Debates

-

2011-07-11T06:59:00.005-07:00

Debates

2011-07-11T06:59:00.003-07:00

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...

-

2011-07-11T06:59:00.001-07:00

Religions Evil

2011-07-11T06:58:00.013-07:00

||

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.

+ +

-

2011-07-11T06:58:00.011-07:00

-

2011-07-11T06:58:00.009-07:00

-

2011-07-11T06:58:00.007-07:00

Darwin TV

2011-07-11T06:58:00.005-07:00

||

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'.

--

-

2011-07-11T06:58:00.003-07:00

-

2011-07-11T06:58:00.001-07:00

-

2011-01-01T14:25:00.001-08:00

God Evidences

2011-01-01T14:24:00.014-08:00

||

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.

+ +

-

2011-01-01T14:24:00.013-08:00

-

2011-01-01T14:24:00.011-08:00

Anti-Pleasure

2011-01-01T14:24:00.009-08:00

--

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.

--

-

2011-01-01T14:24:00.007-08:00

-

2011-01-01T14:24:00.005-08:00

Godless always flee

2011-01-01T14:24:00.003-08:00

--

[ 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.

--

-

2011-01-01T14:24:00.001-08:00

Go to the first page

2010-10-10T05:39:00.007-07:00

p.4

Channel four debates are on page 1.

Priceless discussions from Richard Dawkins Forum are on page 2 and 3.

Dawkins wanted his Atheist followers to remove most of these debates. They claim belief in freespeech yet practice censorship.

Editors are working to complete the remaining transcripts of the debates.

Richard Dawkins own website has full text of debates with Atheists members.

Please note that blog is still under construction. Debates are constantly being updated as they take place between various students at the Univerity.

So please bear with us.

In the mean time...

Enjoy.

--

-

2010-10-10T05:39:00.005-07:00

-

2010-10-10T05:39:00.003-07:00

-

2010-10-10T05:39:00.001-07:00

-

2010-10-10T05:38:00.000-07:00

Unreliable Darwin

2009-02-14T04:51:00.000-08:00

--

Should I trust Darwin?

The following debate took place on Channel 4:

August 2008:

flamin nora said:

Tonight I let my 6 year old son stay up and watch "the genius of charles darwin" and even though this is what I believe, I had a sense of unease about allowing him to watch it.

my son he believes anything he is told (father christmas, tooth fairy, god) and I worry that unraveling the myths of god that are so ingrained into our society may only give him problems (especially at school). But I dont want him to continue to believe something that isnt true

should 6 year olds believe in god?
should they be taught evolution as fact?
is he too young to even be thinking about this?
if so, how do I answer his questions about god?

Omrow said:

Kids believe in God unless brainwashed otherwise.

So, it is natural to believe in God.

Just because some men have dug up a few bones, in no way proves that God did not create them.

Even Dawkins himself says we cannot rule out that there is absolutely no God whatsoever.

So why on earth did you give your child wrong information.

Did you know scientists have discoverd a "God Spot" in our brains?

If you have full faith in Dawkins then thats your right.

Many other scientists do not accept Evolution as FACT.

Some of the world's greatest scientists actually believe in the existence of God.

So, by you telling your kid that there is no God, you have potentially led him astray.

Programming, or "brainshwashing" children either way is not a nice thing to do, especially for a mother.

Its best simply to teach the child things that have no disagreement whatsoever, and have been established as FACT beyond all doubt.

Evolution does NOT yet fall into the FACT catagory.

I hope that helps.

gfere said:

wow, who'd have thought channel 4 would be a hotbed of creationism. its like peering throgh a lens back to the dark ages or something looking at the comments here. sooo atavistic. cool!

"Kids believe in God unless brainwashed otherwise.

So, it is natural to believe in God. "

sweeping statement. i never believed in 'god'- whatever that is. i had a neutral upbringing and was simply interested in nature. found nature contradicted 'woo/superstition' and moved on. didnt need to grow up to be taught those things were obviously human failings of perception and intellect, unlike some. thats your first proposition proven wrong then. lets see whats next. oh, sorry forgot. if it IS natural for kids, doesnt that make it rather childish anyway. hmmm

"Just because some men have dug up a few bones in no way proves that God did not create them."

actually, its the FACT those bones change through the strata that proves evolution. lets call it 'change'. some strata even have completely different remains, that also alter through the layers. evolution remains proven (pesky satans tricks accepted)

"Even Dawkins himself says we cannot rule out that there is absolutely no God whatsoever."

like he can't totally rule out the invisible underwater kingdom of jeebus and his friend the magic purple starfish. and millions of other magic unfalsifiable things (due to their invisibility and ineffible magic properties). wanna defend all the things i can make up - cos they are in the same category as 'god' - whatever that is.

"So why on earth did you give your child wrong information."

maybe in your little world of magic. but not the REAL world of *Reality*.

"Did you know scientists have discoverd a "God Spot" in our brains?"

thanks. it proves god idea it is just a material effect of neurons, - probably as a side effect of a useful purpose, or maybe useful in itself, like 'gayness' improves the reproduction of sisters and therefore the gene for gayness, even though it is negative to the individuals reproduction. but why is god spots turned off in huge numbers of individuals if its soooo useful. youd think it would be useful for god to talk to everyone, not just nutte, er ahem i mean theists. if its not an altogether useful thing, maybe it being selected out by NS, like the little toe is getting smaller. whatever, its not universal.

"If you have full faith in Dawkins than thats your right."

i dont have faith in dawkins. i like him cos he stands up for naturalism, the only intellectually honest worldview, and seems a decent straight talking person. i had my ideas (almost the same cos based on reason) long before i read a dawkins book. he just clarified some issues. i'm sure you would share his views on many a bulshi te idea that you'd dispute too, ie doctrine of islam, reincarnation, alien visitations etc etc. its just he's got the intellectual integrity to come out and say its all bullshi, not arbrarily pick and choose random bits as true, defending them to death in spite of all evidence. you do not have this ability (like most) and therefore cant claim any integrity.

"Many other scientists do not accept Evolution as FACT."

99.9% of biologists DO accept evolution as true. and biologists are the only ones that matter. but in fact most other scientists do accept it too, apart from a tiny minority that have a over riding emotional religious agenda. your point?

"Some of the world's greatest scientists actually believe in the existence of God."

so, they are only human. its the science they do that matters. if they cannot make a rational account for their personal belief then it is as irrelevant as in a layman like yourself.

"So, by you telling your kid there is no God, have potentially led him astray."

not if its a false proposition.

"Prpgramming or "brainshwashing" children either way is not a nice thing to do, especially for a mother."

i agree. dont do it to your kids. stick with facts we know like gravity/evolution/hitting your head with a brick hurts etc

"Its best to simply teach him things that have no disagreement whatsoever, and have been established as FACT beyond all doubt. "

and also things that have been proven true by science but contradict religious myths. they will then learn an important thing about people - they are mostly idiots that lie to themselves for all sorts of spurious reasons that dont have any connection with a humble interest in accepting what is true.

"Evolution does NOT yet fall into that FACT catagory."

...cos its not mentioned in your bronze age magic book, and upsets the future agenda you think you would prefer.

"I hope that helps."

it doesnt. its the very antithises of help. and all thats good, decent and honest. a display of mendacity that one would not expect from a mature adult who had a proper and complete education.

"Let's all stick to common sense"

you start !

its a woo eat woo world

Omrow said:

Some scientists are a complete disgrace to science.

They twist research and present it to the public as if it were a FACT.

Like any other organisation, scientific community also contains many liars who fake their finding and pretend to know advance science.

Great scientists can turn out to be a fakers.

Mr Whizz said:

And they get outed - bad science fails the peer review or repeatability processes that are built into the scientific method. The scientists that try to pull the wool over the scientific community's eyes never succeed for long. Anyone wanting to dupe the world with bad science can't succeed. The scientific method is inherently self-regulating. Again, the links you point to simply highlight that - I am puzzled yet again by why you feel comfortable linking to them given that they undermine your own point.

Omrow said:

Why not.

There is black sheep in every community.

Scientific community also is not immune from having idiots, fanatics, terrorists, fundemantalists, and so on.

Just take a look at Dawkins; how he twists science to suit his whims.

Others scientists scoff his methods.

Billy Bumbly said:

Omrow,

You think the Sun is a good newspaper (actualy think it is a newspaper).

You think CERN will end the world.

And your a creationist.

Geesh.

Also common sense is a right load of tosh. So lets not stick to it.

Omrow said:

Billy Bumbly.

What has the sun newspaper got do with Dick Dawkins?

We are here discussing whether or not one should trust men who say they are monkeys.

Please stick to the topic at hand.

Greenjack said:

"Kids believe in God unless brainwashed otherwise. So, it is natural to believe in God."

utter rubbish
kids know nothing of god (or any other imaginary being) untill they are introduced to the concept by others, usually their parents. This is when the brainwashing starts!!

Cheers

Geowizard said:

Hello everyone, many people would consider Darwinism as the answer to the how and not the why. For instance some scientists still believe in god by drawing on observation and evidence i.e. with the Miller-Urey experiment could god not have been the bolt of lightning and that’s it?

I personally believe in Rudolf Clausius's First Law of Thermodynamics. I would probably be considered an atheist by most but I do not, as I don't limit myself to what can be proven with modern science. We know practically nothing about our universe, there are endless possibilities in our universe and for any group on either side to say they have the answers or that either is wrong defies logic.

Darwinism is FACT, in that fact is a theory backed up by substantial and overwhelming evidence that is so likely it is accepted as basically true. The FACT is that there has been absolutely no substantial evidence to counter Darwinism, there is not one peer reviewed paper to counter Darwin, in fact there is not one qualified evolutionary scientist that counters Darwinism. The people who oppose Darwinism usually have absolutely no experience or education in the area and simply replying to every argument with "god put it there" does not equate to evidence. Having worked with the fossil records on a daily basis for the last decade a child could see the logical evolution and adaption to environment. One such species which shows the emergence, evolution and extinction of a species was the trilobite. We see in the records how they began as soft bodied creatures (soft sediment trace fossils), then evolved into hard shelled creatures, then began to specialise with many unique morphological features developing (elevated eyes etc.), and then there eventual inability to adapt and extinction.

As for atheism extreme atheists can be almost as bad an ultra conservative religious people. The fact is that there have been many attempts to create an atheist society usually forcefully and all failed. The simple fact is that most people on the planet are not educated and to them the only way to distinguish right and wrong is by their religious rules. With greater education comes more questions and with more questions becomes a better understanding of the benefits of doing the right thing.

As for your child, children will take their parents word as gospel (excuse the pun) so with that you take on a great responsibility to provide accurate information while encouraging them to answer their own questions. The fact that your son seems interested in the answers is a great sign for his future development. The idea that humans naturally have a higher being instinct has been shown before in excluded people behavioural experiments (sorry don't have a reference, just remember reading about it). Humans have this instinct but Darwinism can to some extinct show that this feeling is a part of our survival and communal instincts. The belief in a higher being is an inevitable part of sentience. While I am not opposed to people believing in a higher being I am strongly opposed to organised religion. Living your life by a set of dogmatic rules laid down 2000 years ago is totally counter active to human social and overall evolution. The "why" is what makes our species so unique; Humans will only pull themselves out of current turmoil and begin the road to an evolved and enlightened species by asking "why" again and again. If humans keep following the current religious dogma without ever using our sentience then humans can never hope to continue social evolution. Religion can be dangerous for a child as living your life as a good person for fear of reprisals is not living. For now he is only 6 so I would just let him be a kid for another while and let him make his own mind up.

Full disclosure: I would just like to point out in case Omrow decides to challenge my knowledge on the subject as I am a firm believer in full disclosure. I have advanced degrees in Geology, Geophysics, Palaeobiology, Paleoclimatology and Computer Science; I also have minors in Experimental and Theoretical Physics, Mathematics, Asian Languages, Biology and Chemistry. I also have a master in Paleoclimatology and Geology. All from the University College Dublin and I have my name on 2 geological papers and 1 paleoclimatological paper.

Omrow said:

Geowizard claims to have advanced degrees in Geology, Geophysics, Palaeobiology, Paleoclimatology, Computer Science, Theoretical Physics, Mathematics, Asian Languages, Biology and Chemistry.

Wow. All that education from Dublin.

Irish degrees. That says it.

He forgot to add to the list his degree in Advanced Brainlessness. But he did not need to. We can all see that already. He is naturally qualified in that department.

It seems that the Atheists need a bit more evolving.

Give Atheists a few more million years and perhaps they might become use to logic a bit better.

Athiests 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.

GPB said:

at least geowizard is trying to understand the world which at the moment appears to be more than you can claim. i'd put my lot in with those qualifications over your... what do you have again? and whats more obsurd, species of animals evolving from older ones or someone rising from the dead after being crucified and speared? hmm, difficult to choose.

as for the evolving crack i'd say watch it. it may seem hippocritical for me to say this after what i've just posted but i'll say it anyway, petty cheapshots prove and decide nothing.

Greenjack said:

It clearly shows desperation when people resort to personal abuse. How sad ! Is this the best you can reply with [Omrow] ?

Cheers

Mycor said:

I don't think there is a need to 'teach' religion to give children a moral compass. I think children can be brought up to value society, to show respect and compassion for others, to respect the laws of the land and society, to respect other people's property, to share for the common good, to respect and value animals and nature, and all the things which most people would consider as moral without the need for religion. Young children mostly learn by copying their parents so if parents at in a moral way then the children will most likely do so. No need for God.

rabbitinburrow said:

[replying to flamin nora]

I grew up without any belief in God? And I am convinced that it is much healthier for the mind.
In fact is kind of a brainwash to teach your child to believe in God and since it happens so early in the development it will be hard to drop the belief later...
Let him find out for himself, when he is old enough to think for himself.

malcom and monica said:

I am embarased to say that I have only just stumbled upon this thread,and am humbled by some of the elequence esp. by the learned prof,when set against the ignorent uncalledfor abuse from Omrow.Very sad.This particular gent,on another thread,places great faith in his participation with many vergins in paradise.It is my hope that by allowing such folk to mouth off, will eventually bring about the downfall of religion in general.

--

Evolution Fiction

2009-02-14T04:48:00.000-08:00

-

This debate took place on Channel 4.

“The Genius of Charles Darwin”

August 2008

C4 Editor said:

Tonight on C4 at 8pm we are showing The Genius of Charles Darwin, the ultimate guide to Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection presented by Richard Dawkins.

You can discuss the issues and post your comments below

TheReformedPastor said:

Here we go again, yet another attack on Biblical Christianity by Dr. Dawkins - I predict that this series has little to do with Darwin, Darwin is merely the vehicle that Dr. Dawkins is using to attack Biblical Christianity.

I believe that the reason for this is that Dr. Dawkins knows that Atheism is in trouble. After 60 years or so of being the predominant philosophy in this country and having a huge influence over all areas of our lives and public bodies such as Education, Social Services, Penal policy etc, it has totally failed as a philosphy.

1cantell said:

It's not about religion. It's about reviewing facts, checking evidence and coming to conclusions based on what we know.
On that basis religion is a basket case and if we stopped indoctrinating our kids with it - so brilliantly illustrated in tonight's programme -it would wither and die.
Shame about the tooth fairy,too!

MissLittler said:

You are absolutely right, and let us be clear; it most certainly is not about religion.
It is about establishing the facts and coming to a measured conclusion.
This broadcast has yet to produce any new 'evidence' thus far and I have severe doubts if it will in subsequent programs. There is nothing 'brilliant' in 'indoctrinating’ our children that; out of mud came mind!!
And on that basis, bring back the tooth fairy all is forgiven!

Molecular Machine said:

Dawkins is a master at presenting a "Staw Man" argument and then demolishing it! Almost nothing presented in the programme was contrary to the understanding of creationists - save for the introduction of common ancestry, which crept in without firm evidence.
The evidence for 'variation' which was the main thrust of the programme is, of course, undeniable. No creationist I know thinks that all the 'Darwins Finches', for instance, were separate creations!!
The real issues lie ahead, such as the origin of complex cellular information - and life itself - I suspect a Just-So story coming....

mike the h said:

A number of evolutionists have argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution, since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities—whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else—are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Like a lot of Dawkins work the programme was laughable by anyone who has slightly more witt than an ape.

stve said:

Good programme, but nothing new.
The problem I have with Dawkins, as with other evolutionists, is they start from the premise that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive. ie. Evolution is a fact therefore God does not exist. Their argument against the existence of God is the contradiction in the Bible about th eorigins of life on earth; that the Bible claims an earth far younger than the evloutionary evidence suggests, means the Bible is incorrect and consequently God does not exist. The Bible was written by people, modified and edited by religious leaders with politcal agendas and consequently may not be an authority on all things. (a different topic). If Dawkins was to argue that evolutionary evidence shows the Bible's account of how or when the world began is incorrect then I could go along with it; but then the evolutionists make this huge leap to the conclusion "therefore God does not exist".

I offer an example. Suppose God, standing on the top of a mountain, pushes a large rock from the top and it rolls down the mountainside. Suppose now that Newton comes along and sees this rock and in his genius, describes why this rock is rolling down the mountain. Dawkins comes along and does a series saying how smart Newton was, the Law of Gravity exists, the evidence is overwhelming; Gravity, not God, is alone responsible for the motion of this rock down the mountain. Therefore God does not exist. How does that follow?

Come on Dawkins; get real. yes, Evolution exists, but how does it follow that God and evolution are mutually exclusive?

Omrow said:

We know that the tale of men emerging from monkeys is only a theory.

In other words, its nothing but a guess.

In schools and universities, it is still taught as a theory and NOT as a fact.

Dr Dawkins has been lying on TV. He said it is a fact.

Many scientists would disagree with him on this issue.

Scientists are divided on the theory of evolution.

This matter is not yet settled.

Many scientists do not accept that we can say for sure that man came from monkeys.

Dawkins is just like a religious fundemantalist who gets carried away by his fanaticism.

Dawkins is overzealous. He is desperate to convert people to accept his point of view.

I think he has degraded himself by not being honest with the public.

Channel 4 program should, therefore, be seen as nothing more than a propaganda campaign led by Professor Dawkins.

Jezzy29 said:

Unfortunately, Omrow, I have been informed by people on here that theory actually means fact in science circles. and fact doesnt have to be proven fact. But don't mention Evolution is unproven because that upsets people. afterall, nothing is proven therefore evolution is just as much fact as gravity.. even though we can see gravity in action every minute of every day... this is all starting to get on my nerves..

Omrow said:

You cannot say nothing is proven by scientists.

Earth is now proven to be round and NOT flat as ancients used to believe.

It is also now proven that Earth goes around the Sun, and that the Sun does NOT go around the Earth.

It is also proven that the Moon is NOT made of cheese.

So, dont try to protect the Evolution Theory by saying it it is not proven because nothing is ever proven. Its a pathetic tactic.

Jezzy29 said:

I don't think my sarcasm came through very well in my last post. I was trying to make the point that comparing the fact of gravity to the theory of evolution is ridiculous because one we can see acting on us every minute of every day and one is something that has evidence but will never be able to prove unless we can travel in a time machine. But scientists are saying that both are fact. Just silliness isn't it?

Omrow said:

No they are not. Scientists are NOT trying to say that monkey theory is a FACT. It is only the likes of Dick Dawkins that preach such rubbish.

Many scientists are sceptical about evolution.

They still catagorise it as a THEORY.

As we all know that "THEORY" is NOT same as a "FACT".

Some scientists write books for schools and universities.

These books say:

Gravity is a FACT.

Moon of Jupiter are a FACT.

Earth's rotation is a FACT.

Evolution is a THEORY.

Even on things like climate change scietists are divided on whether it is fact or a thoery.

American scientists tend to say that there is no global warming. Europeans scientists disagree.

Similary, the monkey theory is causing a big diffrence of opinion among the scientists.

There is no agreement as yet whether human emerged from apes or not.

Until they agree, how on earth can we claim anything for sure on evolution.

I cant put it any simpler than that.

Jezzy29 said:

I'm just telling you what the people on this forum say. I think there is a problem here because scientists have a different definition for 'theory' and 'fact' than we do in general usage.

Have a look at wikipedia.Fact in science is something that has observable evidence, but isn't necessarily proven, theory in science is an interpretation of evidence. Please, someone, correct me if I am wrong.

The problem is, the lay person doesnt know this and thinks 'fact' means 'proven fact' when really it means 'there is observable evidence to suggest this'. Therefore, scientists and Dawkins are misleading us.

Omrow said:

There is a BIG difference as to what a THEORY is, and what a FACT is.

Everyone knows. Fact is true. A "theory" MAY be true, or, it may be wrong.

Scientists do not have a different definition as to what a THEORY is.

Lets not confuse the matter.

I always ask this to my university teachers. They say theory is a "hypothesis" that may turn out to be wrong.

Whereas a "FACT" can never turn out to be wrong. It will always be correct.

No matter how much Dr. Dick Dawkins continues to yell, we know the scientists still say that evolution of man from monkeys is a THEORY which has not yet been established as a FACT. It might be proven false tomorrow or in ten years time.

Bloodthorn said:

I don't know why religious people get so upset about evolution. Just because evolution proves that creatures have evolved over billions of yeara it doesn't say that god doesn't exist. I mean come on if your a supreme being immortal and eternal you can surely take the time to watch the evolution of simple creatures on planet earth. As for the religious texts that people keep on saying that they are facts of gods truth remember that they have been written not by god himself but by a mere fallible creature called man.

RDSG said:

I am myself a scientist, and think Darwin was a genius. Even though I agree with Richard Dawkins that it should be taught at schools, I am chocked by the way he attacks religion and tries to force people into his beliefs(atheism).

As a scientist you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a being which might be considered a God, and which could exist outside our universe, and could even have played a part in its creation.

Therefore if you cannot disprove the existence of a God scientifically, it is appalling for him to discount it so aggressively. Even worse is the fact that he does not realize himself that atheism is a faith as well.
The only difference is that you believe that there is no God, but you cannot prove it. Whilst other religions believe that there is a God, and cannot scientifically prove it.

Therefore I think it is scientifically incorrect to be so close minded, and to not be open to possibilities which have not been scientifically disproven.

leesparky said:

As a scientist, can you disprove the existence of fairies? Are you in fact, open to the possibility that they exist too????

RDSG said:

Until proof is given that they never existed, I cannot say for certain that they haven't. Although I'm pretty sure they don't have a bank account to store their money, so that they can pay for the kid's teeth. And since there is no evolutionary evidence for any creature resembling a ferry we can deduce that it is highly unlikely they ever exist in our planet.

-

Religion of Atheism

2009-02-14T04:46:00.000-08:00

-

Is Atheism religion?

This topic was discussed on Channel 4.

Nov. 2008

CDarwin said:

Definition of religion: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

Omrow said:

Wrong.

Religion means: Any belief system that is acted upon by two or more people.

Atheists do hold a set of beliefs, albeit irrational, and, they do act upon these beliefs.

The bases of Atheists' belief system has changed over the century.

Currently it is based upon a silly monkey story.

jzzermonty said:

No, Your wrong. Religion is

"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"

LOOK IT UP. You have a computer.

Omrow said:

No.

That silly definition is an Atheist definition of what they think religion is supposed to be.

Again, as usual, Atheist are again trying to impose THEIR irrational belief on the rest of humanity.

No one has to buy things from the monkeys.

jazzermonty said:

From dictionery.com

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

How can this be a silly definition Omrow? Are you making up new meanings for words now as well as your sky faries? You really have to try harder Omrow

The Carpenter said:

Omrow said: Religion is any belief system that is acted upon by two or more people.

So when Martin Johnson picks his XV believing they'll beat the aussies, Brain Smith tells them what attacks he believes will score against the aussies and Mike Ford tells them how he believes they should defend, and the XV start acting on what they've been told, at exactly what point do they become a religion?

If you're going to 'make a point', so deluded & so vague that it's completely meaningless, there's really not much hope for you is there? Try & tighten up your "definition" to the point where it's meaningful, then we can decide whether atheism is a religion or not (a little clue; IT'S NOT!).

quote:Atheists do hold a set of beliefs, albeit irrational - and, they do act upon these beliefs.

Atheists hold no beliefs, beyond not believing in God or Gods. This (as you've admitted elsewhere) is a rational position.

quote:Bases of Atheist belief system has changed over the century. Currently it is based upon a silly monkey story.

I assume you're just misrepresenting the Theory of Evolution again, try learning about something before you comment on it.

Omrow said:

Some religions exists only for a very short while.

Others do last longer, evidently.

Football has also become a religion.

One thing is for sure:

Beckham was no God. He married a cow.

Chairman Al said: [Omrow's replied in bold]

Why is it that religious people need to put people in boxes?

Perhaps for the same reason that Atheists do?

Faith believers can take two of the most different people on earth in terms of culture, personality, nature, appearance and mentality but if they both have no interest in spirituality or belief in a supreme being the faithful want to put them in a box called "athiesm".

Maybe because thats what Atheism is?

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that completely diverse people will group together on the basis of what they don't believe.

But facts on the ground show that they do.

If they did then I must also be a member of all the people who do not believe that there is a hot bowl of steaming chicken soup on Mars waiting as a prize for the winner of "I'm a Martian get me out of here! "

No Martians. Lets just stick to God.

Please accept that having a spiritual "faith" is not essential to life.

Who said it is? Ignorance can indeed be bliss. Many a joyful Atheist live quite happy lives without bothering with things that they are incapable of comprehending.

Please also accept as fact that a large majority of people will not believe in your particular spiritual "faith" and have either choose another one, from a list of thousands of alternatives, or have decided not to bother with whole pomposity of having a spiritual faith at all.

Yes. Accepted. What you said is common sense and the same thing is stated in muslim holy book: Majority tends to behave sheep.

The Carpenter said:

Omrow, is "not playing golf" a hobby?

Omrow said:

You're a carpenter.
What would you know about golf. Its a gentleman's game.
Stick to making crucifixes.

jazzermonty said:

I have a project in work that involves a large number of people working in conjunction with each other for a common objective. We act apon the belief which is that we will deliver the project. At the start of the project we don't know if this will be successful. As the project continues through it's evolution the confidence level rises. We use all our experience and knowledge (based on facts, not faith) to deliver the project so that my company makes money and therefore survives. So is this a religious practice?

I have faith that the project will succeed as I know the expertise of my collegues will ensure this. As there are no supernatural beings involved does this still qualify as a religion?

Omrow said:

Many "isms" are religions.

Capatialism has been called a religion by many people.

Money is its "God".

You try to reach your "heaven".

jazzermonty said:

I'd still love to find out Omrow's handicap though as he's accused Carpenter of not knowing about Golf. Obviously he does play the game and therefore can comment quite confidently on the subject.

Omrow - I ask again, what's your handicap?

Omrow said:

I shall not be talking about my golf ratings here.

Why do you guys divert from the discussion at hand: "The Voice of Monkeys".

Atheists are often like drowning men clutching at straws.

It is an obvious fact that most Athiests are incapable of basic reasoning.

That is why any thinker would notice that Athiests tend to do silly things during a discussion.

They love to change the topic and then flee when their stupidity is proven.

Thats a sad existence.

--

Atheists and Logic

2009-02-14T04:40:00.001-08:00

-

Logic and Religion

This debate took place on Channel 4:

November 2008

malcolm/monia said:

"my LOGIC,might be diferent to another person's LOGIC".
Fair point I am thinking,but..Oxford Concise...the science of reasoning,proof,thinking or inference.
Particular scheme of or treatise on this.
A chain of reasoning.
The correct or incorect use of reasoning
It goes on at length....

Kinder Bueno said:

what an interesting point.
Firstly, let me just go a little off track in order to make a point.
Many people such as Athiests or Agnostics, may not be convinced God exists because of unanswered prayers.
There "logic" is that, there is no god, hencewhy prayers do not get answers.
Also, when prayers are answered for other people, it may be coincidential.
Well thats one way of looking at it...
In Islam, the "logic" is that unanswered prayers is actually a test. I believe (and many Muslims) believe that Allah is testing us to see if we have enough faith in him, and carry on praying to him even if he doesnt answer our prayers, its just a test of how strongly we believe in him.
This is what Athiest/Agnostics and Muslim believe (well the points I've made..seperatley ofcourse)
Secondly, with the idea of evil occuring on Earth.
An athiest/agnostic believe that if God was all powerful, wouldn't he be able to stop evil from taking place?
Which leads them to believe that there is no god - and thats fair enough...It is pretty logical to believe that way.
However, a Muslim believes that again Allah is testing us.
With Natural evil; earhtquakes, draughts etc, he wants to see more fortunate people helping the poor and by causing natural pain and suffering, it is testing if we will donate money to help the les fortunate (I know it sounds cruel, and this is what causes the big argument about if God was "good", why would he do - but this is what we believe)
With Moral evil such as robbery etc, this again is a test.
It seems sometimes that evil people are getting the more luxirious things in life by stealing etc, an Athiest may argue, if there was God, why would he let evil people have a good life...which again is their "logic".
A muslims "logic" is that, again it is a TEST. (I know Im boring you with just using 1 explanation for this, but this is the simplest way of putting it)
We believe that, again "Good things come to those that wait" and if someone has enough faith in God, it will lead them to paradise, as they had trust and faith in God...which is what he tests.
There is a Muslims logic, which differs from an Athiest.
Sory for being ignorant, but I'm unsure what Christians believe about this; Can any christian give any points on what they believe evil is taking place etc...?
Hopefully I have stuck to the point...?

The Carpenter said:

"my LOGIC,might be diferent to another person's LOGIC".

Strictly, no. E.g. If someone told you that their mathematics was different to yours you'd probably start smiling nervously & edging towards the door.

Logic, in the "if A then B" sense is formally structured and in the same way that maths questions have correct & incorrect answers, logic has correct & incorrect chains of reasoning.

Less strictly, logic still provides a very useful framework and can tell us when someone has drawn an erroneous conclusion and where the error has occurred.

I suspect the real difference though is in the "real" world rather than the "logical" world. Here we're looking at the evidence, some of which may be contradictory & deciding how much weight can be attached to each part. Chances are, you're attaching more importance to some pieces of evidence and they are attaching more to others. The point here is to be clear about what is evidence and to establish whether the logic (/ reasoning) is sound.

(In religious debates, there are clearly some source of evidence that are better than others, but sooner or later you'll probably run into the "But god wrote this book" argument & the "I think my anecdotes are really important" argument, there don't seem to be many others. I'm guessing this is a religious argument btw.)

Try asking how their logic differs to yours; what their evidence is; and to show their reasoning (just like a maths exam really)

malcolm/monia said:

May you GOD bless you for your views.I am so gratefull for your caring approach to this sensitive topic!
Yes TESTING appears to be the core 'raison d'etre' of apparant poor or nil response from 'god'.But logic now tells me that this is strong evidence of 'his' non existance.It also seems to me a 'heads,he wins,tails we lose,situation.
I would furthermore like to appogise to you and your tolerant brothers & sisters for what might come accross as an arrogent posture,with a tendancy to ridicule.
I am a very kind and caring person who just does not 'buy' God,and get Soooo angry with the extreemists in your,or in any religion,but it does appear that your religion is the worst.
I really feel that we you and your moderate scholars are not proactive enought to head off Muslims who advocate that God is the only power to punish,and our police are sinners,etc,etc.This attitude is corrosive not only to the stability of the moral framework of any society,but nothing to engender a better relationship between religious & non religious world wide.
Sorry to moralise & go off topic,but much work needs to be done by good & caring folk like us.
Faith is ilogical,in it's entireity by definition.
So Yuze has postulated that logic has a gradient & you have implied that 'they' have evidence, by the use of the word 'others'...I am now even more confused.

The Carpenter said:

Logic has a gradient!? I have no idea what that even means. Maths doesn't have a gradient, neither does logic.

I'm a bit more sure about what "evidence" actually is, though so I'll deal with that. It's fair to say I probably wasn't clear enough on this point.

There are some pieces of evidence that are reliable, these are called evidence.

Then there are the types of "evidence" that religious types tend to use in their arguments. These tend to fall into two categories:
1 - "But god wrote this book" &
2 - "But my anecdotes are really important".

Religious types tend to call these things "evidence", often they actually think that they are evidence, but they aren’t. They should be called anecdotes, or irrelevant, or anything else, just not evidence. The argument is in showing that they are not evidence & why they are not evidence (but anecdotes/ not provable etc etc) and, to a lesser extent, what is evidence & why it is evidence.

So, I agree. There is no evidence that god(/s) exist (*); there are anecdotes; there are (badly written) books claiming divine providence; and there are some really strange attempts to string these into a coherent world view. But evidence? NIL.

Hope that helps.

(* - That I'm aware of/ that stands up to scrutiny.)
one other point, you'll frequently see that a religious argument runs out of steam at exactly the point you or I might think it gets interesting.

Kinder Bueno's initial response, is probably quite a good example of this. With God "testing" us (/ humanity/ Muslims/ etc) by making other people suffer. The idea of God wanting to test 'us', probably does satisfy (on some level) KB's curiosity.

At this point you or I might want to start asking about why 'we' need testing; why god couldn't find some other test that doesn't involve torturing other people; why does an omniscient god need to test anyone etc etc. But KB seems happy with the answer that we're being tested without needing/ wanting to explore further.

KB - I really don't mean to put words into your mouth or misrepresent you. I'm using your post as an example purely because it's to hand and is fairly typical of this type of response. I hope you do think of and ask the sort of questions I've suggested and that you keep thinking through whatever answers you get.

You have to apply logic to the answers you get as well as to the initial premise.

malcolm/monica said:

I have just read that the Islamic fifth article of faith states that paradise is a physical place where MEN will be allocated a harem of beautifull WOMEN who will bear them children.
NOW....logically who will raise them?,the women,the angels or God ? ...Or as Yuze would say,who knows,who cares Allah knows best...or was it Osman.To tell you the truth,it is all becoming a bit of a blur.
I think that is the game plan.
I think that this is the 'muddy pool' that you,Carpenter,are looking for!

The Carpenter said:

...and why are these children given free entry to heaven without going through the whole earthly life tests process first?

Fundamentally, this whole "afterlife" malarky (whether Xian/ Islamic or whatever) is just an excuse to get round the absence of evidence of God operating in a just way. By pushing the rewards/ punishments into the realm of the unknowable they gain an excuse for the lack of evidence they have for a just (/benevolent) god here on earth, without then going on to examine whether the position they put themselves in is in anyway reasonable/ logical.

Mycor said:

Presumably it's a test of your faith, so if you lose faith or question god as a result then you've failed.

The points KB made about prayers, evil etc being a test make sense within the constructed world of a religion and are a man made explanation of why things happen based on the premise that a god exists. They are not logic as they arrive at a conclusion based on information that cannot be confirmed ie that a god exists.

Pure logic will be the same for everyone, but as TheCarpenter said we live in the real world and people come to conclusions about 'evidence' based on their preconceived ideas. That's why I don't think logic can really effectively be used to argue against religions. I wonder whether, since in the real world not all information is available or reliable, that strictly speaking you can never come to a purely logical conclusion on anything anyway - perhaps those with a wider knowledge of logic and philosophy would like to comment on this please.

I think you can lay out a pretty good logical argument for the non existence of a god to someone of faith but they will still keep their faith. Why is this? What is it in the human mind that makes someone have faith and someone else not to? That's the bit which fascinates me.

A couple of general thoughts; since, as I said above, logic seems to be irrelevant to faith why do some people of faith try to argue that their position is logical? This seems wrong to me, why not just stick to the 'I believe' line, it would seem much simpler. I saw a program about the Medieval Mind recently and was interested that although they talked in those days about natural disasters being acts of god and believed comets to be portents and signs, they also understood that these events were natural. It was bit like 'we know a comet is natural but it is a bad idea to do something important on a day when one is in the sky. I thought that was an interesting way of thinking and maybe not how we would imagine it.

malcolm/monica said:

I think that they keep the faith really to hedge their bets,but that can't be right cos God would know.
I think maybe they are just gullable or stupid...but that can't be right either.
I think that the average human suffers from the survival instinct of 'save me ,save me'syndrome.
That's gotta be it!!!!

thank you for your comments Mycor.

As a non-believer,the Coran states that I shall not be befriended by a true Muslim.Why is this,where is the logic,& who has the hidden agenda?

Omrow said:

Obviously, God would have the true logic.

He made the stuff.

Therefore, no matter how much we may try,
we cannot change the rules of the game.

Since God is said to be the "most logical" Being in the Universe,
it should be obvious to any thinking person that all of God's laws would be reasonable.

And, as is evident in this thread, as well as many other discussions,
most Atheists are incapable of using simple logic.

Also, the Atheists have no understanding of what religion is.
They make up their own twisted definitions and try
to make the rest of humanity swallow their irrational crap.

I mean, what do Atheists know anything about how to reason.

Most Atheists are intellectually bankrupt.

Just take a look at their own words.

Freethinker15 said:

Who ever said god was logical? There are countless examples of where this is not the case; if you are attributing logic to the logic in this world, which is the only logic that is worth caring about anyway. Any other logic outside this is irrelevant to our well being as it does not exist.

None of god's law are reasonable; only those created by man as man knows man
(god has no clue, btw I am talking as if he exists which has not yet been proven so I should say fairy dude). If god was reasonable he should have known that the kind of demands put on human are impossible to adhere to and are counter to reason and evidence.

I think (which can be verified with evidence) ultimately logic and reason is universal, no matter one's viewpoint.

The only thing that stands in it's way is the god virus as demonstrated on this forum and many others.

It's no surprise that where ever you are born in the world as soon as you start to think and embrace science etc, people become atheists. Religion, on the whole, depends on your geographical and cultural location.

so why do reguarly either not answer my questions or, by your own admission, fail to understand them?

You should try picking up a book that challenges your own narrow preconceptions of the world for a change. Of course, your books of myths wont let you as you might miss out on all the goddies in heaven (which is hilariously materialistic btw).

Omrow said:

Because, as is the case with silly statements put forward by most Atheists, many of your questions and claims are replete with irrationality.

Basically, you do not know how to talk sense.

Kinder Bueno said:

I think you are being disprectful to an Athiest's views. How can you expect them to respect your views, if you don't do the same.

Omrow said:

They dont. Thats the problem.

They want to force their Atheism on everyone else. Just take a look at them.

Atheists say all religious people are deluded.

That is their opinion.

As for me, I think Atheists tend to use absurd methods. They dont stick to scientific way of establishing the facts.

Any thinking person can easily see that most Atheists cannot use their brain properly.

Freethinker15 said:

hmm, sorry I forgot your love of the scientific method. lol. Note your respect for the scientific method! If you truly respected it you would try to learn all that it has to offer instead of mindlessly repeating the same old garbage.

well, yeah religious people are deluded that's invit if you can't provide any facts or evidence. You et al have to prove this is not so.

Instead of being derogatotory, I dear you to actually back up your claims with reason and evidence independent of the Koran! If the Koran is true, should be easy. Now, lets hear of your scientific expalanations for life etc.

The Carpenter said:

[Omrow claims Atheists tend to use absurd methods. They dont stick to scientific way of establishing facts. ]

Let's pretend for just a few more seconds that you can actually answer questions without resorting to pointless insults.
- What exactly do you mean by the "scientific way of establishing facts"?
- What "absurb methods" are used by atheists?

sinic said:

I suppose the clever dick who created the title of this thread thought that he had identified a contradiction ...ie religious contemplation cannot possibly have a logical basis.

It really depends on what you mean by religion.
If you believe that religion is only identified by the silly anthropomorphic trivial moral directives found in say Catholicism or Islam then of course it is possible to argue that logic and religion are incompatible.

Pointing this fact out is what makes Dickie Dorkins feel so good about himself.

However if you are intelligent enough to recognise, and it seems not many are, that limits appear to exist to the logical insights of which puny dangerous socio pathological humans are capable then the so called dilemma is seen for what it is...a dichotomy for dimwits.

Mr Whizz said:

Science's approach is as follows:-

1. Be sceptical about claims and explanations.
2. Demand evidence before believing something to be true.
3. Test to see whether the evidence supports the claims.
4. Consider whether alternative explanations better explains the evidence.
5. Look for evidence that shows the claim to be false.
6. Repeat from the top.

It's the best way of exposing explanations and claims as being false. It's also the best way of homing in on what might be true.

It's striking how different the above approach is to religious dogma.

Regardless of what particular explanations you might believe to be true, applying the above method should help highlight where you need to be doubtful.

Again, science sees doubt as a strength and absolutely necessary in improving our understanding/knowledge. Religion sees it as a weakness and strongly advocates having "faith" rather than having "doubts".

One advances knowledge. One holds it back.

It's not about differences in logic - it's about differences in attitude.

-

Quran Debate

2009-02-14T04:39:00.004-08:00

-

This debate took place on Channel 4

July 2008

"THE QURAN VIOLENCE DEBATE"

The TV Show - Web Producer:

Last week, Channel 4 broadcast The Qur’an - a two-hour film that explored the history of the Islamic holy text and looked at how it is interpreted by Muslims and non-Muslims around the world.

Not surprisingly, the channel has received a great deal of viewer feedback on the film – not only though Viewer Enquiries, but also on our forums, which have hosted some extremely interesting debates in recent days.

Did you watch The Qur'an? What did you think?

balaclava9 said:

I am an agnostic; I believe that all religious fundamentalism is bad.

I watched the first programme ‘It shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim’ which appeared to start with the view that Muslims are (wrongly) getting a bad time and steered the programme and players towards that conclusion. The presenter failed to ask Muslims the hard questions and failed to develop issues raised by anyone criticising Muslims. I found the second programme ‘The Qur’an’ balanced and most informative. It answered a lot of my questions and has caused me to research deeper into those question revealing some illuminating answers.

I would like to see a probing and ‘no holds barred’ investigation into the ludicrously obvious truth that the Qur’an is the words of men and not God. I would like answers to the questions like those listed below:

1. Why would God choose to deliver his message verbally to an illiterate man and over a period of 23 years, particularly as the same God wisely decided to deliver his original message in writing when he gave Moses his Commandments?

2. Why did God, after delivering unambiguous and unequivocal commandments to Moses feel the need to deliver a different message (or at best the same message in a different way) to Mohammed?

3. Why did God need 23 years to deliver his message, was it because (as it seems) that he kept changing or amending the message he’d delivered the year(s) before?

4. How do Muslims reconcile the fact that, although God kept changing the message he delivered to Mohammed, they have no way of knowing which message came first and which was God’s decided final version.

5. Why has wearing the veil and sporting long beards suddenly (over the past 10 years) become de rigeur for British Muslims?

6. Why is it that the Muslim world has failed to contribute anything of significance in the world (other than big Mosques and suicide bombers) for almost 700 years.

7. Why (despite massive oil wealth) us the Muslim world less well advanced than the western world and the Muslim man ion the street poorer than his western counterpart?

‘IS THE QUR’AN THE ACTUAL WORDS OF GOD DICTATED TO MOHAMMED AND ACCURATELY RECORDED BY HIS FOLLOWERS?’

Every other debate I have seen on TV is a trawl through the detail of verses of the Qur’an producing verses which suggest that Islam is a tolerant peaceful religion and an interviewer who is too frightened to point out the many hateful and contradictory verses.

Omrow said:

Most western scholars say Quran as exists today is the same text as that left by Prophet Mohammed.

Muslims believe that Quran is word of God which he revealed to Mohammed through Arcangel Gabriel.

Quran was revealed bit by bit; and took over 20 years to complete. It is same size as the Christian New Testament.

Last verse of the Quran was given to Prophet Mohammed by Gabriel in March 632 A.D.

He died 3 months later.

Today his grave in Medina is the second holiest site to Muslims. First holiest place is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca containing "The Kaabaa" - The "House of God" built by Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael.

nitpicker said:

The Quran was officially collated in about 656 under the third Caliph (similar to a Pope) Uthman. This was to unify the tribes and stop the fighting between students and teachers. And to concentrate all forces on other ambitions.
After the compilation all fragments and miscellaneous tracts and documents were ordered to be burned or destroyed. The Quran is a comparatively new book; and its’ followers for some reason, or lack of, regard much older holy works as being corrupt.
Other Biblical holy scriptures are said to be corrupt due to altering and editing. …. Just how can that be said after the editing and burning of 656CE?
At least a lot of the pre Christian early evidence is still around, and being discovered still, for debate.
The last time books were ordered to be burnt is was during the nazi regime.

Omrow said:

This is simply not what muslims believe.

Prophet Muhammad left the Quran as given by Angel Gabriel.

mintbox said:

I've never met such a bigger bunch of idiots in my whole life! How do you convince someone to believe something when there hell-bent on proving it wrong, no matter how much evidence is brought forward there is always gonna be morons who like to disagree because they hate the fact that there wrong. They will never accept being wrong but continue talking nonsense just for the sake of it, and the qur'an doesn't recommend kaffar (non muslim) bashing, but does say defend yourselves. By getting a harmless quote from the Qur'an and turning it into to something malicious is not an intellegent thing to do. I'd be the first to admit that islam does have it's faults NOT THE RELIGION but one or two idiots who got it wrong, doesn't mean blame the whole muslim population for it!. But i know that the killing of innocent muslims won't stop, well let me inform you that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, more and more people are converting to islam, so the more you insult us the bigger and better we get, so please continue. Before i go i ask you to ask yourselves just one question, have you ever considered the notion that muslims might be right?, i mean just consider it, what if, just WHAT IF muslims got it right?, where will your intellgence and long words get you when your face to face with god?, knowing that you insulted him, his prophet, and his religion, can you imagine what god's gonna do to you? boy, i feel sorry for you... actually come to think of it no i don't!, you were warned. And as for the good non muslims i will pray that god shows you mercy, and guides you to the right path.

balaclava9 said:

You speak of harmless quotes from the Koran. I’d be grateful if you would explain the peaceful tolerant aspects of the below verses?

Sura 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

Sura 5:51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

mintbox said:

balaclava, sura 9:5 i guess you haven't read the whole sura, this refers to the battle field, and how to conduct war, in islam there certain times when we are allowed to fight or not, for example the month of ramadan, this just refers to that "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans". Are you showing me this quote because it says fight and defend yourselves? what else do you expect muslims to do on the battle field, not fight? i find there to be nothing wrong with this quote.

as for the second quote, i admit i have no answer for not because there isn't one but its because i have not researched into it, but there is an answer i assure you. Islam is not a religion of hatred but of peace. The prophet muhammed (pbuh) stopped a battle because there were animals grazing! all you've done is got a quote from the Qur'an and made it out to be bad, but you can't be blamed because even muslims interpret quotes from the qur'an wrongly.

balaclava in the quote you gave there is written "but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" this just proves that islam is a religion of peace even forgiving those who try to kill them.

balaclava9 said:

AT the risk of being labled an 'extremist' I'd be grateful for you views on the below verse from the Qur'an which suggests that a man can beat a disobedient wife. From what I have read, Muslims agree that he can beat her but only 'lightly'!!!

Omrow said:

There is no tapping mentioned in muslim holy book.

Qoran clearly says if your wife is getting out of line, then teach her a lesson with your hands.

Muslims are allowed to beat their unruly women.

Normally women get a slap across the face. Some muslims say they have to use a proper beating to bring a bad woman to her senses.

It is no point trying to hide these facts.

Truth is the truth. Live with it.

also,

Domestic violence in Britain is on the increase.

So many women are beaten up in their own homes.

In most western countries even atheists hit their women.

This is not because muslims holy book tells men to beat their wives.

Men of all faiths, and even those with no faith, tend to do that anyway.

Tequila nic said:

True and in the UK it is against the law to hit your wife.

Is this true in, say, egypt, syria or iran?

PS Are you going to tell me where the original koran is kept?

Omrow said:

Dispite the law, men in UK still beat their women. Domestic voilence in rising.

In muslim countries, there is no law against beating up your wife. You can hit them as much as you like as long as they dont die in the beating.

Original Qoran?

Muslims believe it is kept with God in a very safe place.

We only have a pure copy as revealed to Prophet Mohammed in 630 AD.

Tequila nic said:

Why is there no law?

Omrow said:

Come on Nic.

Learn to think beyond muslims.

Why is there no law in Britain against parents slapping their children?

Answer: Democracy.

Most people don't want it.

Tequila nic said:

Smacking is allowed in the UK, although parents can get into trouble if they leave a mark on their children's body when they smack.

Do you think the women in Iran were asked if they wanted to be beaten?

Do you have a link to any source that would confirm this?

Omrow said:

Come on Nic. You can do better than that.

Do you think children in Britain were "ASKED" if they "WANTED" to be beaten?

No one likes being beaten in UK. But our MPs feel that sometimes it has to be done.

Therefore, our Parliament passed the law that said parents can beat their kids.

Poor kids, now legally terrorised in England.

Tequila nic said:

OK I’ll try and type this so you understand

YOU CANNOT BEAT A CHILD IN THE UK

Even a single slap (if it leaves a red mark) can land you with a criminal record.

This is because our MP’s decided that if you hit a child and it leaves a mark it will be considered as an assault.

Do you understand now?

YOU CANNOT BEAT A CHILD IN THE UK

I also take it you cannot find any evidence that Iran asked its population if they wanted to continue to be allowed to beat their wives.

So try again.

santorini said:

also children are minors whereas wives are adults so i think it is a different scenario. Children have been vunerable in Britain but things improve as years' go on and they have more rights (maybe they have too many at times but that is another debate).

To me the allowance of hitting your wife belongs to victorian times and not 2008. Also what is your feelings on mutilations of females which takes place in Africa and seems to be happening here in certain circles?

Omrow said:

If a society accepts that helpless children can be beaten by adults - children who are actually vunerable and innocent little angels - then it is very strange to have double standards and object to adults beating adults.

Adults are not helpless like children.

Either physical beating of anyone is wrong, or it is not wrong.

Make up your mind.

We in Britain, as well as our friends in America, allows adults to beat little children.

This is really quite sad.

santorini said:

Personally i don't think there is anything wrong with giving your child a slap which is totally different to beating your child. The parent is in charge of discipline and they live under their roof. children are certainly no little angels. I don't agree with neglect or bullying but there are shades of grey like everything.

An adult is a grown up and i think it is wrong for a man to hit his wife who he has promised to love and honour. maybe he might lose his temper but be sorry afterwards but to think it is acceptable to do this is another matter and out of date IMO.

In an ideal world there would be no violence

CDarwin said:

Let us understand this religion more;

Is there a preferred way of beating a disrespectful wife? Are only hands allowed or is some kind of weopon recommended?

Omrow said:

In Britain, my dad used to get beaten with a cane in school.

Many fathers remember getting beaten in bording schools.

It was torture.

Terrorising kids to brainnwash them in national curriculum.

I think weapons like canes are very effective way that European nations use to make people get in line.

We have a saying in Bournemouth: "Spare the rod - spoil the child."

Muslims use same line of reasoning to straighten their "babies".

malcolm/monica said:

I no longer have the patience to debate with religious raving lunatics,who make it up as they go allong

Cardigan said:

Hmmm - know what you mean but we can live in hope that a Muslim will come along with enough intellect to put forward some sort of defence.

Omrow said:

Yes.

But muslims have been told in their holy book not to engage the idiots.

So, I suspect that its going to be a long wait for some people.

Unless both parties are willing to use reason, what benefit can any discussion bring?

Cardigan said:

I so totally agree with you. I've consistently asked for nothing more than clear concise reasoned debate based upon evidence. OK we can all put forward an opinion but where it is not evidenced some give the opinion with some logic of how you get there. I promises nothing less and ask for nothing more. . . . You talk the talk but do you walk the walk?

Omrow said:

Cardigan. Only a very few people are willing to walk the path of sense.

Most people believe whatever suits them best, even if their belief is contrary to all reason.

Who would have thought that even in 21st century, most people from all sides still stick to their own party lines rather than the truth.

santorini said:

i suppose it is because the people who follow Islam are so conditioned to it that it is too frightening for them to step outside this comfort/control zone.

I am a christian and i do question at times but i think it is important to listen to others points of view and be open to debate.

Omrow said:

Your fear of Islam is apparent from your first sentence.

Also, if you did question things then you would have never believed in Trinity because it is competely against human reason. It just does not make sense at all.

Tequila_nic said:

Ive seen it on muslims forums where muslims have been told not to ask questions becasue it makes them kaffir.

Omrow said:

I too have seen fear on non-muslim forums where people are told not to talk to muslims because they might end up converting to Islam.

santorini said:

Yes you may be right Omrow. Not because i am frightened of being converted but because of the violence and intolerance that seems to come with Islam. I am not saying all Moslims are like this. I see it as a threat to democracy and freedom and our way of life. I do not like the way christians and jews are treated in Arabic countries e.g. Ethiopia or the Sudan. I do accept it is not all black and white and clear cut at times in these areas.

For example all the uproar with the cartoons printed in the danish paper or the death threats on Salmon Rushdie.

I am not trying to be offensive but honest.

Omrow said:

How nice.

A christian telling muslims that christians have no violence in their past.

Also, that Jews are victims of Palestinians violence.

I bet he would soon say that American christian military forces in Iraq are only defending themselves, and that it is Iraqi muslims who are violent.

And here comes his "our way of life" speech to muslims as if Christian world can hold a candle of morality muslims.

To sum up, with narrow minded people its always like the following:

"We in west are better than you in the east".

And also muslims who refuse to think, say:

"West, Christians and Jews are dispicable and most depraved people on Earth and will burn in Hell."

Ofcourse, both sides can continue have this type of condemning match. But I dont think there is any benefit to either side in this.

santorini said:

Omrow i am talking about now not the past. Yes christianity was violent but so was the rest of the world at that time and life was cheap. Yes there is a problem between the Jews and palestinians and it is complex.

I don't think i am particularly narrow minded by having my opinion. It has come about from some of the unpleasant things in Britain which have happened in the past 20 years concerning certain groups of Moslims. They are not very nice and wish Britain harm yet they are happy to take money off the state and have housing provided. they do not work but live very comfortably and do not worry about having a large family.

Again i know not every Moslem is like this.

John BE said:

Even if most Muslims were tempted to extremism, there aren't enough of them - and the fact is that most Muslims are ordinary peaceable folk who just want to get on with living their lives like the rest of us. Any sympathy they have towards extremists is generated by the peculiarly idiotic and vicious policies of the people that govern us.

Ever heard of Tertullian, santorini? The humorous Christian writer in north Africa back when there were persecutions back in the Roman Empire, third century AD?

He quoted the cry of the mob: "Christiani ad leonem!" "Christians to the lion!" That was when they used to put convicted people in an arena to fight lions to entertain the crowd. And then laughed at them: "All those Christians, just to one lion?!"

But he said something else, more seriously. "Sanguis martyrorum ecclesiae semen". "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church". And it worked out that way - the Church actually grew as a result of persecution.

And human nature's still the same, and it's no different for Muslims. I've just watched a film on Newsnight about American soldiers in Sadr City, the Shia suburb in Baghdad. After 9/11 I remember watching a New York woman on TV crying and saying over and over again "Why do they hate us?" If she watched that film, she'd have her answer ...

Omrow said:

People who are violent would use any justification for their actions.

Fanatic muslims misuse Qoran to justify their violence.

Militant Catholics in IRA and Protestants in Ulster both twist the Bible to strenghten their cause of terrorism.

It is human nature to look for support to sell your misdeeds.

Evil is evil whoever takes part in it.

constantius chlorus said:

I don't remember the Catholics or Protestants ever quoting the bible during their time.

parklaneyid said:

Omrow, its clear from this statement that you have absolutely no idea of Irish history. The two groups were fighting over territory and not over any religious differences; unlike the Sunni-Shia conflict!

Omrow said:

Yes. But all sides do use holy scriptures to justify their fighting positions.

People can use anything to carry on fighting.

Are you telling me that you really dont know that before carrying out their bombing campaigns on eath other, the IRA, UDF, UVF, and others did not get blessed by their respective Priests?

You dont know this?

You have clearly been brainwashed.

Maybe you have not heard of Reverend Ian Paisley?

I can tell you a few things about that priest who is now a "peaceful" man.

Omrow said:

My university's media studies' professor says media games never stop.

A Christian man who hates Islam has killed his sister because she converted to Islam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7658355.stm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24464249-5012751,00.html

Christian man shoots his sister for converting to Islam

AN Egyptian Coptic Christian shot at his sister and her family, killing her husband, after she converted to Islam and married a Muslim, a security official said today.

Rami Atef Khella, 28, broke into the Cairo apartment of his sister, Miriam Atef Khella, and sprayed her family of three with gunfire, killing Ahmed Saleh and injuring Miriam and her daughter, the official said.

Notice how the BBC presented the news story. You would not guess it was a Christian from the headline would you?

I think they were shocked after thinking that only muslims are supposed to do such things.

The Carpenter said:

No, that her family was Christian wasn't even mentioned until the first sentence in the article!

In fact, I couldn't even find the bit in the article where it actually says that he hates islam! The ... so and soes!

So, why don't you tell us what the headline should be? (6words or less please)

Omrow said:

Why six word headline.

When it comes to muslims, headlines often run way over 6 words.

They could have just stated the facts:

Christian kills sister for "becoming Muslim".

Freethinker15 said:

Maybe its because being a Christian for many isn't the be all and end all, like it is for many muslims.

Omrow said:

Or, maybe, you have fallen only for the anti-muslims propaganda?

Visit to the America's "Bible Belt" would enlighten you.

Fanatics exists in all religions.

look at this: Jews riot and try to force Muslims to oberve jewish religious events.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7660628.stm

Notice the headline again.

The Carpenter said:

So, in your opinion (as a media studies student?), what makes
"Christian kills sister for "becoming Muslim"
and better headline than
"Egyptian killed in sectarian row"?

also, this: "Jews riot and try to force Muslims oberve jewish religious events"

I entirely agree with you, obviously we should all be more tolerant and condemn violence in all it's forms whether religiously "inspired" or not. Hopefully you'll take this chance to condemn the violence against Muslims and the violence committed by Muslims as well.

Santorini, why don't you take the blinkers off, just for a few seconds? Christians are just as capable of committing murder as anyone else. You're not fooling anyone except yourself.

santorini said:

yes of course mr carpenter. it just reminded me of the situation in Ireland. i don't think i have blinkers on.

Omrow said:

People often make a fatal mistake when, without knowing, they develop three criteria:

One for their own people; one for their opponent or "enemies"; and, one for those whom they dont really care about.

I recommend that we all simply use one same standard to judge our own group as well as others.

I believe this would surely lead to a better world, a fairer society, and it would lead to peace between people.

The Carpenter said:

Sounds good to me, Kant said much the same thing in advocating that we should "Act only in accordance with a maxim that you can at the same time will to become a universal law", but he always was a bit of a wordy type. The name escapes me, but someone else managed to put it more simply a couple of thousand years ago(?), something about 'doing unto others'(?), from out to the east somewhere? Oh, it's come back to me now, it was Confucius.

Omrow said:

Thats right. Its an Islamic motto.

Its a Golden Rule for establishing peace and justice.

Muslims believe God sent 124,000 Messengers to guide mankind.

Confucious was one of God's Prophets.

His real name was Master Kong.

Western visiters to China did not like him very much, so they mutilated his name.

No1 is innocent said:

Does Islam actually have any of it's own prophets, or does it just lay claim to prominent figures from other religions?

Omrow said:

Muslims say they were all Islamic.

Muslims believe that Jesus was sent by Alla, so he was an Islamic Prophet.

Gotum Bod, known as Buddha, was also God's Prophet.

Master Kong is another.

Daood, known as David, is also Islamic Prophet.

So were, men like Abraham, Noah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Solomon, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, and so on and on.

In fact, all the Prophets mentioned in Bible are Prophets sent by God.

Muslims claim that a total of 124,000 Holy Messengers were sent by God. Mohammed being the final one. He died in year 632 A.D.

Did you know, Islam did not begin with birth of Prophet Mohammed. It began with the appearence of the first MAN some 14,000 ago. He was pious. God chose him to be His Prophet.

Biologists have recently confirmed that first true humanoids emerged some 10,000 years ago.

This is what Muslims believe.

The Carpenter said:

124,000 prophets in 14,000 years? Thats nearly 9 prophets per year for 14,000 years, followed by none for 1,400years. Hardly seems fair to me.

And what was God doing before the first man appeared? Waiting?

Homo Sapiens first emerged about 250,000years ago, or aren't they "truly humanoid" enough for you?

Democrat said:

Would it be asking tooo much for Ch4 to air a programme on atheists, science and THEIR view of religion??
I am sick and tired of seeing programmes about Muslims/Islam etc, with all the exhortation for "respect" to be shown etc..excessive respect if we bear in mind 9/11 and 7/7!!
And incidentally, can we have these "Muslims" identified by their nationality instead of a religious label????
IE: British Asian/American Asian.German Asian etc etc.
The religion is (to me) totally irrelevant, but media seem to be falling over backwards not to get their windows broken in sucking up to this objectionable collection of religious bigots.
We need to do as the Americans do...your country must come first, then your religion is protected, but hard times to those who put religion before country.
Maybe a requirement to put a union flag on every mosque to show their true allegiance would be a start???
As for any holy book, we are wasting time on a myth...more science please!! (After all it is the 21st Century)

Yuze said:

I agree. Stop showing programmes on Islam.

----

Debate 2:

This discussion took place on Channel 4

July 2008

Islam on C4

The TV Show
Web Producer

This week, Channel 4 is broadcasting a selection of programmes that explore the Islamic faith. With both The Qur'an and The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World, commissioning editor Aaqil Ahmed believes the channel is contributing to a new understanding of Islam in the western world.

Visit The TV Show website to find out more, as Aaqil explains his motivation for commissioning both projects.

If you've watched any of the programmes featured in C4's Islamic season and would like to share your views/ask any questions about what you've seen

Thanks

johnbee said:

I wat5ched most of the program about the Qur'an. It was a completely typical BNP/Tabloid anti muslim rant, even down to the showing of a brutal mutilation of a little girl's private parts while she screamed pitifully in protest. Absolutly bnothing at all to do with the actual Koran (as it is spelt on the copy I read a while ago.

balaclava9 said:

I not only watched the whole of both programmes I taped them and have re-watched them.

The first programme ‘It shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim’ appeared to start with the view that Muslims are (wrongly) getting a bad time and steered the programme and players towards that conclusion; failed to ask Muslims the hard questions. I found the second programme ‘The Qur’an’ balanced and most informative. It answered a lot of my questions and has caused me to research deeper into those question revealing some illuminating answers.

Tequila nic said:

I am finding hard to find a version of islam that is compatable with our liberal society

wendymann said:

who is this we and why do you claim that you represent a liberal society?

from what ive read of your posts you are hardly liberal.

maybe if you just referred to the koran as your starting point, since that is the only islam you might learn something. of course one does have to have ones wit about them and be prepared to understand the simplicity and the complexity.

somehow i dont think you have that with in you when it is about islam.

islam tells one not to comment on things that one doesnt understand. it asks one to be on jihad to become a better muslim. it asks one to be respectful with regard to the koran.

what one was being told was that islam and muslims have a belief in a corrupted piece of fiction.

what one was being told was that islam is not a unifying faith that seeks to provide social and political set of directions but one that kills more muslims , is divisive and politically has no relevance to the modern era.

what one was being told was to doubt ones faith, doubt ones fellow muslims .

what one was being told was that islam has no place in todays society because it is backwards, primitive and cannot provide the solutions that are required.

that was the underlying thrread of the film and that is why it is being praised by anti islam anti muslims as being 'balanced'.

blast99 said:

the programme provided evidence to back this up. Islam is a medieval religion obsessed with medieval subjects such as virginity and adultery and how you should behave in the presence of an imaginary being.
One of the best bits that showed the religion's power to infect the mind was when the woman ex-lawyer was arguing against the notion that covering the face might be detrimental to communication with other people. Of course covering the face is detrimental to communication. This is fact obvious to a 3-year-old. Yet this woman rejected the idea as 'baseless'.
I'd heard about the mistranslation of virgin fron grapes (or white raisins) before but it was interesting to see the connection with Christianity and paintings depicting heaven being a place full of grapes! It was also interesting to hear the alternative translations from earlier languages which make much more sense of various parts of the text.

Omrow said:

The fact is that Islam is now the fastest growing religion on Earth.

More and more people are converting to Islam than to any other faith.

Ever since September 11, people who had never heard of Islam are now reseaching the religion and becoming muslims.

More white people convert to Islam than Muslims convert to Christianity. This is a fact.

Channel 4 Television is informing people as to what exactly Islam is and what muslims believe.

Naturally media being biased, TV does gets many things wrong. It is influnced by anti-muslim propaganda from newspapers like the Sun, Mirror, Daily Star and so on.

The quicker we learn to tolerate different views the better it is for everyone.

Intolerance is only speeding up the spread of Islam, and making muslims more determined to fight back.

balaclava9 said:

Entirely so, the probelm is, the Qur'an commands Muslims not to tolerate non-Muslims.

Omrow said:

Not true. I think you need to look into their holy book, the Qoran.

balaclava9 said:

The UK is a Christian country. The UK not only tolerates but has welcomed foreigners into the country and facilitated their worship of the religion despite the fact that their religion commands that they not tolerate non-Muslims.

Muslims in the UK choose to live here (rather than Paksiatn etc.,) presumably because the UK provides them with a better life, yet they offer no allegiance to the country that provides for them.

If Muslims said, I am British first, I intend to integrate and subscribe to British standards and my allegiance is the the UK head of state they would be welcomed by all.

to continue, Islam is not a religion it is an ideology and it is an ideology that promotes intolerance suggesting that God commands it to be so.

Muslims who walk around the streets of this (tolerant Christian) country wearing the symbols of that ideology are insulting the indigenous population who have taken them in and given them succour.

So Omrow, those different views that you suggest I should show tolerance to, please tell me how I should show tolerance to the below verses from the Qur’an that instruct you that you should not make friends with the people who gave a home to thousands of Muslims fleeing Muslim countries to live here in this tolerant Christian country. . . . .

Sura 3 Verse 28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
Sura 4 Verse 139 Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.
Sura 4 Verse 144 O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?
Sura 5 Verse 51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Sura 5 Verse 80 Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah.s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.

Omrow said:

You take verses out of context.

In any propaganda, anyone can take anything out of context and make it suit their own beliefs.

Every honest person who is aware of this type of twisting and disinformation, knows full well that muslim holy book praises the christains and asks muslims to love them.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that Qoran is one of the most advance and beautiful books in the world.

Prophet Muhammad protected christians.He even paid for building of churches in his state. This is tolerance he showed to christians.

No one has yet paid muslims to build their mosques.

I think we need to remain cool-headed and not get things out of perspective.

The following are words of British "Christian" Prime Minster about the muslim holy book:

PM Tony Blair praises the Quran:

"The Koran is practical and way ahead of its time".

"The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran – in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic - is to understand how progressive it is".

"I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance".

"Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. We look back to the early Middle Ages, the standard bearers of tolerance at that time were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian." [ Tony Blair 2006]

Greenjack said:

well if TB said it it must be true

Omrow said:

Tony Blair thought that Qoran is probably the most tolerance-preaching religious book in the world.

It is known for its advance laws on co-existence and love between difference cultures, races, religions and so on. To confirm this, one only has to read it with an opened and unprejudiced mind.

Tequila nic said:

Yet he didnt revert, in fact he became a chatholic

Why do you think that is?

Omrow said:

He was not convinced by other stupid things that many muslims believe which are based on sources outside the Qoran.

It is these doctrines that most of the western world has a real problem with.

In fact, any honest thinker would have serious issues with such beliefs.

If muslim belief was based ONLY on the text of the Qoran, then Tony Blair would have converted to Islam.

And who knows, the gentleman is still young.

CDarwin said:

Quite amusing really...arguing over which fairy story is true. Wake up!

Omrow said:

Not quite as amusing as the monkey story told by Darwin, I must say, dear old chap.

Dream on !

Cardigan said:

When it comes down to quoting part of a speech, that’s done all the time by moderate Muslims trying to convince us that the Qur’an preaches tolerance and peace. Take the below

After September 11, 2001, many Muslims came out with the following Qur’anic quote to show that Islam and the Qur’an disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”.

Unfortunately, these soothing words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: “That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

Omrow said:

If you bother to carefully read the Qoran, you will agree with Tony Blair and Bush that it is most tolerant book on Earth.

You quoted a verse: "Those that make war... and spread disorder shall be put to death "

So what Cardigan?

Actually it was President Bush who quoted this verse from Qoran to show that Islam is not a violent religion at all as media's anti-muslim propaganda tries to alledge. He said it was only some muslims who twist Qoran's teachings.

The muslim holy book is simply saying that the warmongers and terrorists should be put to death.

What your problem?

Isn't that what US is doing already - killing terrorists?

Cardigan said:

I have read here, extracts from the Qur'an, posted principally by balaclava, which advocate hate, intolerance and violence to non Muslims. I am sure you have studied the Qur'an; will you help us by listing the Sura that advocate peace, tolerance and non violence to non Muslims?

Omrow said:

Quotes from Qoran by Mr balaclava are "dug up" and deliberately misinterpreted.

They show only the gentleman's own dislike of muslims. Nothing more.

I can even quote parts of the United States Constitution and show it preaches hate.

So what?

Does it?

No.

Qoran claims to be from God.

Therefore, naturally, it is going to be comprehensive. It would cover every type of human need from sex to slaughter.

From sex on the bed with 4 wives. To slaughter on the battlefield.

Between these two, it offers Divine Guidelines on all daily needs of humans from finance to foul.

After the Bible, Qoran has had the most impact on human history.

Pickthall translation is the only Standard Version from Arabic into English.

Other translations are inaccurate and, therefore, considered unrealiable by muslims.

parklaneyid said:

Very strange choice to illustrate the breadth of human experience. And with such precision!

Why not sex with 5 wives on the floor? Why not slaughter on a University campus?

constantius chlorus said:

Why not allow a Muslim woman to have sex with four men?

Omrow said:

Perhaps if they were like other women, they too wish for such an act?

Muslim women are in no way like any other women.

Go and see.

santorini said:

i don't think i would want to be like that either Omrow. Not every western woman is drunk and promiscous. Moslem women probably are just like Western women in lots of ways and want the same things.

parklaneyid said:

Omrow, don't make such sweeping and loopy statements! I have taught hundreds of muslim women. Almost all of them (though not all)behave and act just like anyone else.

Omrow said:

I am just stating the facts.

Dont try to twist what is clear to everyone, to muslims as well as to the rest of our great country.

We should never shy away from the truth, especially when it is bitter.

God hates those who run away and hide from the truth.

constantius chlorus said:

Ah but whose truth?

John BE said:

From a traditional Christian point of view, it's quite an extraordinary idea that God hates anybody ... but then the early Christians used to reckon that Islam was a sort of Jewish/Christian heresy ...

Omrow said:

Truth is not a property of any one person or a particular group.

God says that everyone has the right to access the Truth, except, of course, the idiots.

God hates the morons.

John BE said:

Your God does quite a lot of hating, for one is is, I understand "all-compassionate and all merciful ..."

Omrow said:

Whose God loves idiots?

Certainly not the God who made this universe.

Even Jesus hated a lot of people. Go read his words.

If Jesus loved people, why did he call them dogs and pigs?

Jesus certainly knew how to curse.

No point running away from the facts.

Truth may be bitter, but it is the truth.

John BE said:

Looks like your Islamic tradition contains things about Jesus that none of the rest of us have heard of ....

Omrow said:

As you all well know, muslims actually love Jesus. They claim that Jesus will return to sort out the mess in our world. To muslims that means Americans and their allies.

Although I have read nowhere in the Qoran that Jesus will take over the White House.

But it is not a bad idea.

I hope he does.

The place is in desperate need of good cleaning.

John BE said:

Mmm - but it seems it's a rather different Jesus from the one I recognize ...

Omrow said:

We all recognise a different Jesus.

Even Atheists recognise a different Jesus to one known by christians and muslims.

Upon his return, only Christ himself
will tell which of us was right and which of us was wrong.

He is the best judge. Perfect, in fact.

Christians and Muslims both love Jesus in their own way.

One says he was God in human form.

The other claims he was an Envoy of God - A Messenger.

Well, we will just have to wait till the day he comes and settles it.

Angelus the Vampire said:

I think the muslim koran also mentions Jesus, although they have him as a prophet, rather than as the son of god.

The Carpenter said:

I think you're right, but then the Koran also mentions a Noah-esque flood, so the fact that a myth can spread from one holy book to another doesn't confirm the original event. All it does is suggest that they share a common ancestor.

There's some rather good sections in God is not Great (by C.Hitchens) on how and why religions adopt different bits of earlier beliefs, including both the probable historic reasons for the Koran and the Book of Mormon or LuisGarcia's list of Easter blessings for the Christians to ponder.

I'll assume we're talking about one massive world wide flood of epic proportions that covered all (or at least the vast majority) of the earth at some point since humans first started communicating in some way, shape or form. (If you want to extend/ challenge that definition, let me know and I'll see what I can do.)

Firstly, if there was a flood like that, where did the water come from? and where did it go to?

Secondly, a flood on that scale would leave massive amounts of evidence, but there isn't any.
e.g. - We would expect to find massive amounts of sedimentation being churned up and re-deposited, but instead of being laid down in it's originally order the densest layers would be at the bottom and the least dense at the top.
- We would expect to find that all the fossils distributed through these layers, either wholly randomly/ all at the bottom/ with the slowest moving or heaviest towards the bottom and the lighter or faster moving animals near the top (delete as applicable).

Since we don't find evidence that fits this massive one off flood, but we find evidence that smaller local floods do occur, that many cultures have many myths about floods. It makes much more sense to assume that the local floods were exaggerated to epic (even biblical) proportions to suit the story telling needs of primitive peoples (who were also scared of thunder & lightning, volcanoes etc) to fit in with the currently popular god myth of the day (& then copied and pasted into later god myths).

Angelus the Vampire said:

A world wide flood does not need to have happened. But a catastrophic flood could hav engulfed completely the area of the author of the story.

For example, in the Ice Age, huge glaciers covered large tracts of land hundreds of miles wide. Behind the glacier builds up a lake of rain water formed over hundreds/thousands of years.

Obviously as global warming happens, ice melts and cracks form in the glacier. Once the glacier melts past a point of no return the build up of water in the lake breaks through causing a huge flood. I Have on DVD somehwere the story of one such event happening in what is now the USA: the flood rushing over the countryside was over 500foot deep, and travelled for hundreds of miles. Without rewatching it (or finding it first) I can`t remember the well known area of the USA this flood travelled over, but the landscape after the flood waters died down is very impressive.

The experts are monitoring another glacier that is getting into a similar state of collapse in Iceland at the moment.

Omrow said:

Noah and the flood, as mentioned in the muslim holy book Qoran, is not a global flood. It was a local flood to drown only the local nasties who poked fun at God's Prophet.

As you know, God does not like his mates being mocked. So, He sent hurricanes, storm, floods and everything and drowned all the baddies.

Noah's son was also drowned because he sided with the pagans and refused to get on board the divine ship. God said, he is worst than a pig, and I will now kill him.

So, there was no world wide flood. Only parts of Turkey and Armenia were flooded. It occoured only in the area around the black sea.

Muslims do not accept the Bible version. They claim it was altered to make it more dramatic.

John BE said:

I read Omrow saying that, because God "didn't like his mates being mocked", he "sent hurricanes .. &c .. and drowned all the baddies", and that God decided to kill Noah's son because he was "worse than a pig". I think your God's way nastier than mine, Omrow!

The Carpenter said:

No, Omrow’s God only killed some people in a localised flood, yours killed everyone on the planet apart from Noah & co. Even if you’re going to try and claim this was a smaller flood (i.e. not the flood god promised in Genesis) Omrow’s god only killed one more person (Noah’s son) than your’s did. So I’m not sure that really qualifies him as “way nastier” (or are you now saying that this was just a flood and God had nothing much to do with it at all?)

Omrow said:

Noah's son was drowned becaused he mocked God and refused to get on board.

But the pig, now he had more sense. The pair did get on to the ship.

Mr and Mrs Swine were saved by Noah.

So, God killed Noah's son and saved the pigs.

Lesson of Noah's story is that if
you mess with God's Prophets, watch how the Divine Wrath will destroy you.

also,

Muslims say Islam is compatiable with modern science.

There is no fact established by scientific finding which goes against any text of the book of God - the holy Qoran.

Muslims say only scientific theories seems to contradict Qoran. Never the facts.

Freethinker15 said:

Evolution, as has been explained to you on a number of occassions, is a fact!! Therefore, along with many other examples, your precious book is a big contradiction.

Omrow said:

If the monkey story was a fact, then there would be unity among scientists.

The fact is, that there are still some scientists who do not accept the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION".

I agree that man-made stories can contradict God. But never the facts.

God makes facts. Men make delusions.

Yuze said:

The Prophet said: "Speak of good or remain quiet, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day."

Angelus the Vampire said:

Perhaps your words should be aimed at Omrow. He does not obey this directive, ie speak nice or remain silent.

Omrow said:

What he meant was that reasonable people do not engage in howling.

malcolm/monica said:

We are going off track,or being led off.
'God' said their woman must dress 'modestly'...nothing wrong with that(apart from the God bit)

Where it goes naughty is in recent years history shows clearly that the dress code has tightened...why?,we might ask,this is a man made shift...no god imput!

Angelus the Vampire said:

lol.....

The insults only allowed to go one way, Omrow?

Or aren`t you used to females biting back?

Omrow said:

I am just not used to girls peeing on my shoes.

And I wont let them either.

Segregation is essential.

The Carpenter said:

What's this strange obsession with comparing praying and urinating?

Omrow said:

What about people comparing praying with gender equality?

Is that not a stranger obsession?

Angelus the Vampire said:

per-ice-less.

So you don`t mind men peeing on your shoes?

Thought you lot executed men of that inclination?

Omrow said:

What do you mean "you lot" !!??!!

You will never understand "us lot".
We humans with our warm blood will not allow ourselves to be sucked dry by "your lot" !!!

The Carpenter said:

How dare you!? You show me one passage in the Koran where it says men can't pee on other men's shoes!

Omrow, do you believe men & women should have equal rights?

Omrow said:

No. They have to bend to us.

Its men's eternal prerogative.

The only way all "real men" like it.

Angelus the Vampire said:

I do believe that the mods are too afraid of your extremist views and religion to censure you properly, Omrow.

And I know that any comment that I make in this forum about how you and your attitude is offensive to me will earn me a visit by the ban stick.

The Carpenter said:

That's right the religion that produced someone so obviously backward (& terrified of women) is Islam.

I've got a little thought experiment for you Omrow. Obviously this implies you're capable of thought, which is just one of my wacky atheistic ideas, but do you want to give it a go & see if we can get at least two of your neural synapsese firing at the same time?

Mycor said:

You've disappointed me know Omrow, just when it was going so well. At least everyone knows where they stand now, which is partly what I've been seeking throughout.

By the way, I wasn't going to comment on your sexual stereotyping of me previously, but will now. I'm male and certanly no less of a man than you (referencing your real men comment). I have a lot of female friends who I consider of equal status to my male friends, men and women are equal in my eyes and should be judged as individuals and how they are not by their gender. If a woman choses to play a role in the family etc where she leaves decisions to the male that's up to her, but the idea of someone having to bend to a man's will is wrong. Unfortunately there does seem to be a theme in Islam that somehow women have to be hidden away and covered up, seemingly because men (is that real men?) cannot be trusted in their presence to control their thoughts/actions. Seems to be more a problem with a macho male culture than anything else and is something I'd be ashamed to admit.

Omrow said:

Real men do not like to bend themselves before women. It has to be the other way round.

Many studies and polls have shown that females like such men.

Daily Mail regularly carries this type of "scientific" research of human desires.

Basically, I dont think any self-respecting woman would like to be seen with a whimp.

Ofcourse, all this has nothing to do with gender equality.

Angelus the Vampire said:

How do you explain then that the women control the money their husbands earn?

Omrow said:

I think all the money in the world belongs to women. They just love cash.

Also, women are very good are looking after things.

Men tend to be clumsy. Which is why they need to trust women with their valuables.

santorini said:

Omrow sounds like he has read that American book on the submissive wife. i don't mind a bit of chivalry from men but not to be a doormat.

Omrow said:

Now, in the 21st century, most women dont like girly men.

Women are once again returning to look for "real men":

No wonder at the univesity so many girls fell for...

More reports on why women dont like whimps:

From girls there is lot of demand for REAL MEN.

Very few women nowadays like arse kissers.

[see sources of these articles in other blogs on the profile]

santorini said:

I like men to be men and not wimps but i don't want a control freak husband either. I want my independence and be able to be myself. There is a way in the middle.

do you think Mr Masoud in Eastenders is a good role model for moslem men. he does seem very moderate

Omrow said:

Daily Mail often reports on how our secular society abuses women's rights.

For Atheists, there is no such thing as equal rights.

Men in high positions get treated differently than women.

They dont even pay women the same amount of money for doing exactly the same job as a man.

Even when women are more qualified, are getting more top jobs, but they get less pay.

Even at an equal rights body, women earn less than men!!

Britain is well behind Latvia and Sri Lanka in giving women equal rights.

A think-tank found that the UK has slipped two places down to 13th in its gender equality table in the past year, being overtaken by third world nations!!

Men just dont trust women to make major decisions. New global report on women's rights has found that women are still less likely than men to get top political and decision-making roles.

United Nations says that even in the 21st century western nations are not giving women equal rights.

Dont blame religion for this.

It has nothing to do with God!!

Angelus the Vampire said:

true.
very true.

But that doesn`t explain YOUR attitude that it`s men`s ETERNAL PEROGATIVE that women bend their will to a man, which is what YOU Claim your god expects.

--

Introduction

2009-02-14T04:39:00.003-08:00

-

Hello,

Welcome to the section on debates that has been dedicated to our members who participated in fantastic debates.

These discussions are taken from forums provided by various websites including Channel 4 TV Network, Professor Richard Dawkins debating society and other venues.

The debates presented here only in part.
Lengthy transcripts have been shortened for ease of reading. For full texts of the complete debates are available on request.

We have endeavour to correct the spelling mistakes.

If the reader spot any error, please inform us as soon as possible.

If you have any question, then please posts it in the comment sections.

Thank You.

Ben Stallion
Team leader
2009

-

-

2009-02-14T04:39:00.001-08:00

Discussions