Are you an atheist? (9 Viewers)

[John Big Booty]

More likely:

A crowd of mentally ill people has burned to death a man for pointing out the truth about the muslim holy book.

You're all mentally ill, and what the F@%k are you doing intruding in my own private delusional world

 

[Galaxiom]

I sleep soundly every night, comforted by the knowledge that a beer volcano and a stripper factory await me in the afterlife.

One would need to be careful which we went for.

Getting the beer and stripper confused would be very unpleasant. Though perhaps not fatal since we would already be in the afterlife.

Or do we die again from drinking the stripper and have to reapply to be admitted again?

And why do they have stripper in the afterlife anyway? Will we have to repaint afterwards?

 

[John Big Booty]

There are lots of things I have imagined doing with a stripper but drinking one, that's just weird I guess you'd have to blend it first OMG I'm getting visions of Issei Sagawa

 

[Brianwarnock]

Mike, <G> stands for Grin, more accurately it means the post was humor.

So that's what it means, why not use the emoticons?

Brian

 

[recyan]

"Why are we surprised when politicians play politics? It's not like they are supposed to be real adults... they are, after all, politicians and don't have real jobs and aren't playing around with their money."
- Max


Happened to come across above today & was surprised when I replaced the word politicians with preachers.


"Why are we surprised when preachers play preaching? It's not like they are supposed to be real adults... they are, after all, preachers and don't have real jobs and aren't playing around with their money & their own life."


Sorry about intruding in to your beautiful world, John. In case there's some space left, count me in.

 

[John Big Booty]

...


Sorry about intruding in to your beautiful world, John. In case there's some space left, count me in.

Your in just don't forget to bring some beer

 

[Brianwarnock]

What sort of paradise is this, I thought beer, pasta, and strippers were all provided, do we have to bring the latter two swell?

Brian

 

[John Big Booty]

Beer, strippers and pasta are provided in the afterlife. If you want in on my own private delusional world, you need to bring beer.

 

[spikepl]

@Uncle Gizmo

I think his quest to undermine his vicar father may have unhinged him a bit as he professed a belief in flying saucers and that he had even seen one!

Are you being ironic, intentionally or not?

So the vicar, professing a belief in God, resurrection, heaven, hell, and all kinds of other invisible stuff etc etc is sane, whereas his son, believing in flying saucers, presumably based on exactly the same amount of proof as the vicar's fantasies, but perhaps short of a long fantasy-manual (the one the vicar calls The Bible), is "unhinged"?

 

[Dick7Access]

So that's what it means, why not use the emoticons?

Don’t play cute with me Brian, you knew what <G> meant, that quote was meant for MikeLeBen, and you knew that didn’t you, you little cutie. <G><G><G> You say potato, I say potaato.

Beer, strippers and pasta are provided in the afterlife. If you want in on my own private delusional world, you need to bring beer.
Oh! no! I can’t eat pasta, I’ll starve to death, oh wait I am already dead, right? <G>>G<

<G>>G< What does this one mean Brian? <G>>G<

 

[Dick7Access]

@Uncle Gizmo



Are you being ironic, intentionally or not?

So the vicar, professing a belief in God, resurrection, heaven, hell, and all kinds of other invisible stuff etc etc is sane, whereas his son, believing in flying saucers, presumably based on exactly the same amount of proof as the vicar's fantasies, but perhaps short of a long fantasy-manual (the one the vicar calls The Bible), is "unhinged"?

Is anyone suprised. I have seen churches split ovet the color of the carpet.

 

[aziz rasul]

Science sells better to me: I find it easier and more compelling to listen to some people who spend their lives investigating with whatever means they have the world and universe around them, by a mixed use of sheer brain power, ever-more-sophisticated technology and observation, and the expanation they provide consequently

than

listening to someone who bases their assumptions on old epic books,

Just because a book is old doesn’t mean it’s wrong, that’s a simplistic argument to make. After all some science books are old but still give the correct science. We don’t reject these books. I agree that certainly these days science can be used as a companion towards establishing the truth. The verses I gave in the previous posts compared science and an old epic book.

trying to comprehend a book written over 1,000 years ago is going to be full of errors and assumptions. That's why they're are so many branches of Christianity. I believe it also plays apart in why there are 2 different major sects of Islam.

Why should a book written over 1,000 years necessarily be full of errors? This is illogical. Would a book that is 200 years that says 2+2 = 4 be less right than a book published today saying the same thing?

There are many different sects among Jews, Christians and Muslims. This was declared by Muhammad (peace be upon him) who said that there would be 71 sects among the Jews of which only 1 sect would be on the true path, among the Christians there would be 72 sects among the Christians of which only 1 sect would be on the true path and similarly 73 sects among the Muslims.

This could be interpreted as other intelligent beings created before humans - "those before you" coupled with "O mankind".

Actually it does refer to the present mankind. However for previous mankind, consider the following.

“Verily, We created them and strengthened (referring to man’s physical constitution) all of them. And when We willed, We replaced them completely by people (qawm) who were of the same kind.”
Qur’an - Surah al-An`aam (The Cattle) 6:133

15. “O mankind! You are the ones who are in need of Allaah. And Allaah! He is the Absolute, the Owner of Praise.
16. If He wanted, he could destroy you and bring about a new creation.
17. And that is not hard for Allaah.”
Qur’an - Surah Faatir (The Originator) 35:15-17

7. (God) is the One who created you, then fashioned you harmoniously and in due proportion;
8. Into whatsoever form He willed, He made you out of components.
Qur’an - Surah al-Infitaar (The Believers) 82:7-8 See also 56:57-62, 87:2.

as long as you interpret them in a favourable way. Much the same way psychics and palm readers seem to know so much about their clients.

I always interpret the Qur’an in an honest way. Verses in the Qur’an relating to provable science are clear and not ambigious.

How right you are in if Aziz is right I am in big trouble.

It’s not a case of if. I am right. The only religion given by the Creator since the time of Adam (peace be upon him) until the Last day was and is Islam. People over the past years changed the word e.g. the OT has changed from what was revealed originally and the NT is man made and had bits added to it since it was first written. The Qur’an has remained the same. The message that the previous prophets gave was the same as the last and Seal of the prophets.

A crowd of mentally ill people has burned to death a man for pointing out the truth about the muslim holy book.

His truth, you mean. Not the truth.

Galaxiom noticed you had nothing to say regarding the Qur’anic verse to show there would be something you would agree with. I think I proved my point.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Why should a book written over 1,000 years necessarily be full of errors? This is illogical.

Books are written in the language that is current at the time. Language changes very rapidly. I believe it was earlier in this thread that you were explaining how the Arabic language has changed through the years.

As such, trying today to look at the original writings from 1,000 years ago is going to require interpretation. Much like translating a book from one language to another. The translator tries to understand the intent of the writing and translate truly (best case scenario), or, what I believe to be more likely, interpret the book in a way that they most agree with.

There are many different sects among Jews, Christians and Muslims. This was declared by Muhammad (peace be upon him) who said that there would be 71 sects among the Jews of which only 1 sect would be on the true path, among the Christians there would be 72 sects among the Christians of which only 1 sect would be on the true path and similarly 73 sects among the Muslims.

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.

link

Guess there's a few more than 72?

Actually it does refer to the present mankind. However for previous mankind, consider the following.

Sure, but what I interpret out of that and what you interpret are likely to be different. This is what I meant by saying that all scriptures can be interpreted in different ways. The language is ambiguous due to several factors.

I always interpret the Qur’an in an honest way. Verses in the Qur’an relating to provable science are clear and not ambigious.

Its not always about honesty. People are a collection of their life experiences and their upbringings. We all have different perceptions. I would be willing to bet I could find Muslims that interpret parts of the Qur'an differently than you do. Who's right? You would say you are, and they would say they are.

How do we place an objective value on who's more likely correct? Do we look at the amount of formal education the person has in theology? Do we look at how many years experience the person has spent studying the religion, the holy books, etc?

Tell me how we OBJECTIVELY determine that, and I will find you evidence of someone who is "better" than you that disagrees with at least some of your interpretations.

 

[Galaxiom]

I wouldn't describe myself as "Faithful" I would say open minded, and I mean open for both sides of the argument.

By the Bible is not the word of God, it is the word of man purporting to be the word of God. However it does appear to hint at a greater knowledge in some places, although it does also suggest some fanciful things like someone walking on water.

Faithful or not you assume the debating strategy of the faithful.

Here you completely ignore the rebuttal I provided involving the obvious error about the birds appearing before the land animals. Then you continue by reasserting that the Bible hints at greater knowledge.

If you want your claim to stand then please provide evidence. Moreover compare how many errors are including in the Bible with the number of things its gets right. Then apply statistical analysis to show that the things it does get right are not just coincidental. In any set of random claims some are, on the balance of probability. going to be correct.

How do I know all this? Well, it's a fact of life that some of father and son relationships are not very good, "father and son" spend their lives fighting each other. One such son, John, whom I worked with 20 odd years ago was the son of a vicar, and in the way of such relationships, he took issue with his father's beliefs and found every avenue he could to undermine them. He Passed this information on to people and at that particular time I was working with him past it to me! I think his quest to undermine his vicar father may have unhinged him a bit as he professed a belief in flying saucers and that he had even seen one!

Here you imply that those who undermine religion are unhinged by their quest.

 

[Galaxiom]

As you seem to reject the Qur’an completely, here’s part of a verse which I’m sure you agree with, in substance regarding our treatment of out parents.

Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour. Qur’an - Surah al-Isra (The Night Journey) 17:23 See also 2:83.

Here Mohammed takes a moment from the endless drivel of praising Allah and recounting the punishments that will befall those who fail to worship Him.

However one does not require a doctrine to have respect for one's parents. My children are entirely without religion and hold their parents in the highest regard. They do not comply with orders to do so from me or a holy book at pain of great suffering promised by a deity.

They do it not because they were threatened but entirely because they were shown respect throughout their lives. Children learn far better through example rather than doctrine and fear.

Do we find verses in the Qur'an imploring the devotee to treat their children with same respect they give they would have for their parents?

I very much doubt it for the Qur'an (like the Bible) has a strict order of authority and respect. First to God, then to men, then below all men, to women .... and the children? Hopefully the Qur'an does better than the Bible which implores its followers to stone them to death for insults.

The Qur'an clearly is extremely prejudiced against women. Again without religion the relationship between me and my wife is one of equals just as it is between my children and their partners. Our children also show great respect to their children who also adopt the position of respecting both parents and grandparents. A far healthier condition for all and not a religious doctrine in sight.

Again with the little knowledge you have on the subject of Islam you make another error. God doesn’t ask us to worship Him for His benefit but for our benefit.

This is the position adopted by every dictator in history.

Oh and spikepl and Dick7Access, just because a group of Muslims have done what you say does not mean Islam is to blame just as what the Christian Crusaders did had anything to do with Christianity.

Both the Qur'an and the Bible reinforce the superiority of those who follow their doctrines. Their fascist philosophy of brutal retribution for those who do not comply is endlessly repeated, especially in the Qur'an, and lies behind the thinking of the extremist elements.

 

[John Big Booty]

Perhaps like the Nac Mac Feegle we are already dead and this is in fact the afterlife, and those who die have simply been reincarnated.

 

[Dick7Access]

They do it not because they were threatened but entirely because they were shown respect throughout their lives. Children learn far better through example rather than doctrine and fear.
Does that mean that you never spanked them, or punished them in anyway?

 

[Galaxiom]

Does that mean that you never spanked them, or punished them in anyway?

We never hit them at all. We had reasoned discussions about why their behaviour was considered unacceptable.

 

[ChrisO]

To me the following would seem to be logically correct:-

An omnipotent being would have no trouble proving its own existence to all.

This very thread proves that the proof of its own existence does not exist.
The fact that the proof of its own existence does not exist does not prove it doesn’t exits.
That fact leads only to the fact that, if it does exist, it does not want its existence to be known.
Anyone who tries to disprove its existence is a heretic to the writings of mankind.
Anyone who tries to prove its existence is trying to circumvent the dictate of the omnipotent being, if it exists, to remain unknowable.

That raises a question in my mind; which is more important?
To follow the writings of mankind to prove its existence and to know it as a fact.
To follow the dictate of the omnipotent being, if it exists, to remain unknowable.

What is it to be; the writings of mankind or of which it writes about?

 

[John Big Booty]

To me the following would seem to be logically correct:-

An omnipotent being would have no trouble proving its own existence to all.

This very thread proves that the proof of its own existence does not exist.
The fact that the proof of its own existence does not exist does not prove it doesn’t exits.
That fact leads only to the fact that, if it does exist, it does not want its existence to be known.
Anyone who tries to disprove its existence is a heretic to the writings of mankind.
Anyone who tries to prove its existence is trying to circumvent the dictate of the omnipotent being, if it exists, to remain unknowable.

That raises a question in my mind; which is more important?
To follow the writings of mankind to prove its existence and to know it as a fact.
To follow the dictate of the omnipotent being, if it exists, to remain unknowable.

What is it to be; the writings of mankind or of which it writes about?