of the Quran about disbelievers.
But you did not read it properly, you decided to run away and not continue that topic.
Your choice.
-----
Topic: Understanding the Qur’an: literary forms and style
osmanthus, Administrator: May 15, 2009, 05:13:48 AM »#
Now not being an expert on classical Arabic literature, to put it mildly, I have no idea if all this is accurate or if it is a load of bollocks. So apart from the godifying speechification how accurate a summary is this article?
Rayback:
Its a load of bollocks, to borrow your colourful phrase.
Who on earth writes such rubbish !!
You cannot catagorise a book whose author is Almighty Himself.
Its impossible.
God dares you to try. And He promises that you will fail at every attempt.
God is Unique. His work is unique. His word is Unique.
Quran is a Divine work of Art.
--
Rayback:
Cheetah, why do you have to mock everything.
Thats so immature.
You are like an overgrown child.
--
Rayback:
People who have higher intelligence all love the Holy Quran:
Its takes a poet to feel the Divine Force in his heart.
Dead hearts know no tremor.
Here is a quote:
Johann Wolfgang Goethe is one of Europe's greatest poets
Goethe on Islam:
Goethe said that there is "much nonsense in the doctrines of the church."
In his "Divan" Goethe stresses the value of the precious present moment rather than having the Christian attitude of only waiting for the next life and therefore, disgracing what God gives man in every moment of his life.
Goethe refuses the christian view of Jesus and confirms the unity of Allah in a poem of his "Divan":
"Jesus felt pure and calmly thought
Only the One God;
Who made himself to be a god
Offends his holy will.
And thus the right(ness) has to shine
What Mahomet also achieved;
Only by the term of the One
He mastered the whole world"
Besides Jesus and Muhammad - in the following verses Goethe also names Abraham, Moses and David as the representatives of the Oneness of God. It is a known fact that Goethe felt a strong dislike for the symbol of the cross. He wrote:
"And now you come with a sign ...
which among all others I mostly dislike.
All this modern nonsense
You are going to bring me to Schiras!
Should I, in all its stiffness,
Sing of two crossed wooden pieces?"
Goethe quite frankly wrote that it is a "cursed insolence ... to play with secrets that hidden in the divine depth of suffering" One should rather "cover it with a veil".
Finally, in the poem of the Seven Sleepers of his "Divan" Goethe calls Jesus a prophet:
"Ephesus for many years/ Honours the teaching of the Prophet Jesus. (Peace be upon the good one!)"
Goethe is fascinated by Saadi's metaphor of the "fly in love" flying into the light where it dies as the image for the Sufi. See here especially the poem of the "Divan" about the butterfly flying into the light "Blissful yearning? whose earlier titles were "Sacrifice of the self" and "Perfection". In the chapter about Rumi, Goethe acknowledges the invocation of Allah and the blessing of it:
"Already the so-called mahometan rosary by which the name Allah is glorified with ninety-nine qualities is such a praise litany. Affirming and negating qualities indicate the inconceivable Being; the worshipper is amazed, submits and calms down."
As a young man Goethe wanted to study oriental studies - but his father finally wanted him to study law; he always admired the first travellers to Arabia, he was fascinated by it and read everything they published about their trips. In 1814 at the time of his "Divan" Goethe trained himself with the professors for oriental studies Paulus, Lorsbach and Kosegarten (Jena) in reading and writing Arabic. After looking at his Arabic manuscripts and having known about the Quran, Goethe felt a great yearning to learn Arabic. He copied short Arabic Duas by himself and wrote: "In no other language spirit, word and letter are embodied in such a primal way."
Goethe writes that he intends "to celebrate respectfully that night when the Prophet was given the Koran completely from above"
He also wrote: "No one may wonder about the great efficiency of the Book. That is why it has been declared as uncreated by real admirers" and added to it: "This book will eternally remain highly efficacious/effective"
Still today we have the handwritten manuscripts of his first intensive Quran-studies of 1772 and the later ones in the Goethe and Schiller-Archive in Weimar. Goethe read the German translation of Quran by J. v. Hammer (possibly as well from the more prosaic English translation of G. Sale) out loud in front of members of the Duke's family in Weimar and their guests. Being witnesses Schiller and his wife reported about the reading. Goethe always felt the shortcomings of all the translations (Latin, English, German and French) and was constantly looking for new translations. In his "Divan" Goethe says:
"Whether the Koran is of eternity?
I don't question that!...
That it is the book of books
I believe out of the muslim's duty."
He studied Arabic handbooks, grammars, travel-books, poetry, anthologies, books on the sira of the Prophet Muhammad - and had a widespread exchange with oriental scholars about these matters. Goethe liked the German translation of Hafis' "Diwan" by Hammer (May 1814) and studied the different translations of Quran of his time. All of this inspired him to write his own "West-stlicher Divan" and of course many poems of the "Divan" are clearly inspired by and relate to different Ayats of Quran Goethe bought original Arabic manuscripts of Rumi, Dschami, Hafis, Saadi, Attar, Quran-Tafsir, Duas, an Arabic-Turkish dictionary, texts on matters like the freeing of slaves, buying and selling, interest, usury and Arabian scripts from Sultan Selim.
Goethe considered it not to be a mere accident but rather as meaningful incidents, in fact as part of his decree and signs of Allah, when in Autumn 1813 he was brought an old Arabic handwritten manuscript from Spain by a German soldier coming from Spain which contained the last Surat An-Nas (114). Later Goethe tried to copy it himself with the help of the professors in Jena who had helped him in finding out the manuscript's content in January 1814 he visited a prayer of Bashkir Muslims from the Russian army of Zar Alexander in the protestant gymnasium of Weimar.
See the letter to Trebra where he says: "Speaking of prophecies, I have to tell you that there are things happening these days, which they would not have allowed a prophet to say. Who would have been allowed some years ago to say that there would be held a mahommedan divine service and the Suras of Koran would be murmured in the auditorium of our protestant gymnasium and yet it happened and we attended the Bashkir service, saw their Mulla and welcomed their Prince in the theatre. Out of special favour I was presented with a bow and arrows which for eternal memory I will hang above my chimney as soon as God has decreed a lucky return for them."
In a letter to his son August he adds: "Several religious ladies of us have asked for the translation of the Coran from the library." Goethe's positive attitude towards Islam goes far beyond anyone in Germany before: He published on 24.2.1816: "The poet... does not refuse the suspicion that he himself is a Muslim." In another poem of the "Divan" Goethe says:
"Stupid that everyone in his case
Is praising his particular opinion!
If Islam means submission to God,
We all live and die in Islam."
Apart from Goethe's - the poet's - fascination for the language of Quran, its beauty and sublimeness, he was mostly attracted by its religious and philosophical meaning: the unity of God, the conviction that God manifests in nature/creation is one of the major themes in Goethe's work. During his first intensive Quran-studies Goethe copied and partly put right the text of the first direct translation of the Quran from Arabic into German in 1772.
Goethe wrote down different Ayats of Quran which teach man how he should see nature in all its phenomena as signs of divine laws. The multiplicity of the phenomena indicates the One God. The relation towards nature as the Qur'an presents it connected with the teaching of the kindness and oneness of God - as Goethe writes it down from the Ayats of Sura No. 2 - became the main pillars on which Goethe's sympathy and affinity towards Islam was based. Goethe said we should realize "God's greatness in the small" - and refers to the Ayat of Surat Al-Baqara, vers 25 where the metaphor of the fly is given.
Goethe was very impressed about the fact that Allah speaks to mankind by prophets and thus he confirmed the prophet Muhammad: In 1819 Goethe writes (referring to Sura "Ibrahim", Ayat 4) "It is true, what God says in the Quran: We did not send a prophet to a people but in their language." Referring to the same Ayat Goethe repeats in a letter to Carlyle: "The Koran says: God has given each people a prophet in its own language."
Goethe affirmed the rejection of the unbelievers' challenge to the Prophet Muhammad - to show them miracles where he says:
"Wonders I can not do said the Prophet
The greatest miracle is that I am."
In "Mahomet" Goethe wrote the famous song of praise "Mahomets Gesang". The meaning of the prophet is put into the metaphor of the stream, starting from the smallest beginning and growing to be an immense spiritual power, expanding, unfolding, and gloriously ending in the ocean, the symbol for divinity. He especially describes the religious genius in carrying the other people with him like the stream does with small brooks and rivers. On a handwritten manuscript of the Paralipomena III, 31 of the "Divan" Goethe writes on the 27.1.1816:
"Head of created beings / Muhammed".
Furthermore that true religion is shown by good action. Here Goethe especially liked the action of giving Sadaqa, giving to the needy. In several poems of the Divan, "Buch der Sprche" Goethe speaks about "the pleasure of giving" / "See it rightly and you will always give" - which already in this life is full of blessings.
Goethe is also well known for his rejection of the concept of chance/accident: "What people do not and can not realize in their undertakings and what rules most obviously at its best where their greatness should shine - the chance as they call it later - exactly this is God, who here directly enters and glorifies Himself by the most trifling."
The increasingly firm belief in the decree of God and the verse of a Divan-poem: "If Allah had determined me to be a worm;/ He would have created me as a worm." and more "they [-examples of metaphors used in the Divan -] represent the wonderful guidance and providence coming out of the unexplorable, inconceivable decree of God; they teach and confirm the true Islam, the absolute submission to the will of God, the conviction, that no one may avoid his once assigned destiny." resulted in his personal attitude of submission under the will of God, i.e. Goethe saw it as an order to accept it thankfully and not to rebel against it.
A deeply moving example from his own life was his reaction to the accident of his coach when he started his third journey to Marianne von Willemer (July 1816), who he intended to marry after Christiane had died about which he felt extremly unhappy. Goethe took this as a clear warning not to pursue his wish anymore and completely refrained from his original intention. After that Goethe wrote: "And thus we have to remain inside Islam, (that means: in complete submission to the will of God)..."
He said: "I cannot tell you more than this that also here I try to remain in Islam."
When in 1831 the cholera appeared and killed many people he consoled a friend: "Here no one can counsil the other; each one has to decide on his own. We all live in Islam, whatever form we choose to encourage ourselves."
In December 1820 Goethe wrote thanks for the gift of a book of aphorisms of his friend Willemer and says: "It fits ... with every religious-reasonable view and is an Islam to which we all have to confess sooner or later."
As a participant in the war of 1792 against France Goethe said that this belief in the decree of God has its purest expression in Islam: "The religion of Mohammed gives the best proof of this."
According to Eckermann's conversations with Goethe the latter said to the first speaking about the education of the muslims by constantly seeing opposites in existence, therefore meeting doubt, close examination of a matter and thus finally arriving at certainty: "That philosophical system of the mohammedan people is an excellent measure which one can apply to oneself as well as to others in order to know on which station of spiritual virtue we actually are."
About the unity of Allah Goethe said: "The belief in the one God has always the effect to elevate the spirit because it indicates for man the unity within his own self."
Goethe tells about the difference between a prophet and a poet and the confirmation of Muhammad as a prophet:
"He is a prophet and not a poet and therefore his Koran is to be seen as a divine law and not as a book of a human being, made for education or entertainment."
--
Hassan:
You need to prove that all intelligent people love the Qur'an (quoting an article about Goethe does not equate to: "People who have higher intelligence all love the Holy Quran")
Rayback:
Ok. Ok. Some idiots love the Quran too.
Jesus !!
The point is that you will love it only if, with no preconceived ideas, you have carefully read a good translation [like Pickthall's] three times all the way.
Goethe hated it first time. First reading was dreadful.
The second time round, he liked some parts of it.
The poet was in love with the Quran by the time he finished it third time.
--
Rayback:
I would not compare myself to Goethe.
--
heartbomb:
Pickthall's translation:
Hell verily will encompass the disbelievers. On the day when the doom will overwhelm them from above them and from underneath their feet, and He will say: Taste what ye used to do!--29:54-55
Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10
Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18
A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90
If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88
ALL taken from the Pickthal translation. Don't believe me? Look it up. I thought you said the Quran didn't say that unbelievers go to hell?
-
Rayback:
For any thinking person, the first quote you have given
explains all the rest you have quoted.
Shades lady shades.
Take them off.
Heartbomb:
No, oh wise rayback. Please do explain. I want to hear your input on this.
Rayback:
Are you taking the piss !!
If so, then we can create a pissing topic and do it all there.
What has that got to do with this forum or Pickthall.
Like Hassan, you are not just messing around are you?
You are not going to flee me are you.
Heartbomb:
We have a life outside the forum.
Hassan has things to do today.
I should be studying, but I'm staying here and discussing with you.
I think the least you could do is appreciate that.
Rayback:
Jesus Christ !!
Did you misunderstand what I had written.
What has all that got to do with running away from a discussion.
We can debate something over a week or even months whenever we have free time.
I am not asking to stay here all the time. I dont do
that either. We can take our time and reply. Thats alright.
I myself only come here and bash the monkeys when I got nothing better to do.
I am asking if YOU are going to run away like Hasan did.
In the above statement I was talking about Hassan who run way few days AFTER starting a debate with me.
In fact, he dared me to a duel.
Go see the debate on Hell.
Hassan could not take the heat.
He ran like a hyena from the jungle.
Hassan:
I wouldn't waste your time with Rayback, Heartbomb, he is not interested in having an proper discussion, but only in being evasive and playing the joker.
Rayback:
Yes.
She is not a fool like you to challenge me to a exclusive debate and then run way.
She is a wise woman.
I got a suggestion for you:
Learn from the lady.
Hassan:
Yes, I was a fool - a fool to think you wanted a proper discussion.
I know now, you are just a troll. (and I doubt that you are even a Muslim).
Rayback:
You still dont know. Therefore, you are still a fool.
When you really know what you did, then you
will learn, and maybe become a little more mature.
----
Topic: The Vatican vs. Amnesty International
Heartbomb:
My Catholic friend thinks the Vatican has done way more for the world than Amnesty International.
Rayback:
Its true.
Amnesty International is only a talking shop.
Whereas the Pope has teeth.
His Holiness can bite.
--
Topic: Absurd Doubts
2009-05-08
I know you guys consider me an infidel.
But if I may, I would like to you an important question.
You people say you do not believe in religion.
You claim that you have left false beliefs.
You do not accept holy men, and have decided to follow scientists.
I want to know something from you.
What exactly do you doubt?
Please tell me as to what is it that you actually doubt.
-
Cheetah:
Who claimed that? Nobody "follows" science, its not a faith.
Rayback:
Come on, you know what I mean.
Scientists are more trusted to you than any Prophet or holy man.
Right?
Cheetah: Wrong. Scientists tend to produce evidence for their claims, holy people don't. And like any sensible person I doubt anything that has no evidence to back its claims, whether its said by a scientist or a priest/imam.
Rayback:
Dont you think its better to presume innocence until proven guilty.
You are on a path of cruelty, Cheetah.
--
Rayback:
Can we please get back to the original question I asked?
Hassan said he doubts the existence of Hell. That's his number one doubt.
Perhaps the gentleman has a problem with the concept of severe punishment.
Our other member, Variable, asked about Joseph Smith.
Well, I think it is not nice to call any man a liar until you are sure that he is lying. I think thats common sense. Cheetah is cruel to convict people without proving them guilty.
Homer asked about drinking holy water to cure a disease.
It think, if any you were "convinced" that a glass did contained holy water, then you too would drink it for your illness than trust man-made remedies.
--
heartbomb :
I'd very much like to know what your doubts are, Rayback. I'm very curious.
Rayback:
Ok.
I doubt the integrity of bad scientists like Richard Dawkins.
They are fanatics worse than religious fanatics.
By the way, nice name kid.
-
Rayback:
Osmanthus, fanantic religious scholars tend to exploit uneducated people and hence brainwash them with their own interpretations that are quite contrary to the original teachings of their God or Holy men.
Bad scientists also manipulate people who are gullible and program them into accepting certain ideas that are opposite to actual findings of science.
For example, a top genetic expert in South Korea was arrested for faking research and passing it on to his students as genuine discoveries.
MrSilly:
...the existence of Hell ranks top...
I'll offer my second biggest source of doubt, and that is regarding destiny (or 'qadr') and judgement. If God is an all-knowing creator, then he knows exactly what each of his creations will do, even before he has created them (thus the notion of destiny). But if the purpose of life on earth is to be judged in the afterlife, then the all-knowing creator did not need to bother with creation, since he already knows the outcome. Likewise, if he is all-knowing, and creator of all, then he created and thus determined what each of his creations would do in their lives. This makes the whole notion of creation with subsequent judgement nonsensical.
Rayback:
Brilliantly put.
I doubt such a scenario as well.
It does not make sense at all.
Aliadiere:
I doubt the integrity of pseudo scientists who have actually studied fine arts who pretend to be knowledgable about biology and evolution. Anyway, the first major doubt that i had has already been mentioned - the concept of predestination. In about 2005, it started to puzzle me and I bought a book from the Islamic Propagation Centre (an accurate name for the business), and I read the book and it still puzzled me and didn't make much sense. I asked someone about these ayat: 2:6-7 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
Rayback:
Some Atheists also accuse religious people of being stubborn. There is whole debate here on the subject. They claim that no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to some religious fanatics, they are so brainwashed that they will never leave their delusions.
Its a fair criticism. And it is a true observation. Some religious nutters are totally closed off.
That criticism is exactly what the verse is making about some Atheists: That no matter how good the reason, or, even if they were shown a divine miracle, they would dismiss it as a trick, and reject all reasonable arguments.
After a certain number of chances given to them to use or abuse their God given-intellect, God says that as a punishment He has sealed their mind. They will now burn in Hell.
I also do not accept predestination. But you have to ask is that what is being presented in the verses?
Honest thinkers would never have double standards in evaluating things.
Any serious researcher should use their intellect to its best capacity and not follow what suits their wishes and desires.
If a person is not truly objective then he will only hear whatever he LIKES to hear.
Truth never fits the biased.
-
Variable :
So then you don't doubt Joe Smith? If you have any doubts about Joe Smith, you're cruel. By your own criteria. In any case, you have written "Are you afraid to debate?". You're not really debating. You ask people these questions to stir them up, but don't come back with any thing of substance. You give these half answers that don't mean anything.
Rayback:
The "substance" does not go down your throat well. Your last sentence is witness to that fact.
I think you fear the "stir" because your boat is not stable.
People like Variable are afraid they might get crucified.
You asked about Mr Smith. I have no reason to doubt him. I have herd bad things about him, but thats all hearsay. God demands that we do not base our decisions on hearsay. That would be unfair. Therefore, until I study the gentleman, I have to assume he is innocent.
Osmanthus:
Variable has nailed that one nicely. I'm willing to bet that rayback will completely avoid that point about his own "cruelty". I also agree that rayback is not debating in any meaningful sense of the word. Someone who stood by a sig like his would be willing to clearly state their position up front and then deal what whatever was thrown at them. So far he's been as reticent as he possibly could be while still getting people to pay attention to him. He's not debating. He's simply trolling.
Rayback:
Me and you both know that most people are incapable of having a serious debate. This is a fact.
That is why the fleas flee.
Its take bottle to battle.
--
MrSilly:
You said: I also do not accept predestination. But you have to ask is that what is being presented in the verses?
Do you believe that Allah is all-knowing and the creator of all? Simple yes or no. If Allah is all-knowing, then he knows the exact narrative of each of his creations, even before he has created them. Within Islamic scholarship, it is described how Allah recorded everything that will happen on Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuud. If Allah is the creator of all, then everything he creates is according to what he already knows they will do throughout their life. This is the philosophical framework of destiny (or 'qadr'). Just think, Allah created you in the knowledge of your entire life narrative. He therefore created this narrative. He destined you to do exactly what you are doing in this life. If it is already known and decided what you are going to do in your life before you are created, where exactly is the free will? So why do you not accept predestination? Do you not believe that Allah is all-knowing and the creator of all? If you don't, then our work is done,
because you are therefore not a Muslim because you deny the existence of Allah.
Rayback:
This is a big issue and requires another a topic on its own.
However, to give you a simple reply, knowing does not mean determining. These are two different things, if you can see that.
You made a lot of unnecessary conclusions. You were incapable of, or, unwilling to see other possibilities.
I think our member coolred38 has spotted the fallacy of your objection.
-
osmanthus:
Ah. Bold text. That's a great debating technique. It adds so much more validity to your points. By the way, I notice you're still not responding with anything of substance. You're trolling for sure.
Rayback:
I think that is a matter of opinion.
One man's substance is another man's bullshit.
I think you can see that. I have faith in you.
By the way, I used bold not to boldify the "nails" - they are excruciating enough in themselves - but rather only to make the answers distinct from the questions.
--
Rayback:
One member quoted these words of God: Quran, chapter 3:54 says:
"and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers"
If you have any brain left inside your head, then you can see to whom it refers.
It clearly says God deceives the deceivers.
What your problem with that.
They deserve to be mislead and thrown in Hell.
Did you expect God to give dishonest people pancakes?
-
Shaneequa :
rayback, are you a fundamentalist Muslim?
Rayback:
Not at all.
-
Rayback:
While you ladies talk about pancakes, may I reply to a remark by the silly gentleman:
MrSilly said: I agree totally with your statement. The issue is that Allah is all knowing and the creator of all. This in combination means that Allah determines the narrative of his creations. If you belive that Allah is all-knowing and the creator of it, it is the logical conclusion, and since the all-knowing and all-creating nature of Allah are absolute, then it is an absolute conclusion. Tell enlighten me as to what the "other possibilites" are. I'd be thrilled to hear your "absurd doubts" on this matter
Rayback:
Some on Silly.
Predestination is a deep subject.
I mean its deeeeeep.
A dive in the Ocean is out of the question for people like you.
You dont even like getting your feet wet in a puddle.
--
Jack Torrance:
Ah but doesn't your gang believe that 'your' God made man in the same image as himself - which would include vengeance for vengeance sake - and 'your' God is pretty good at retribution too.
Rayback:
Did you expect God to give dishonest and evil people pancakes?
Shaneequa:
....but do you see the problem with this? It is saying that your god is no better than men.
Rayback:
Since when can you "see".
Normal thinking people love it when God kicks ass a lot better than men can ever manage.
You want a Teddy Bear of a God, who lets you off whatever wrong and sin you commit on Earth.
Sorry, that type does not exist except in your illogical head.
The Real Supreme Being is a God who is Merciful to good people and Punisher to evil mothers.
He has designed Hell just for people like you. If you mess up here, then prepare to be burned. No mercy for evil wrong doers.
Anway, I thought I should do a new Hell topic for those sad souls who will end up in Firel.
Who will Burn in Hell
-
Shaneequa :
There is hell. And God is all-powerful....but he is not a man that he should lie. If your god can lie, that disqualifies him from being God.
Rayback:
Who said God can lie?
You assume too much.
-
Rayback:
Be happy with your pancakes while you have that chance here.
Because as they say:
Hell hath no pancakes.
--
J4m3z:
Is God justified in deceiving deceivers exactly because they did the same act before God did it? If so, does that mean I can kill the child of the murderer of my child?
Rayback:
The child is innocent, why on earth would you want to punish an innocent human being.
God punishes only the guility.
He is not like you to take His wrath on innocent people who had nothing to do with the crime.
God is Just.
God says He deceives the deceivers.
People like you want to deceives the mother of the deceviers.
Poor innocent woman being targeted by Atheists.
--
Shaneequa:
You guys, I want to talk to rayback. Let me talk to rayback.
Rayback:
What do you want to talk about?
As you know this is not a private topic.
I started it for everyone.
If you knew the opening remark, you will see that I asked every member to give an example of something in which they have real doubt.
It can be seen that most doubts that Atheist harbour in their heart are mostly silly and absurd doubts.
They are not real logical doubts. They have no validity.
Atheists are deluded by their unreasonable doubts.
Its tragic and ironic.
--
heartbomb :
My doubts lie in the fact that you're not who you say you are
Rayback:
If we ever meet, you can touch me and be assured that I am real.
You doubting Thomas.
Sojournerlumus:
I don't doubt anything - doubt does not even enter my lexicon in any way shape or form, except to wonder who you are and what you are. Twinkle, twinkle, little star?
Rayback:
You dont doubt anything?
Now thats pretty good. You must have a very clear head.
And what you mean who am I.
Ok.
Let me introduce myself:
I'm Rayback....
Hi there.
--
heartbomb :
Well according to that logic, god isn't real
Rayback:
You can touch me
You cant touch God
I can touch you
Just allow me
God will touch thee
Just make thyself worthy
--
heartbomb:
My boyfriend has saved several lives, and by that I mean he has saved them from DYING.
He is an atheist. He hasn't been touched by god. What makes you more worthy than him?
Rayback:
I dont know your boyfriend. He seems a good guy.
If I talk to him, then maybe I could give you an answer.
Maybe your boyfriend does not like God to touch him?
For example,
A girl may be worthy of being touched, but if she is bent lesbo,
then no matter how good she is, no matter how many lives she saves,
it is obvious that no man will touch her because she is not interested in men.
One has to be interested in God instead of monkeys.
The Supreme Being does not force himself on anyone.
God is not a rapist.
That should be sufficient for a thinking lady like you.
--
J4m3z:
If a man was rejected by a lesbian and he later kidnapped her, burnt her skin off and then gave her new skin and repeated the same thing over and over again, simply because she was not interested in him... that kind of reduces his chances of being morally perfect.
Rayback:
I agree with you. I have said that before.
God would not do that.
You assume too much against the Almighty.
Maybe its due to prejudice?
heartbomb :
This is heartbombs boyfriend. I have always been open to new ideas and religions and have looked into more than a few. I like the complexity of the stories and the idea that someone is watching over us, to protect us and to guide us. However i find it to be just not true. It's not that im not open there is just nothing there. No one has ever proven god to me and faith is ignorance. Not that i would ever praise the man who designed this world.
Rayback:
There you go. That bold bit says it about you.
You are an art critic only interested in your own greatness.
You think YOU can judge God's design of the universe for its aesthetic value?
Whoa.
You are one "Hell" of a critic.
[smile]
Dont take it personally Mr boyfriend.
--
J4m3z:
You mean God doesn't send anyone to hell after they die?
Rayback:
Oh He does.
Hell is no joke.
When did I say God does not send anyone to Hell.
That would make the creation of Hell a useless exercise.
God does nothing useless.
Heartbomb:
Not aesthetic value, moral. Anyone who has the power to stop all of the evil in the world and doesn't is worth nothing to me. I see him as a man that watches a rape and does nothing. I don't mean to insult you its just my view.
Rayback:
Does nothing?
Oh I see.
You mean you too now want that rapist to burn in Hell?
How nice.
I think you and me a lot more in common than meets the eye.
I knew it.
You are indeed a good man.
I could feel the force flow through you.
[grin]
By the way, you did not insult me. You spoke honestly.
Good luck.
-
heartbomb :
My boyfriend is away at the moment, will be back to reply to you soon. But I must add that I can see why you believe the Qur'an (or whatever holy book you supposedly follow). You obviously take whatever meaning you want out of what's written down to fit your agenda.
Rayback:
Thanks. Dont we all do that?
God has given me that right.
He has also given you the right to do with your life as you see fit.
Me and you will one day stand before Him and account for our actions in this life.
There is no escaping from that Supreme Court.
heartbomb:
The punishment must fit the crime. And yes if there is a hell some people deserve to be there, but few.
Rayback:
How many and of what type?
What should happen to rapists?
Heartbomb:
God has given rights (supposedly) to do with you as you see fit, but then punishes you for it...he is not benevolent, he is not powerful,
Rayback:
Do you think God punishes you just for having some rights?
You need to sleep. Give that brain a bit of rest.
Maybe then you will think a bit more clearly.
--
J4m3z:
rayback, You mean God doesn't send anyone to hell after they die? But I thought that people in hell were tortured and one of the punishments is that a person's skin will be burnt off and then will be given new skin so that they can re-suffer the pain, and again and again for ever. Is that not true?
Rayback:
Why dont you answer the question:
When did I say God does not send anyone to Hell.
J4m3z :
Oh, sorry, I didn't see a question mark.. Well, actually... you can work out what my answer is from my reply... Oh well I'll put it simply: When I used the thought experiment of a man torturing a lesbian because she rejected him, I was trying to compare the man's actions to God's actions. That is, the man was replicating the kind of torture that somebody who went to hell would suffer. To this you replied that God would never do anything similar to the man in my example would do because God isn't cruel like that. I was confused because God clearly does do things to people who reject him which are even worse than what the man in my thought experiment did; that is, he sends them to hell. That is why I asked doesn't God send anyone to hell after they die?
Rayback:
Yes, but the question I asked is when did I say God sends you to Hell for simply rejecting Him?
--
heartbomb:
I just got tired of your condescending tone and decided it would be more productive to talk to a pancake than to talk to you.
Rayback:
And your tone is quite insulting. Yet I put up with you.
If you dont like my tone, than indeed let pancake be your challenger.
Easy target.
I suspect you have a good chance of winning against one.
--
Shaneequa:
Hi Rayback, Have you always been a Muslim?
Rayback:
Nope.
I started to use my brain to think and, therefore, I opened my eyes.
I converted.
Its the only rational way.
Atheism is absurdism. You can tell from these, and other debates.
-
heartbomb:
And you say my tone is insulting. Let's not make this petty, I'd like to think you're better than that (even though I have my doubts).
Rayback:
Alright. Agreed.
You are a nice woman.
You have a good boyfriend.
Hmm...
You two remind me of the verse in the Quran:
"God decrees nice girls for nice men. And good men for good ladies."
--
Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment.
--
Anyway,
A more brutal verse on the next page said:
Bitches deserve dogs. And dogs deserve bitches.
Sorry.
Sometimes God can say some very hard things as well.
In society we can see His decrees being fulfilled.
--
heartbomb:
Ah, of course, the Qur'an would not be complete without it's brutality.
-
Thats right.
Full Justice would never be complete without a place of Ultimate Penatly.
HELL !!!!
We cant deny reality.
One can run but one cannot hide.
Day of Accountability is coming closer and closer with every breath.
Im sorry to remind everyone but,
Every beat of the heart is a step closer to death.
There is no escape.
Scientists cannot help you here.
--
heartbomb:
Are you a good human being because you are afraid of hell, or are you a good human being because you empathize with people and don't want to hurt them?
Rayback:
I dont fear hell.
I love you because God has placed your love in my heart.
I love people for being creatures of my creator.
We are one family.
I dont see you as different than me.
You are me.
It pains me to see you hurt.
--
An example for Atheists who cannnot comprehend the above bit:
Its like you love your brother because he is comes from your mother.
You are your brother.
--
heartbomb:
Next question: Do you live your life by the teachings of the Qur'an AND Hadith? Or just the Qur'an?
-
Rayback:
Neither.
No book should dictate anyone's life.
Its an absurd idea.
-
How do you define your morals?
-
Come on girl, whats with all this questioning.
We are drifting away from the subject.
People will accuse us of hijacking the topic.
Your questions are deep and worthy of discussions.
You've got a good head screwed on your shoulders.
--
heartbomb:
Why don't you answer the question, and if someone wants to object to my words, then we will take it from there
-
Oh Boy.
You are one tough cookie.
Ok.
I get my morals from my bird.
She teaches me everything of importance.
-
Your bird?
Do you think it's wrong that the Qur'an says non believers will go to hell?
--
I never said Quran says that. You say it. You read it like that.
There is nothing that is wrong in the Quran.
Its your biased reading that makes you see things wrongly.
-
heartbomb:
My parents read Arabic fluently and understand it. They have read it in it's Arabic form. Also, many members of this forum can read and understand Arabic, and can back me up that the Qur'an in fact does say that.
Rayback:
So, you yourself have not read the Quran, have you.
That's ok.
You are relying and basing your judgement on
someone else's readings of it. Even if they be hostile to it.
At least you are honest.
-
heartbomb:
Which translation do you follow and do you read/understand Arabic fluently?
By the way, my first sentence claimed that MY PARENTS read and understand Arabic fluently. My parents are still Muslim.
-
Rayback:
Did you read it with shades on or shades off.
I gave research by top German poet Goethe on a debate on Quran:
Understanding the Qur’an: literary forms and style
He had his shades on during his first reading of the Quran
When he took them off third time around.
Wow. Light was too brilliant for him.
Goethe bowed down before the Holy Book.
You see,
Shades protect you against harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun.
And they make you look cool.
However,
Shades do not protect you from making wrong and harmful assumptions about people or about God.
Yellow looks blue and red looks green.
Maybe you didnt know what fact.
-
heartbomb:
You didn't answer my question.
Do you or do you not know how to read Arabic and understand it fluently?
If not, which version (translation) of the Qur'an do you read and accept?
-
Oh sorry. I thought I had told you.
Pickthall.
-
Most Atheists are known for their flights.
It is illogical to run from any debate you participate in, especially the one which you started.
Fleeing is both unintellectual and unmanly.
But what would monkeys know about either of these two things.
They need a bit more time to evolve before they are in a position to comprehend human matters.
--
heartbomb:
I have taken the rest of this Quran related debate to the Understanding the Quran topic.
-
Well done.
Finally !!!
Now can we move back to the topic?
Absurd doubts that Atheist hold in their silly heads.
Do you guys really consider that all your doubts are genuine and vallid.
Or, do you think some of them are actually quite trivial and stupid.
Honest and important doubts are acceptable.
But ill-thought suspicions are not good.
One should not live their life in such a manner.
What do you think.
-
heartbomb:
Being a skeptic does not make one absurd, curiosity is not a sin.
-
Suspicion, generally, is not wrong.
But sometimes it is.
Have you heard the saying: Curiosity killed the cat.
What do you think a wrong suspicion can do to your relationship.
Wreckage
-
heartbomb:
If there is no real reason for me to believe in a god, since I am already a good human being, and I have not seen evidence to prove the existence of god, I do not need him in my life.
Curiosity killed the cat? I'm still alive and thriving!
-
You dont need God today.
Ok. Thats fine.
Do you think you might need Him one day?
-
heartbomb:
Do you need god? I thought you got all your morals from your bird?
-
Rayback:
Thats a question.
I need an answer.
You are a girl.
Dont be evasive.
Thats men's fifth prerogative.
Didnt your boyfriend tell you that.
-
heartbomb:
I find that very insulting. I hope that you retract that comment as it has very little relevance to the debate whether I am a man or a woman.
Rayback:
Only a boy would find it insulting.
You are not her boyfriend are you?
If you are, then your evasiveness is acceptable.
-
J4m3z:
This debate has no substance. It reminds me of a very abstract dream I have where work of some sort is being done by a small space, but it is petty work and then a giant space works and it works efficiently, and you can compare the works of each.
heartbomb:
My approach to rayback may be different to yours, and if it is not exciting enough for you to read, then don't. You are free to pose your own questions to rayback, and I will do likewise.
-
J4m3z :
Can I ask a question? "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
-
Rayback:
That is another hijacking of the topic question.
It belongs in another debate.
-
Where is my critcism of the list of logical fallacies?
Where is it gone?
I gave evidence that this list is incomplete.
I suggested an addition which Atheists refuse to include in the fallacy list.
-
Cheetah:
Your post was moved here because it was off topic. Don't hijack debates, please.
Rayback:
Yes, thank you.
You have moved this post which is about the earlier remarks I had made.
Where is the missing post I wrote last week on the Logical Fallacies debate?
Can you also please bring that post so we can all discuss it here.
I know you did not like to see it in the other topic.
--
J4m3z:
You said to heartbomb: You need to sleep. Give that brain a bit of rest. Maybe then you will think a bit more clearly.
Seriously rayback, your debating etiquette is rancid! Where is your manners?
Rayback:
I love her. And, as you know, its all fair in love and war.
Since most monkeys do not know anything about manners,
one has to reply in their own language.
But she is fine. She knows how to talk.
She is a good woman on the inside. Cant you tell?
-
Rayback:
By the way, sorry for replying so late to you.
I was in the middle of doing her, and, therefore, did not notice your well intended criticism of me.
Sometimes, these sessions - I mean discussions, can be intense.
One has to concentrate on the other whom one values if one wishes to get anywhere.
-
heartbomb:
Okay, so we have members of this forum that have read the Qur'an in Arabic and are aware of what is written in it. So how can you say they are ignorant about what is in it?
-
Rayback:
Reading and understanding are two different things.
I think that much should be obvious to everyone.
You can train a monkey to read Shakespeare, but I think you would still call the primate ignorant of its contents.
Similarly, most Atheists basic lack comprehension skills due to their low intellect and their clear bias against logic.
-
[Rayback was challeneged by Hassan to one to noe debate on brutality of Hell as a punishment:]
Topic:
Hell; Just or Unjust & Excessively Cruel Punishment?
Hassan said:
OK, Rayback.
I say Hell is an excessively cruel and unjust punishment.
For God to keep people alive so that they can be made to suffer agonising pain over and over, because God Himself failed to provide undeniable proof of his existence (let alone undeniable proof that Islam is true) is quite clearly an excessively cruel and unjust punishment. (and that's putting it mildly)
What say you Rayback?
Rayback:
To you Hell might be excessive, but to another person it might be just the penalty that a particular dude deserves.
Hassan:
btw that is not an answer.
You need to prove that Hell is indeed a Just punishment and not excessively cruel - and that God is Just as you claimed.
Who would deserve such a punishment?
Hassan:
I will make it more clear:
Like I said, perhaps to you no person on Earth can ever deserves to be thrown in Hell.
But I think if you were to ask around in society, even Atheists will tell you, that although they do not believe in Hell, they too think that some nasty people need to burn in the Fire.
I have asked my Atheist friends at the University about the concept of Hell.
They denied existence of Hell.
However, when pressed, they most of them admitted that Hell would indeed be a fitting end for certain few individuals who had carried out unimaginable crimes.
Obviously, you dont agree with them.
Thats your choice.
Therefore, you calling it "unfair" does not make it unfair.
You are not the only judge.
The Supreme Court has 9 Honourable Judges.
That was no sarcasm. This is a serious debate, so far.
Cheetah: So what kind of crimes deserve Hell then?
Rayback:
No cheating cheetah.
You are good, but let Hassan brush his skills here. He specifially requested this topic.
The boy is young and passionate. He has a bright future in the arena.
I think its his favourite stick with which he beats the deluded religious fanatics.
Cheetah: Hassan already asked you the same question and you didn't answer it.
Rayback:
The question is subjective.
I have said in so some many words.
One man's villain is another man's hero.
But you guys want to force your stuff only.
Im only saying be open minded.
Dont close your brain.
-
Rayback:
Ok.
Hassan's words are in quotes.
My replies in bold black.
"What so and so says or doesn't say is not evidence."
Exactly. Your claim does not make Hell an unjust penalty.
"The evidence that it is unjust and cruel are very clear."
They are not. To many others they are wishful thinking.
"It is not simply my opinion, but the conclusion of reason, logic, and justice."
Yes. Indeed. It is a conclusion of YOUR reasoning. It is NOT a conclusion of everyone's reasoning. There is no concensus on this issue.
"First of all Justice:
It is not justice to punish someone for something that is not their fault, namely not believing."
I totally agree. It would be cruel to burn an innocent person.
Hell is only for those who are at fault.
"Belief is subjective."
Bingo.
It is YOUR belief that Hell is excessive.
"There is no undeniable evidence of God and there is no undeniable evidence Islam is true."
Hassan. Please dont go all over the place. Read the title of your own debate.
If you wish to talk about God then I dont mind. But lets finish this, shall we?
"Therefore an unbeliever cannot be blamed for not believing."
Unless he deliberately closed his eyes to the truth.
"Secondly Excessive punishment.
An infinite torture for a finite "crime" is bad enough (even if they were rapists, mass murderers etc...) But infinite torture for not believing in something that is not undeniably clear is excessive."
I agree with you.
A just God would not burn anyone for simply not having believed in their life on Earth.
"You will not find any Supreme Court Judges ruling that even the worst rapist be tortured for the rest of his life. (Unless perhaps in a despotic country)."
Look again. You will find such penalties handed out.
"God's punishment is far worse than that - he does not just let them die - or punish them untill they die.
He keeps them alive forever! So they can be tortured in agnoy for ever.
Hell is both unjust and excessive.
If you wish to disprove that, you need to bring more evidence than what so an so says.
Show me how it is Just?
Show me how it is not excessive?"
What will "show it" to you?
Most intelligent people, including reasonable Atheists, do not say it is excessive. They say its fair for certain nasty people.
You claiming that Hell is an unjust place to which NO ONE deserve to go is a value judgement. It is not an objective argument. Other judges disagree. They prefer Hell remain opened. Hassan clearly doesnt.
-
Rayback: I totally agree. It would be cruel to burn an innocent person.
Hell is only for those who are at fault.
Cheetah: And who are those people? What faults deserve eternal punishment in Hell?
Rayback:
Some major screw ups.
Each Judge on the Supreme Court would decide those for himself.
Cheetah: Why can't you answer the question? Its a very simple question - what kind of wrongdoing deserves eternal punishment in Hell?
Rayback:
Like I said, this is Hassan's topic.
He was desperate to get Hell out of the way.
So please, just sit back, have some popcorn, and watch him "rip me".
Cheetah: Like I said Hassan already asked you this question and you failed to answer. What's the problem, anyway - its a very simple question. Anyone who believes in Hell and has a mental age greater than 12 has some idea of what crimes Hell is used to punish. Are you perhaps ashamed to answer the question because you know your answers will sound pathetic to a skeptical audience?
Rayback:
I have given an answer.
You simply missed it. Cheetah.
Anyway, BerberElla.
Im only indulging Hassan, because he said he was serious about discussing this subject properly.
Obviously, it has been on his mind.
And I would not run away from debate, especially from a nice guy like Hassan who simply asked to talk about our respective beliefs about Hell.
Cheetah: You didn't give an answer, you gave a meaningless response which evaded the question.
Rayback: I did answer.
You didn't get its meaning which is why it was meaningless to you.
IsLame asked: Rayback, I must have missed it, but what religion do you believe in?
Rayback: Hell.
BerberElla: I will wait until he has realised that before I rip you to you pieces.
Rayback: You are gonna give me Hell?
Oh no.
I think its time for me to start repenting.
Cheetah can be so sunny sometimes.
Thats why I like the animal.
Glen said: If it holds that Hell is subjective and those who deseve to go there is a matter of personal opinion, then so too must be the same for heaven, and who deserves to go there. If something is so subjective, so that any meaning can be bent to its cause, it doesnt really mean anything at all does it?
Rayback:
Good attempt there Glen.
You show an ability to reason.
You would be right, if, as you rightly said: "if" Hell itself was subjective.
However,
Hell is not subjective.
But who actually deserves to go there and for how long is.
That is what we are discussing.
Can I request you guys not to aid Hassan.
The boy has shown promise to take care of himself.
Allow him to win the battle by himself.
He seems a good sport.
Glen: lol ok smarty pants just replace my reasoning with 'who goes there' instead and voila!!! lol who goes to hell and heaven are subjective concepts (and actually you might find hell and heaven are subjective, out of this little topic discussion...) that are so far apart in different peoples views that you cant define who goes where in a concrete way,
all i know is ill see you in hell.... lol
Rayback: Thank you Glen. You are a smart man.
BerberElla: Hell is subjective. Each religion sets it out differently, people have different imaginations so their image of hell will be a personal one, so of course hell itself is subjective.
Rayback:
You promised to take me to the hot place.
We might be convinced otherwise once we get there.
Quote from: hassan
Sorry my friend, but you can't avoid this question as it is CENTRAL to the argument over whether Hell can be called in any way Just.
If there is no undeniable evidence for God or Islam then no-one can be blamed for not believing in God or Islam.
Therefore God's punishment is unjust.
Reply:
Hassan, make up your mind, are we discussing your chosen subject or not?
Read the title of your own debate again to help you remember what the topic is.
Quote from: hassan
Are you saying that the unbeliever really knows that Islam is true, but pretends he doesn't believe it?
And as I asked you before (but you keep avoiding) are you saying that an unbeliever deliberately chooses to be tortured for eternity in Hell rather than enjoying an eternity of bliss?
Reply:
Please. Do bother to read the replies properly.
I did say that it would indeed be unfair to burn anyone simply for not believing in something.
Quote from: hassan
That's not what the Qur'an says.
The Qur'an clearley says that those who don't believe will be burnt in Hell.
Reply:
I would say that you didnt read the book properly. There is your problem.
I suggest you take those shades off when reading any book, let alone the very words of God.
It is the shades that will take you to Hell.
They can only protect you from the sun for a while.
Quote from: hassan
LOL... enough with these claims! Even if it was relevant, (which it is NOT, since what most people say is not proof that it is true.)
unless you can show me actual evidence of what most people say then your claims are meaningless.
Reply:
You say what most people say is not proof; and yet you want evidence of what most people say?
BerberElla:
I fixed your quotes, the way you laid it out is confusing.
Use the quote feature, or type out:
Code: [quote] your text in the middle [/quote]
Rayback:
Thanks. You are too kind.
But, dont you be fixing other things of mine.
You are a dangerous woman.
IsLame: What religion do you believe in? Does anyone know why he is avoiding answering this question, or at least tell me what religion he believes in as he wont tell me himself?
Rayback: Islame boy, Cant you take a hint.
I have answered your question.
You just dont accept the answer.
Its a hell of a religion.
IsLame: I dont understand why you are avoiding answering this simple question. If you are embarrassed to admit your beliefs, then you should really stop believing in it? Let me ask in a different way. Different people find different religions appealing. Which one do you find appeals to you the most?
Rayback:
I find Hell very a appealing concept.
Even more appealing to me are the 73 beautiful virgins lined up on the other side.
I do not let into my heart anything I am ashamed of.
I am very proud of my beliefs.
I love the heavenly ladies; and I praise the Supreme Being who created Hell as a deserving punishment for evil men.
Hassan: OK, Rayback, I'm getting the impression you are playing a game with me. But I will try again - I will only ask you 2 questions - I would really appreciate a clear and direct answer. You said:
"Hell is only for those who are at fault... ...he deliberately closed his eyes to the truth."
1. Are you saying that the unbeliever believes that Islam is true, but deliberately pretends he doesn't believe it?
2. Are you saying that an unbeliever deliberately chooses to be tortured for eternity in Hell rather than enjoying an eternity of bliss?
---
Rayback:
Hassan, you think I'm playing a game.
Dont you think we need to clear that before we carry on.
-
[ no reply]
-
13 May 2009:
I think its safe to say that my challenger Hassan has fled from the battle field.
Nearly all Atheists flee at the end.
---
J4m3z:
Eternal hellfire is, by definition, an excessive punishment. Whether excessive punishment is cruel or not, I guess you can discuss, but I guessing the majority of people in the world would say that excessive punishment is cruel because it is excessive.
Rayback:
I dont think so. Polls show otherwise.
Majority of people in the world accept Hell and say its a "just end" for those who "deserve" it.
Also, what is excessive to one might be fair to another.
This is a subjective call.
Similiarly, cruel.
Frying the brain of a convict on an electric chair in Alabama may be cruel to you.
But the Judge who passed the sentence, and most Americans, as well as relatives of the victim, say its not cruel at all.
So, you cant prove "badness" of Hell from your personal "feelings".
You have to bear in mind that other people also feelings that might be different than yours.
But you made a good attempt J4m3z.
At least you know how to talk in a civilised way.
Most Atheists simply dont know how to debate. Thats why they run away and make all sort of excuses.
-
J4m3z:
It is not excessive by definition because a poll says so?
There is something deeply wrong there.
Rayback:
I didnt say that.
You did not read my reply carefully.
I said polls disgree with you when you say "most people" say its excessive.
Any thinking person knows that polls cannot define what is and is not excessive.
Thats common sense.
--
J4m3z:
I never said most people say it is excessive, I said it is excessive by definition.
Rayback:
May I remind of what you had said:
J4m3z: “Eternal hellfire is, by definition, an excessive punishment. Whether excessive punishment is cruel or not, I guess you can discuss, but I guessing the majority of people in the world would say that excessive punishment is cruel because it is excessive. In which case, Muslims as well as many other religious believers have to do a lot of re-thinking. This is why I think eternal hell is excessive by definition.”
Rayback:
Basically you claimed that Hell is terrible and muslims need to rethink BECAUSE most people in the world agree say so.
It is you who need to conduct a proper poll.
It is you that needs to remember your own claims.
The fact is that the "majority of people" DISAGREE with you.
You are imagining a survey that supports you.
---
Rayback:
He thinks muslims need to ditch Hell because "majority of the people" in the world would be against the idea of Hell as a punishment.
Well, thats is not the case.
Majority of the people on Earth love the idea of Hell.
Most people like to see Hitler burn forever and ever.
He burned 6 million Jews. So why shouldnt he go to Hell.
It seems to me that you guys have neither sympathy for Nazi victims nor sense of justice.
Most people rightly think that Nazis were evil for killing Jews.
They like the nasty people to burn in it forever and ever.
--
Are you guys Holocaust deniers?
How can you say that Nazis dont deserve to go to Hell?
--
Topic: Why I love Heaven
May 06, 2009
Whether you are going to heaven or going to hell, thats none of my business.
I dont want to change your course.
Go where ever you want to go.
Me?
Im going to enjoy 73 beautiful virgins on the other side.
Polygamy is allowed in Paradise; on a mass scale.
Thats my road to Eternal Pleasure.
I hope you dont mind me heading that way?
At the moment Im not done my university studies. These are pain in the arse. But one has to get educated and earn a living.
However, university life is good. Its very nice. Some very pretty things to enjoy with my time while I am here. I can only thank God for that. He so looks afters the needs of men.
Fell free to ask me anything you like. I am a very open minded person. I can tolerate anything you throw at me.
I love free speech and currently I am running for president of students union.
-
Q: How come you get an extra virgin?
Rayback:
I dont.
Most people get one less.
-
I just love having 73 chicks around me.
I dont think any man would really mind that kind of situation.
Since, I cant have them all here, I guess I would have to wait till I enter that gate.
What good would eternity be without women?
It would be pretty boring if there were no virgins to enjoy.
So, God being so considerate, knows what men really like.
Thats why He has booked everything for me in advance.
-
There will be no jealousy in Heaven.
If your wife makes it there, then she can remain with you, provided you two were lovers in this life.
Otherwise, she can would get a handsome hunk as a new husband forever. A real man.
I think she might be given to someone who had loved her in this life. A secret admirer, who couldnt get her in this life.
God is to Merciful to everyone. Everyone who is heading there.
The rest of you will a big stick up shoved up while your ass is on fire.
-
BerberElla:
Of course you can not prove from any of the islamic texts that anything you said above is even true. There are no hadiths that talk of women getting a hunk of a man, or a secret admirer.
rayback:
What did you think 73 virgins are for?
I thought this is all common sense.
You didnt really think that women would be turned into nuns and handed prayers beads?
There is no celibacy in Heaven.
God did not create males and females only to order them to suppress their desires.
That would have been cruel.
Creator is compassionate. Humans are passionate.
Ladies and Gentlemen, all get to fulfill their fantacies in Heaven.
Pleasure is one of the best rewards we look forward to.
I just cant wait to get my hands on 73 of the most beautiful virgins in the galaxy.
-
She [BerberElla] just does not want to believe in life of pleasure and joy.
Whatever the reason for her denial, the fact is she reject the concept of eternal existence.
Thats fine with me.
Im not trying to take her there. No one can. You can only do that yourself. She dont want to go. Its her choice.
As for me, I know it exists. And I love it already.
--
BerberElla said:
No you do not KNOW it exists, you believe it does, there is a difference.
rayback:
No.
It is you who BELIEVE that I do not know.
You do not know that I do not know.
[ Breakfast was good but lunch is better ]
-
BerberElla:
Why, have you been visited by god? some kind of extra personal proof that us mere mortals have yet to be granted? Because if not then it's all just guesswork and faith on your part. Anyway truth is your claims show someone who doesn't really know the ins out of islam, so you are mostly working off of a fantasy.
rayback:
You have freedom to believe whatever temporarily makes you happy.
However, I think its better to accept what is correct.
But I do agree with you, there is indeed a big difference between having knowledge and having faith.
-
BerberElla:
What you THINK is correct. Why is it not you who is making themselves temporarily happy with delusions of heaven and virgins awaiting? You believe your way is right, I believe it is not, neither one of us can prove who is right on something like god or heaven being real, can't you see that? So you agree that you are simply one of faith, rather than one possessing some factual knowledge?
rayback:
I said I agree with your statement that believing and knowing are two different things.
I think its foolish to believe in something that is not true in order to make yourself temporarily happy.
What is the point of deluding yourself with falsehood.
Its insult to human intelligence.
God says even animals dont do that.
If you seek short term joy, then you might as well take ecstasy pill to do that.
BerberElla said: Guess the question is really which one of us is using the delusion and falsehood to get through life.
rayback:
Wow.
You are indeed capable of reaching the truth.
I never doubted had brains.
-
I would have been quite happy with just 12 beautiful girls around me.
But it was God who wants to increase this wonderful gift to 73 virgins. Thats about every type of beauty I can think of.
There is no way I am going to refuse this kind of an award.
-
BerberElla:
You are not even taking into consideration the way they feel.
rayback:
But I do.
Please; you are making undue presumptions regarding my behaviour in bed.
I would here give a full description of the best way, were it not for the fact that it would offend good women and also upset the Almighty.
Suffice it to say that I am most sensative and gentle when it comes to the ladies.
Its the only way one can make the flower bright and colourful.
You dont think Im a brute who is going to jump on a woman like a wild beast?
BerberElla:
Ugh, you just really don't see it do you. You are objectifying women, to you the ultimate woman has no personality, and is programmed to serve you.
You do not desire the whole of a woman, or the personality, you want a robot, hence you are objectifying women into sexual gratifiers.
You may be all slow and careful sexually towards them, but ultimately it is a robot you are after since your are deluded about what a real woman is like.
rayback:
More presumptions.
I suppose I can overlook this habbit, since intentions are noble.
There is nothing like a real woman. She is a rare creature.
I dont like robots. They cant teach you anything. You see, Im still a student.
So robots are out. But a woman... now she can teach you things to an advance level.
But you are right, in bed, I see only one thing: I dont want to discuss intricacies of life and existence etc with her in that position. Neither would she if she is a full female.
In there, yes, I want her to serve me. I just want to enjoy her, and to give her enjoyment.
Bed is not place for anything else.
Once done, then comes all the other stuff... stuff which it seems you are suggesting be given in bed.
It think you would agree its all about priorities.
-
BerberElla:
Again either a pretence of not understanding me, or you really don't understand me.
Are you telling me that a houri is capable of teaching you anything?
rayback:
Oh yes.
You didn't really think 73 virgins are dumb blondes, did you?
They are said to be some of the sharpest ladies in the Galaxy.
Nothing compares to them on this Earth.
I will be their best pupil ever.
BerberElla:
There is nothing to indicate that they have any programming except in the art of having large eyes and being see through, and being able to grow a hymen over and over again.
rayback:
What could possibly indicate their intelligence to you, Barberella?
You dont even know such ladies exist.
-
If Barberella assume that about me, then what can I do?
She is free to think whatever she likes.
However, I do know that there is a lot more to 72 heavenly virgins Heaven than meets the eye.
They were not made only for enjoying in bed.
But Barberella thinks they are only good for one thing.
Physical pleasure is only a small part of the of the purpose for which they have been created.
Currently, I am concentrating only one aspect of that purpose.
When I get to ravishingly beautiful virgins, I know that I am sure to discover a lot more of their inner beauty.
BerberElla:
So basically you are just making up bullshit to add on to the empty and boring promises of nothing but sex machines that is actually offered?
King Tut:
His trolling man. Why you wasting your time. This guys an armature he should learn from the professional.
rayback:
His Highness feels threatened. He shouldnt. His seat is safe.
Barberella, I am saying that we are given very little information about the personalities of those ladies.
At the moment all Im told is that these women are absolutely beautiful.
I dont know anything else.
When I get to Heaven, I will discover what they are really like.
You want to be know more about them here on earth.
I would love to do that but I am restricted only by what God has revealed about them. He decided to entice men with only their beauty.
I dont have a problem with that. I dare not have a problem with God's wisdom.
It seems to me that to you intimate sensual relationship in Heaven is unacceptable.
Bed brothers you. It shouldn't.
I might me wrong. Please correct me.
BerberElla:
Rayback it might help if you made a topic about milkshakes and bees, it helped KT.
rayback:
His Highness still needs milkshake?
Hmm.. I get it.
Thanks kid.
I'll keep that in mind.
King Tut:
I want to, today find a girlfriend, and hold her hand and walk in the park. Am too stressed out and depressed I need some motivation.
rayback:
"A girlfriend".
Thats says everything.
-
----
CONFUSED!!! WHAT IS AN ATHIEST???
Athiest is a person who had rejected God.
One who think he knows more.
----
You know you're bored when...
May 06, 2009
This is an interesting topic.
Anyone up for a good boring talk?
King Tut said: give me your number
rayback:
Phone?
No. It has to be in your face kind of thing.
it wont work.
I dont think you have reception in the cave where you are sitting.
-
When you have top friends whom you love to be with, then you would never get bored.
Boredom is being without them.
No?
----------------
Topic: Fighting to remain faithful?
BerberElla said:
Don't you think it's strange to have to fight to remain faithful to god? or do you think that faith should be easy?
I was mulling this over a few days ago, on the one hand I can see the appeal to some, to believe that their fight to remain faithful inspite of all the overwhelming evidence against it will lead to heaven, yet on the other hand I think that faith shouldn't be a struggle.
At times I felt strongly that god wanted me to struggle to keep faith because real faith needs to be tested, you know the whole religious way of thinking that leads to those kind of conclusions, at other times it didn't really make any sense that one needed to embark of a jihad of the self to keep faith.
Has anybody else given much thought to the mini jihad and if so what conclusions did it lead you too?
rayback:
Nothing is free.
I think this should be enough for any thinking person:
why should Paradise be cheap
your eyes see it as pile of heap
for top job you study your ass off
God the top boss aint like you a blob
-
BerberElla:
Your analogy isn't right, Islam is the job, you are then fighting your natural dislike of the companies ethical practises in order to remain in the job because the "pension" appears desirable. This is wrong, to fight to be a person you do not really want to be simply to gain a reward is wrong. And what was the blob comment for?
rayback:
I wil try to explain more easily:
In top office, you wear a certain uniform and you leave your stuff at home as your boss demands. Similiarly, heaven demands that you shed certain of your attitudes.
Otherwise, your application for the eternal job gets binned.
You have to follow the rules of the office you are trying to gets in to.
I would have thought that is common sense.
By the way, the blog comment was to the lazy bosses who ruin their company or office because they dont discipline their workforce. They go bankrupt. Paradise is never allowed to go bankrupt, because only the highly qualified will be allowed in that High Office.
-
BerberElla:
Firstly I understood you, I think you are wrong, doesn't matter how patronising you make the tone of your reply, in my eyes you are still wrong. Why? because you do not seem to understand what I am saying.
Let me cut and paste it once again and bold it for you to see:
Islam is the job, you are then fighting your natural dislike of the companies ethical practises in order to remain in the job because the "pension" appears desirable.
I am talking about fighting to remain faithful, not being faithful because you actually agree.
Your analogy assumes that the job is worth it, that the person wants the job more than anything. My analogy says the job is already theirs by default of being muslim, it is whether they want to stay in the job, produce the hard work, turn a blind eye to the company trafficking in slaves, or other such stuff that would make staying in the job abhorrant, all because the pension sounds to good to turn down.
rayback:
You got it wrong lady.
You need to re-tune to the reality.
You simply fail to see what religion actually is.
Let me break it down further.
Religion is not the job.
Religion is the "application" to get the job.
Office of Paradise is the job.
Comprehende?
-
BerberElla:
Can you not even see how wrong that is? You are saying that you spend your life dedicated to religion in order to then go on and get the reward which is a job, a JOB is the reward? No, the job is work, religion is work, heaven is not work, the pension is not work, they are both at the end of the road. What is so hard to understand about that? Seems to me that it is you with the comprehension problem here and the bad analogy.
rayback:
Ok.
If you say so.
I dont like to mess with anyone with fangs.
All my blood is for my love.
-
Glen:
The struggle, the bad things that happen, we all suffer together. Even physical pain we all feel everyday, hunger, thirst. I dont view these things as a test of faith, but as reality and a reality nobody can escape. therefore when i feel hunger in my body on a morning i know how those poor people who die every day through no food must feel, therefore i see the 'fight' as a way to develop a stronger spirit, to realise and have sympathy for fellow living beings wo all have these things going on, the mini jihads! We all lust, it can cause distress in our hearts and minds let alone Gods! so we should understand and not be ashamed, so we can talk and overcome together. We are all mini freedom fighters, we should fight from the oppression that hurts us, our own greed and hate, and learn to reach others to overcome theirs. For me thats where God can be reached.
Not easy at all eh!
Rayback:
Excellent reasoning. Unbiased and realistic.
Glen, as you can read above, some people dont like to clean things.
They dont like struggle.
They wants to be spoon fed.
However, thats not how universe was designed, nor its laws set.
Barbrella:
You're chatting bullshit again hairyback.
Rayback:
Ok. I take it back.
You must be seeing a lots of spoons in the sky.
I am the last to doubt a lady's astronomical observations.
--
Definition Of Brainwashed
Rayback:
Do students get brainwashed in schools and collages?
Government's National Curriculum.
Is education not brainwashing kids?
Think about it.
-
Cheetah:
There is a difference between education and propaganda.
rayback:
So if we get taught in history that babylonians were evil and Romans were good, is that education or propaganda?
To Americans, the Japanese were evil in WW2.
To the poor Japs, U.S. is most evil nation on earth for dropping nukes on Hiroshima.
One man's evil is another man's hero.
No?
Its all relative.
The position you take will decide your view.
--
Agnosticism or Atheism ?
Rayback:
Athiests and Agnostics are set to miss out on Eternity.
These are not my rules.
God makes them.
The rule says:
"Well before your time comes to leave this Earth, you have to have believed completely in God. And not just in any God, but the right God. One True God who is responsible for the Creation of this entire Universe."
If you do not fulfill this rule, whether buy choice or by accident, that does not matter, you are in one big deep hole in the next life. Its going to be pretty hot and painful hole. And there is no second chance. There is no turning back. Its a one way road that leads only in the forward direction.
Sorry boys, tough luck. Thats the rule.
---
Topic: New Research Demolishes Evolution by Harun Yahya
Rayback:
Dr. Richard Dawkins is not a Biologist.
He is Zoologist.
This is applied science of describing animals and their habitats.
What would any zoologist know about microbiology of Genetics and their mutations. #
They should stick to the zoos.
Richard Dawkins was cornered on BBC by Jeremy Paxman. During the interview Dawkins admitted that after all there is chance God might exit.
The Professor's admirers are said to be highly embarrassed.
-
IsLame said:
+1 he does not make claims like he is 100% sure god does not exist, like Muslims make 100% claim that Islam is tru & Allah 100% exists. Can I ask you what percentage you are sure of Islam & Allah?
rayback:
I think its not just muslims who are certian about God. If you ask around you will find that people of other religions also are very sure about God.
I speak to people of all sorts of backgrounds who study at the university. Even thinkers who are outside of religion, such as philosophers, some of them are also certain about God. They too are completely convinced.
-
Evolution does not need to be demolished.
Even its ardent exponents themselves do not present it as a fact.
It has shakey foundations. No need to bring it down.
-
They do not present it as a fact.
Because they are honest.
Deluded but honest.
-
a.ghazali said: You said they don't present it as a 'Fact'. So what do they present it as, if they are being honest? A lie?
Can you give an example of how they present it?
rayback:
I said they are honest and, therefore, they do not present it as a fact.
They know that Evolution is not yet a fact.
They present it as a hypothesis.
In the university we are taught that a hypothesis can in the future turn out to be true, or, it can turn out to be wrong.
-
All the books I have seen when I was collage and now at the University speak about the "Theory of Evolution".
Even after hundred years, no text book issued by our government says "The Fact of Evolution"
It makes you wonder.
-
If you are incapable of seeing a difference between "Theory" and "Fact", then even the most wisest being in the universe can't help you.
Your brain is done.
-
osmanthus:
if you are capable of seeing the differences but chose to pretend otherwise because it suits your agenda then you are dishonest. So which is it? Dullness or dishonesty?
rayback:
If you think carefully you will be able to spot other options besides the two you offered.
Astaghfirullah:
Why is it that all Muslims always refer back to the same argument of Allah closing other peoples minds and hearts? Cant you be original in your arguments for once?
rayback:
Did you know that no one is capable of out-performing the Supreme Being?
Well, now you know.
Its just not possible to have more talent than God.
-
osmanthus:
Which god? There is a veritable plethora of gods to choose from.
rayback:
What do you mean "which God"?
How many do you know of?
You dont believe in any.
How would you ever tell one from another.
Existence of two Supreme Beings is logically impossible.
Astaghfirullah:
world is proof of existence of itself. It's proof that it was made, formed, created by something, there are many explanations for what this could be. Your Allah is one of thousands.
rayback:
Many explanations?
Well, I chose the best explanation.
And this being a free country, you have the right to chose one from the gutter.
-
Quote from: osmanthus:
The existence of even one Supreme Being, to use your preferred term, is as logically impossible as the existence of two.
rayback:
Even top scientists like Hawkin do not say this.
If you really believe your claim, then it only shows you lack power to reason well.
You dont know what logic is.
-
sojournerlumus:
In the absence of an iota of evidence for the existence of any deity of any kind whatsoever, the honours of knowing about the same go to the first person to find any.
Rayback:
You might not know this in your closed off world, but let to tell you this: Many a one among scientists and great thinkers have found the evidence of which you speak. However, among them, I dont know know who was the first to get that honour.
osmanthus:
Prove to us that the existence of one "Supreme Being" is more logical than the existence of two "Supreme Beings". I'm willing to bet that you can't do it.
rayback:
How much?
--
Rayback:
Godel was one of the major thinkers of modern times.
He was known world wide as an expert in logic.
Godel said proper use of logic shows that [b]"God does exist"[/b].
He also accepted that there is an afterlife
“I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife."
He was not a muslim.
As a logical man, Godel abhored Atheists for their abuse of intellect.
-
sojournerlumus:
Name one scientist or so-called 'great thinker' who has found a shred of tangible evidence
Rayback:
Are you saying you do not know of one scientist who believes in God?
--
Topic: Western Ladies
I wanna know just one thing.
I hope someone here can give a satisfactory answer:
Why do women in the west convert to Islam?
I mean, if we look at our newspapers and television,
we see them constantly blast Islam as anti-women,
and yet the European and American ladies are accepting Islam !!
Why !!!
Should girls not reject Islam? Women should be the last people on Earth that convert to Islam.
So, why is this happening?
-
Is it true that ladies dont like ambiguities.
They dont like confusion and doubts. They love clarity.
That might be why they are rushing to convert?
So, maybe women like clear cut rules and laws.
They feel they need to be told exactly what is right and what is wrong?
Women see that only Islam offers such strict discipline.
Maybe women love being dominated.
And nothing dominates their soul like Islam does.
What do you think?
--
Topic: Prophet Muhammad hates Effeminate Men
Rashna said:
Prophet Muhammad hates Effeminate Men & Masculine Women! How mean, rude & unneccessary!
rayback:
I think women also dont like girly men.
Which girls would like to hang around a her boyfriend who is a weak and a sissy.
Women desire a REAL MAN.
Dont you think?
-
BerberElla:
Define a real man and a sissy just so we are clear where you are going with this?
rayback:
I think that might offend the "girls".
I think all women have an idea of what a real man is.
They dont need to be told.
Lionesses can sense a lion mile off.
Nature has given females a good nose.
-
BerberElla:
Your user title says "do you fear debates?" so why the fear of offending the women with vague insinuations that only a real lioness would know what you are talking about?
Rayback:
Oh boy, you're hard.
What have you been drinking.
I think you know exactly what I mean. You are qualified. A "Real Man" is a hero. Havent you heard the song "I need a hero". He is not a girly man.
Anyway, I hate to offend the ladies. Especially, if they are not used to the shocking stuff. Like a new bride, who has never been touched by a man before, she cannot be shown everything in one go. You want to sail the boat, not rock the ship. You see, one has to be gentle if one wants to enjoy the view of snow melting in ones hands.
Offending ladies is not part of good logical debates. Being good to women is sure way to get into heaven, here and there.
So... I dont want to lose the pleasures waiting for me on the other side.
-
I didnt not mean to upset you Barberella.
I hate to not reply to good people like you.
[ sentence removed out of care for your feelings ]
King Tut.
Tut. Tut. Bad boy.
I dont need anything here. University provides enough pizzas for me.
-
[sentence removed]
-
BerberElla:
Damn, what did the sentence say? If you have something to say, just say it and stop editing it out beause of fear of offending. It is your belief that women, and myself will automatically be offended based on our gender alone that is offensive here.
rayback:
It said something about drinking tea being a characteristic of a lovely person.
That, and bit about cakes.
Nothing to worry about kid.
-
Beans on toast is not for real men.
Were are here talking the whole shoulder or a leg. All roasted.
---
Topic: Muslim Men Get 72 Virgins in Paradise!
RIBS:
Muslim Men Get 72 Virgins in Paradise. Here! I found 50 virgins and still have to find the rest!
rayback:
Somehow I dont think any of those girls in the photo are virgins.
I think they have been enjoyed a plenty.
I would insist on a virgin.
BerberElla:
Is it because you fear she would have had better and bigger than you and therefore would not be satisfied with you?
rayback:
No.
Its because I dont like leftovers.
God knows what men like. He is so Bountiful.
-
Ribs:
I am sorry to say that I don't know who Richard Dawkins is. Can any one say a brief words about him? Is he a scholar interested in Religion?
rayback:
Dawkins is the idiot who admits God might exist, and still curses people who believe in God.
Can you believe that!!
He is suppose to be a Professor.
That is his level of reasoning.
Still lot of people respect such a man.
--
Topic: Quran, Apes and Pigs?
God has the power to turn apes into men - [although he doesnt] - and He has the power to turn men into swines.
I think your God is less powerrful if He is unable to do that. In that casue He is not Almighty and Powerful.
The true God could easily cause metamorphosis.
It would be no issue for Him.
--
Topic: From Religion to godlessness
Member Suprah gives a long story of his coversion from Islam to Atheism
Then he says:
[TO BE CONTINUED]
--
Rayback:
Thats right.
In Hell.
He gave us the Beginning.
He gave us the Middle.
He could not give us the End.
The poor guy doesnt know.
When you drop the torch, you are in darkness.
His End is in Hell.
Sorry, these are not my rules. I didnt make them.
You mess up, your plane will land in the Fire.
--
Topic : Questions I'd ask Allah after death
Tommy said:
I always hear both Christians and Muslim saying something in the nature of "You'll know once you're dead and standing before him" This got me thinking, if Allah can judge us by asking us questions about our lives, shouldn't we be able to do the same about him? Given that he wants to be called Omnibenevolent and all? So after my death, if I find myself standing before Allah waiting for him to give me his eternal sentencing, these are the following questions I'd ask Allah: - I have lived a good life. I never killed anyone for disagreeing with me, questioning me, or holding an opinion about me. Furthermore, I was against slavery, polygamy, marital rape, senseless murder, and homophobia for I was in complete support for human rights. I saw the value in education, thus I scrutinized the belief in something without proper evidence. Now Allah, if I'm wrong for advocating human rights, and I'm being sent to hell because of it, then I must ask...
Rayback:
If you did all that you would not be sent to Hell.
Someone had brainwshed you with wrong information about the Just God.
You will be in the other line.
Tommy:
[Quran says in 3:85] "Whoso seeketh as religion other than Islam it will not be from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter."
I rejected Islam because its against the things I've mentioned in my first question. Those are things that Quran finds permissible/advocates. So it doesn't matter if I lived my life being good, because I rejected Islam, I'll be one of the losers in the afterlife.
Rayback:
You cant speak FOR something you dont know.
Its like reading a medical book and interpreting it.
You would be a fool if you did that.
Therefore, you would go and ask a doctor to confirm if you have indeed read it properly or misunderstood what it says.
This is basic common sense.
-
Zaephon: According to her personal diary which is commonly known as the Quran, Allah disagrees with you.
Rayback: No. Its your poor reading ability that makes you think that.
Tommy: Okay then sheikh Rayback, interpret that verse for me. What DOES it mean, other than what can be taken literally?
Rayback: It is talking to muslims experts.
It is not addressed to ordinary people like you.
SmartAassMode: So you're saying that the koran is not for ordinary people to read?
Rayback: They can read it. But not everything applies to them.
PeruvianSkies: Where does it state that line is for experts?
Rayback: Do you think it should have been stated next to every line as to who that line is for?
Is that your level of thought?
PeruvianSkies: It would be helpful especially in a book that states it's word is clear (indicating anyone should be able to understand it).
Rayback:
Anyone?
You wish.
However, fortunately, God does not address the idiots.
He has His reasons.
I think I know what they are.
Cheetah:
Women don't get to have sex at all in Islamic Heaven. The houris are special zombie like things that only exist in heaven, they're not the souls of dead women.
Rayback:
Cheetah, who brainwashed you with all that falsehood.
They have done a good job on you.
Do you have any facts at all about what happens after death?
-
Rayback:
You learnt something today.
So, dont waste your time with God's Book.
You are not worthy of it.
It will roast you.
--
Topic: Moral Question To Atheists
Kope asked:
Is it sex before marriage ok?
Cheetah:
Sex between consenting adults is always ok. I know you're obsessed with the prurient side of morality Kope, but most of the human race have [b]cleaner minds[/b] than you do. Quit watching all that porn and you might find life a bit easier.
Rayback:
That reply shows Atheist have not abandoned the religious concepts completely.
Its impossible to do so.
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)