Are you an atheist?

[KenHigg]

"Putting their hand in you pocket" is a sexual assault regardless of the sexuality or the gender of the perpetrator.

Being called a bigot by a person that is just plain stupid doesn't pack much punch

 

[Galaxiom]

Being called a bigot by a person that is just plain stupid doesn't pack much punch

Why did you quote my post? It has nothing to do with what you posted? You have not addressed the point. Clearly you prefer to stick with your homophobia.

I really don't see any point continuing this. It isn't a discussion. You have not made a single intelligent post on the subject.

I have no doubt you will continue to despise homosexual people as you unquestioningly adhere to the religious values you were taught as a child.

BTW. Leviticus is the Biblical source of the "abomination of homosexuality". A full read of his contribution reveals just how ridiculous the position of the church is on homosexuality.

 

[Vassago]

Today I received a pm from aziz saying that he will not be posting on this thread anymore as he is under the threat of disbarment for upsetting a mod.
I don't know the circumstances but I can see nothing in the thread so can only assume that an exchange of PMs took place or the mods are showing an over sensitivity.

Pity as I haven't had a chance to respond to Aziz's last resonse to me.

Brian

I am looking into the matter.

 

[Vassago]

I'll also add that I invited him back to the conversation. I find it ironic that people are telling him that he is on a dead-end path because he will not get any converts. Naturally, the same could be said of the people debating him. They will not convert him to atheism (or any other faith.) The whole argument of religion is based on faith. They believe the quotes they read from their book are just as real as the scientific evidence atheists read from their science book. Once faith is brought into it, you can't argue against it. He's already won his side of the argument because he has faith.

This is always where I drop out of a religious discussion. As soon as the person answers that he has faith, I can't defeat his faith. If you really have faith, nothing can waiver it and science really doesn't have an equal to faith. Science is constantly changing. What we "know" is never truly what we know. That's why science is full of theories instead of faith. Theories can be broken.

 

[Adam Caramon]

btw, when a person (in this example gay), puts their hand in my pocket or trys to convience me a particular lifestyle is ok, they make it my business.

I never understand this point of view. You can hold whatever personal views you choose to. You can think that gay people are bad/evil/disgusting/whatever you want. But on a governmental level, why shouldn't gay people have equal rights to straight people?

The government has a duty to treat all people as equals, as it is supposed to represent all people. How can you be effectively represented by your government if your government doesn't think you're equal to other humans?

I think the main problem is there are a lot of people that do not like change. If you have things going 80% your way, and then suddenly it drops to 75%, you think terrible things have happened. But there are a lot of people out there who only have things going 25% their way. Who's truly getting the shorter end of the stick?

This is always where I drop out of a religious discussion. As soon as the person answers that he has faith, I can't defeat his faith.

I don't think the discussions are really about defeating faith. If a religious person says they believe something based on faith, I don't have any problem with that. What that means is that they are not concerned with the facts, they're relying on their belief.

When religious people try to say that the facts agree with their belief, then they have an obligation to prove it. The evidence required for faith is nil. You can have faith in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc. The evidence required for facts is incredibly high.

Most governments base policy and laws on facts. Law is based on facts. Medicine is based on facts. Doctors don't say they believe this medicine is the best to treat your ailment, they say based on clinical trials, this medicine is the best.

If we wouldn't accept a doctor who relies on faith for treatment, or a plumber who relies of faith to fix your pipes, why would we rely on politicians that do so?

 

[aziz rasul]

Just wanted to say a GREAT thank you to everyone who supported my right to express my views freely. I really do appreciate it.

Just for the record there was no exchange of PMs between me and Rabbie, except of course the PM I received from Rabbie concerning a Final Warning.

I have PM'd a couple of contributors on this thread regarding my unpublished book entitled 'Islam - Pure and Simple' written about 5 years ago, which can be downloaded from the scribd website if they wish. There is no copyright on the book and can be shared freely.

 

[Rabbie]

Just to clarify matters. Personal insults have no place in this or any other thread on this forum. Criticise the other person's argument or point of view but don't use personal insults. Is that clear enough for everyone? I will never ban or downmark anyone for expressing their opinion but I will enforce the rules about personal insults. I hope Aziz will continue to contribute without insulting other contributors. This applies equally to everyone else.

 

[parkerjallen]

To answer poll in a word: No.

 

[Brianwarnock]

No what? No sense from a troller

Brian

 

[aziz rasul]

Rabbie, you should heed your own advice. I simply responded to your remarks which inferred I was not able to think, which I found insulting. I simply answered you with an honest observation by using your opening words. It was a case of touché. If you are willing to mete it out, you should expect a respond in like kind. I suggest that you don't insult me.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I suggest that we draw a line in the sand and non of us insult each other explicitly or implicitly

Brian

 

[Vassago]

I suggest that we draw a line in the sand and non of us insult each other explicitly or implicitly

Brian

True. Once insults come into play, the debate is relatively finished. If you can't prove your point without resulting to insults, what do you really have?

 

[aziz rasul]

You have not established this. You've stated it. I don't recall a single person on here having agreed with you. The Qur'an holds value to you because you've surrendered your will to it. That is all.

I have established this to my satisfaction and it's not a blind surrender. The fact that not a single person on the forum has accepted this does not mean I’m incorrect. Galileo was not accepted in his time even when he was in the minority. The Qur’an can be authenticated as I have done but there is also another way.

"Do they not consider the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies." (Sura 4:82).

 

[Galaxiom]

You have not authenticated the Quran. Your arguments have been resoundingly demolished. You simply refuse to accept this fact because you are bewitched by your faith.

You continue to quote from the works of the profoundly ignorant to support your case. You really don't understand philosophical debate at all do you?

 

[Galaxiom]

Galileo was not accepted in his time even when he was in the minority.

There is a vast difference between your position and that of Galileo.

Galileo was able to support his claim using verifiable observation and sound logic. You are simply quoting from a book written by someone who had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

Galileo was the intellectual pushing against the ignorant masses promulgating the doctrine of a book. You are part of the ignorant masses trying to support your position with nothing more than a book based entirely on prejudice and bigotry.

And like the church that pitted its doctrine against the intelligence of science you also attempt to argue your position from what you imagine is a scientific basis.

Islam can only succeed in an environment of ignorance. Ultimately it will fade into oblivion. Sooner the better. The world does not need its fascist doctrine.

 

[aziz rasul]

You have not authenticated the Quran. Your arguments have been resoundingly demolished. You simply refuse to accept this fact because you are bewitched by your faith.

You continue to quote from the works of the profoundly ignorant to support your case. You really don't understand philosophical debate at all do you?

The Qur’an has been authenticated, but you don’t accept it, that is a more accurate statement to make. You may say that my arguments have been resoundly demolished but I don’t agree with you. On the contrary, many non Muslims who have accepted Islam have done so through the wisdom of God’s book. You talk as if I am the only person who believes in the Qur’an and that there is no other soul that does so. Just as Galileo was fighting intellectually against the ignorant masses so the messengers of Allaah did so in history and Muslims are doing so now. In your posts you rarely say anything worth debating over. As an example from the above quote, exactly what have you contributed that is of an intellectual nature. Nothing. I gave a Qur’an verse to show that the Qur’an is from God, yet you have nothing to offer in return. If as you claim that Muhammad (peace be upon him) wrote the Qur’an, the Qur’an would have had contradictions, so why are there none?

The language that you use in your responses show very little in an equal debate and you are discourteous in your use of language. To throw your own words back at you

‘You really don't understand philosophical debate at all do you?’

There is a vast difference between your position and that of Galileo.

Galileo was able to support his claim using verifiable observation and sound logic. You are simply quoting from a book written by someone who had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

I have supported my claims using science using God’s book and sound logic.

It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allaah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.
Qur’an - Surah Yunus (Jonah) 10:5 See also 25:61, 40:61 and 71:16

It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).
Qur’an – Surah Yasin 36:41 See also 57:6.

prejudice and bigotry

Again here you provide no evidence but simply make unsubstantiated comments without anything to back them up. It’s almost as if you are afraid to debate anything for fear of hearing the TRUTH.

And like the church that pitted its doctrine against the intelligence of science you also attempt to argue your position from what you imagine is a scientific basis.

Many reverts have used the science route from the Qur’an.

Islam can only succeed in an environment of ignorance. Ultimately it will fade into oblivion. Sooner the better. The world does not need its fascist doctrine.

Again your comments go against the TRUTH. Islam began at the time of Adam (peace be upon him) and still exists today and is on the rise, hence your comments of oblivion are completely misplaced. From your statement of ignorance (which certainly is a view I hold against you from which you have given plenty of consistent evidence) Muslims are an enlightened people much as you may dislike it.

Here are a mixture of some verses, which you can explain as whether they are fascist or not.

And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.
20. Qur’an - Surah ar-Rum (The Romans) 30:21

“Verily, We fashioned man from a small quantity of mingled (amchaj) liquids . . .”
Qur’an - Surah al-Insaan (Man) 76:2

37. “Was (man) not a small quantity of sperm which has been poured out?
38. After that, he was something which clings (alaq); then God fashioned him in due proportion and harmoniously.”
Qur’an - Surah al-Qiyaama (The Resurrection) 75:37-8

45. “(God) fashioned the two of a pair, the male and the female,
46. from a small quantity (of sperm) when it is poured out.”
Qur’an – Surah an-Najm (The Star) 53:45-6

The last verse shows that it is the father who determines the gender of the unborn child at a time when the men blamed their wives when they produced offspring that they didn’t want.

The story of Jesus (peace be upon him) is given in detail

This is of the tidings of things hidden. We reveal it unto thee (Muhammad). Thou wast not present with them when they threw their pens (to know) which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor wast thou present with them when they quarrelled (thereupon).
Qur’an - Surah al-`Imraan (The Family of `Imraan) 3:44

Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariyah was she assigned . . .
Qur’an - Surah al-`Imraan (The Family of `Imraan) 3:37

 

[Galaxiom]

I gave a Qur’an verse to show that the Qur’an is from God,

My point exactly. ALL you ever use to support your argument are quotes from the Quran that claim it was written by God.

You definitely don't understand the principles of debate at all. Quoting a book does not validate the claims in that book. The depth of your immersion in ridiculous doctrine is quite astounding.

If as you claim that Muhammad (peace be upon him) wrote the Qur’an, the Qur’an would have had contradictions, so why are there none?

Contradictions have been pointed out to you but you will not acknowledge them.

 

[Galaxiom]

It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).
Qur’an – Surah Yasin 36:41 See also 57:6.

What is the origin of the words in parentheses? Are they added later for clarification? Did it actually say in the Quran that the Sun and Moon had separate "orbits"?

Firstly we know that the Sun does not orbit the Earth. The Quran is thus wrong yet again but you won't accept that.

The Sun not being allowed to catch up with the Moon implies that such a thing would be possible had Allah not made rules to prevent them. Yet we know they are always separated by 150 million kilometres. It is not a rule made by Allah but a natural consequence of geometry of the Solar System.

Moreover there is the matter of eclipses where they do "catch up" with each other.

45. “(God) fashioned the two of a pair, the male and the female,
46. from a small quantity (of sperm) when it is poured out.”
Qur’an – Surah an-Najm (The Star) 53:45-6

The last verse shows that it is the father who determines the gender of the unborn child at a time when the men blamed their wives when they produced offspring that they didn’t want.

That is what you choose to see in those words. Read objectively they reveal yet another fallacy.

It reflects the notion common at the time that the woman was just an incubator of the sperm which contained the essence of the new person.

The story of Jesus (peace be upon him) is given in detail

Recounting the myth of Jesus does not validate the Quran.

 

[Galaxiom]

nor can the Night outstrip the Day

Oh yes. Without Allah's Laws that would happen all the time I'm sure. Getting dark each day for a while until eventually a whole day was dropped out.

Oh wait. Within the Arctic Zones it is a regular occurrence. It happens every year. In Winter the night slowly overtakes the day and it stays dark for a couple of months.

Surely Allah would have known about such things. Sounds very much to me like Mohammed made this up the because he was entirely ignorant of the nature of day and night at high latitudes.

Then of course a man who thought the Earth was rolled out flat and pegged down by mountains is not likely to anticipate such phenomena.

By the way. He was wrong about the mountains pegging down the land too. Mountains are thrust up by tectonic plate movements.

 

[ciso]

"My God is the only God and he definitely exists"

Hi Alisa,

A very interesting question. Unfortunately, the answer I wold like to choose is not there. I def. believe in God.

But I also believe that all religions have the same God - just calling God by different names. I also believe that whatever faith you have it is your obligation to respect other faiths. I have read a few of the Holly Books - and am still to find somewhere where it states to hate other people's religion. Religion is a cause of love. If you love your God - whatever name you call it - how can you prefer yourself over someone else. That was the golden rule taught by every prophet.

Anyway - if you remove the "the only" from your last pool option - that's the one I would tick! Or add "I am not an atheist" to the list

Love,

C.