1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: AbdulAziz Proving The Existence Of God

« on: July 20, 2011, 08:40:46 AM »

I think he's given up.  After 9 pages and only hoppy agreeing that God must exist, he must be pretty depressed about us infidels.

Could be that too.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: AbdulAziz Proving The Existence Of God

« on: July 20, 2011, 08:36:45 AM »

back to the whole god thing however. I'm still waiting to see if that link works for you and your reaction to it abdul.

Am I to assume you watched it and are searching for ways to disagree with it before you reply?

It's possible that the site may be blocked in his country.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: National Pron Awareness

« on: July 15, 2011, 06:54:52 AM »

I heard if you fapped to much you will go blind or it may even fall off.

I can testify against that. In fact, I would probably qualify as an expert witness. 

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: domesticate religion

« on: July 15, 2011, 06:42:44 AM »

Islam is Synonymous with Religion.

Tree is synonymous with Forest.

Is a tree a forest?

No.

Is islam a religion?

Yes.

Does me arguing about this have a point?

No.

Is religion an islam?

Is a religion islam?

Still doesn't quite work. The concept of forest contains the concept of tree, but not the other way around, just as religion contains Islam. Therefore, the analogy seems to be a valid one. In order for the terms to be synonymous they must be equal, which in this case they are not.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: About death

« on: July 15, 2011, 06:26:44 AM »

if I didn't believe in life after death, Is it ok to kill myself?

If you want to.

It would be an incredibibly stupid thing to do however as you won't get a second shot at life.

You're implying that life is always worth living, no matter what. How quaint.

Yep, and I honestly believe that.

If somone else doesn't though i'm not going to stop them.

Are you saying that you would wish to keep on living even if you lived bedridden, unable to move or even to talk, in constant agony from a particularly nasty form of incurable cancer, all the while draining what little money your family may have left because of mounting medical bills which they will be paying for long after you're gone?

Now that's what I call fear of death! Myself, I would rather bow out gracefully sometime before it gets to that point.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: domesticate religion

« on: July 14, 2011, 11:45:52 AM »

Islam is Synonymous with Religion.

Tree is synonymous with Forest.

Is a tree a forest?

No.

Is islam a religion?

Yes.

Does me arguing about this have a point?

No.

Is religion an islam?

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Helping a Brainwashed

« on: July 10, 2011, 09:57:29 PM »

No one has come up with one good reason for Abdul yet.

Are you saying that no one has been able to prove a negative? 

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Helping a Brainwashed

« on: July 10, 2011, 09:59:16 AM »

There are also millions if not billiions of people that believe

Are there among them any who use logic and reasoning!? I mean among the 4 Billions!

You fail (unsurprisingly, given your post history) to see my point. The number of people who believe something has no bearing on whether it is true or not. In other words, the fact that billions of people believe in gods cannot be taken as evidence that gods exist.

Agreed, indeed they do claim that. However, their proofs don't seem to hold up.

Their logical proof at least was accepted by most normal people, why most people find it easy to believe what the Prophets said and find it hard to believe the complicated theories the Atheists are coming up with

Throughout history there have been many instances where the majority  of people have accepted ideas that have later turned out to be wrong. By the way, what do you mean by "complicated theories the Atheists are coming up with"? I cannot properly respond until you clarify this.

True, history can show evidence that some of these messengers existed. Oddly enough, history doesn't do the same for the miracles themselves. Strange, that.

Wrong claim, do you know anything about "Knowledge Of Hadith" (علم الحديث) if for example 100 from UAE saw the moon split, 100 from USA saw the moon split, 100 from Egypt saw the moon split, 100 from Italy saw the moon split....etc and they said exactly the same thing and gave exactly the same description there is no way that would be a lie, this is what happened to most of Prophet Mohammed's Hadiths

I find your argument to be absurd in the extreme. First, the USA didn't even exist at the time the event supposedly took place. Second, even among Muslims there is debate on whether the event described already happened or whether it refers to a future event, mainly because of the lack of contemporary witnesses. See here: link
Specifically:

Here is a passage from 'The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam'
by Cyril Glasse on the above subject:

    There are no contemporary accounts of such an event. It is far more likely that the Koran is speaking allegorically of a sign of the Last Day, rather than of a miracle.  (page 274).

Anyway, I couldn't find ant reference to those groups of 100 witnesses from different countries that you mention. Please include your source, or I'll have to dismiss your claim as bare assertion.

You'll have to elaborate on that.

Read this

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23589.msg499113#msg499113

Don't just send me to another long post of yours that doesn't even address my question. I find it rude! 

You mean in terms of predictions? Ever heard of a dude called Nostradamus? I've heard he also wrote a book that makes some predictions.

Yes but no way it includes what the Quran includes, the reason for my claim can be justified after reading more than thousands of Quran irrefutable miracles

Well, of course it doesn't. It's a different book!  By the way, if you want to convince me that the miracles in your book are irrefutable, you'll have to show me contemporary evidence for them that comes from sources external to your book. Otherwise I'll consider them refuted by lack of support.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Helping a Brainwashed

« on: July 09, 2011, 11:57:43 PM »

I wonder if that God doesn't exists why more than 4 Billions are saying that the God they believe in has sent down miracles, revelations and messengers to give clear proofs He exists!

There are also millions if not billiions of people that believe in Santa Clause, who can miraculously enter millions of houses in a single night to leave an assortment of gifts (but there's a catch... you have to be nice or he won't come).

They claim God has sent prophets and messengers with many proofs throughout the ages for people to be able to clearly see with their own eyes and to be able to use their own senses the miracles and proofs pointing to the fact that God does exists.

Agreed, indeed they do claim that. However, their proofs don't seem to hold up.

History can prove those messengers existed!! Miracles of prophets and messengers of God have come to people through the ages.

True, history can show evidence that some of these messengers existed. Oddly enough, history doesn't do the same for the miracles themselves. Strange, that.

 

How come a book that existed 1400 years back and the predictions and prophecies of that book have come true even in this century!

You'll have to elaborate on that. Anyway, the Christians seem to be claiming the same thing, and they were here first.

is there another book written by human includes such as the Quran?

You mean in terms of predictions? Ever heard of a dude called Nostradamus? I've heard he also wrote a book that makes some predictions.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: About death

« on: July 09, 2011, 11:29:19 PM »

Doesn't it scare you that nothing happens after you die?

No. Death is just a permanent change from a state of awareness to one of non-awareness. What I might worry about, depending on the way I end up dying, is the possible moment of physical discomfort before I lose awareness, but that's about it. 

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: AbdulAziz Proving The Existence Of God

« on: July 08, 2011, 10:50:31 AM »

While waiting, I invite you to read a short story:

---

An atheist wanted to debate the Muslims and so Abu Hanifah was chosen for the job. They agreed a time and place, and when the day came, sure enough, the atheist was there in front of a crowd of people who had gathered to hear the debate. Imam Abu Hanifa however, was absent. They waited and waited and time passed until Abu Hanifah finally arrived, very late. The atheist turned to him and said 'How dare you arrive so late?'

Abu Hanifah apologized and said 'I was on my way over here but came across a forest I had never encountered before. I had to go in, but happened across a river that blocked my way. I got off my horse, looking for a way to cross when all of a sudden, a tree fell and began to cut itself of its own accord. Many more trees fell and also began to cut themselves, making planks of wood, which then assembled and formed a boat. I went onto the boat and it rowed itself across the river, after which I disembarked and came on way here, on foot. This is why i was late'.

The atheist looked at him incredulously and said 'You expect me to believe a forest that was never there before somehow appeared out of nowhere, that trees fell and formed a boat and rowed you all the way across all by themselves? Are you crazy?'

Abu Hanifah "You expect me to believe that this universe, this world, our bodies all appeared out of nowhere without a Creator? Are you crazy?"

---

I've seen that story before, and it was almost as lame then as it is seeing it now (the first time at least it had a bit of novelty). Somehow theists think they can just spit it out and win the dabate without having to say anything else... which is a bit strange. 

You see, most atheists would not expect you to believe that bodies can appear fully formed out of nothing. Instead, there are fairly well understood natural mechanisms that explain how bodies develop and evolve. We're still working on how the first self-replicator came to be, but science is making some progress in that area as well.

Most atheists wouldn't expect you to believe that worlds can appear fully formed out of nothing. Instead, there are well understood natural mechanisms that result in the formation of stars and planets. Gravity is a major factor.

About the universe itself, I'll have to say we're still looking into that, and probably will be doing so for a while. However, science has a few ideas that I believe are currently being tested using particle collisions. So, I'll have to get back to you on this one as soon as results start coming in (and are available to the public). If it's the case that science finds real evidence that the universe was indeed created by a god, I'll be happy to concede the point.

edit: a few typos.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: AbdulAziz Proving The Existence Of God

« on: July 07, 2011, 08:21:19 AM »

@ AbdulAziz, The problem seems to be that you're creating a separate category (things that did not begin to exist) into which you want to put your god exclusively. I'm not sure you can do that.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a first cause for the universe. This does not in any way imply a purpose, nor that this first cause is the only thing that did not begin to exist. For all we know, there may be an infinity of things that always existed, and our universe may very well be the result of some random interaction between these things.

One thing I can think of that might have always existed: time. Granted, our local version of time may have begun with our universe, but it seems to me that some form of time must have existed for this event to take place in.

Furthermore, even if you manage to demonstrate that your god exists, you would still have this problem. There must be some form of time within which this god can act to create the universe (again for argument's sake, let's call it god-time). Your problem is that god-time cannot have been also created by any god that needs to operate within it (the reason for this should be self-evident). Thus, I believe I've demonstrated that if there exists such a category as things that don't have a beginning, this category cannot be limited to contain just one thing. It must contain at the very least least two: whatever first cause created the universe, and some form of time for the first cause to operate in.

Since at least one of the things in this category lacks intelligence and purpose, I don't see intelligence as a necesary component. Perhaps everything in this category lacks intelligence or purpose, and there are only random interactions.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What scenario would reverse your beliefs?

« on: July 06, 2011, 10:24:23 AM »

  Of course, the concept of God "ceasing to exist" is to me a silly one...

Not so silly... I can think of a few scenarios. For instance, it's possible that a god, in creating the universe, actually became the universe, thus changing form in an irreversible way. The original form of such a god would no longer exist, yet would still qualify as creator of the universe.

It's also possible that an omnipotent god, in a moment of infinite boredom, could have willed itself out of existence. Who knows what such a being can do, especially if it is inmaterial.

Or, a god could have created this universe and then gone on to create others, never to return to this one, and only briefly interacting with each universe at the moment of its creation. That god would effectively no longer exist in this universe.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evolution

« on: June 13, 2011, 09:43:42 PM »

Batman and Superman can't have a crossover movie.
Superman is too powerful and would overshadow Batman's show of awesome simply by flying.

However, if Batman has to fight Superman, that would be an epic battle.  Something like "Superman is under the hypnotic spell of Poison Ivy and is attacking Batman".  Yeah he can lift up several thousand tons of rock but let's see him stop Kryptonite Baterangs.

Already been done. Batman kicked Superman's ass quite badly. For more details, read the graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns". I think it was by Frank Miller.

Well, it's happened several times, actually.  Some of them were actually canon.

But I think these guys are talking about it happening in a movie.

Now that would be interesting to watch! 

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evolution

« on: June 13, 2011, 04:39:53 PM »

Batman and Superman can't have a crossover movie.
Superman is too powerful and would overshadow Batman's show of awesome simply by flying.

However, if Batman has to fight Superman, that would be an epic battle.  Something like "Superman is under the hypnotic spell of Poison Ivy and is attacking Batman".  Yeah he can lift up several thousand tons of rock but let's see him stop Kryptonite Baterangs.

Already been done. Batman kicked Superman's ass quite badly. For more details, read the graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns". I think it was by Frank Miller.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who are you to question God?

« on: December 17, 2007, 03:00:17 PM »

I don't see how God could not be all-knowing and all-powerful.

If your god was merely a minor god, able to perform only minor miracles and illusions (such as burning bushes and sea-partings), but who was trying to pass himself off as THE God (able to create universes and things beyond the power of a minor god), how would you know? 

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 12, 2007, 05:27:26 AM »

fuck the holy spirit.

Is that good enough?

Yes, I  believe that should do it. Welcome to the club of the condemned! 

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 08, 2007, 02:30:26 AM »

Beast, don't get me wrong...  I don't disagree with what you're trying to say, but I think the analogies you're using don't really work at illustrating the point you're trying to get across.
Anyway, the "absence of evidence" argument is not so easily dismissed. Simple human nature won't allow it.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Thoughts on god

« on: October 07, 2007, 11:48:26 PM »

As one of my philosophy teachers once put it: if Descartes saw a loaded cart rolling downhill straight towards him, he probably would have gotten out of the way first and then wondered wether the cart really existed.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 07, 2007, 11:35:13 PM »

  Lets say we have 2 cans.  If the theory that there is 1 can with gold in it, then the odds of there being gold in either can that we open is 1 in 2.  We open the can and there is no gold.  Would you agree that this "absence of gold" supports the theory that there is no gold in either can?  Now lets say we have 3 cans instead.  We open 1 and we have no gold.  Again would you agree that this observation supports the theory that there is no gold in any can?  Now we keep adding one can, and opening one can.  At what point do we say that opening a can and not finding gold does not support the theory that there is no gold in any can?  Surely every time we do not find gold, be there 2 cans or an infinite amount of cans, that supports the theory that there is no gold in any of the cans.  It does not prove it!!  But we're not talking about proof, just about which way the evidence supports.  Evidence is not proof, it's just observations that support either theory.

Umm.... beast, I think you're wrong on this one. The evidence in your example only supports (and proves, I think...) the idea that some of the cans do not have gold. Drawing any other conclusion from this does not seem very scientific to me  .

21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 05, 2007, 02:02:42 PM »

Interesting! I'm delighted to know that you kill witches with only the best of intentions at heart. Keep up the good work!
Myself, I see no real distinction between murder and killing other than semantics, so I'll go back to my original plan and ignore you.
Cheers!

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 05, 2007, 01:53:02 PM »

Let me put it another way. If you take the life of a homosexual or a witch, why is that not murder?

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 05, 2007, 01:47:08 PM »

So how does your translation of the Bible define murder, as opposed to killing?

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 05, 2007, 01:39:23 PM »

So... you're saying that the implications of the Bible are unimportant?
Since killing goes against one of God's commandments, um... why is it that God orders people to kill other people many times in the Bible? You'd think since it's forbidden for people to do it, He'd have to do it Himself. Speaking of being inconsistent... 

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 05, 2007, 01:17:13 PM »

So in other words, nowhere. But I agree, there are certain sins that are beyond repentence.

Funny thing you did there. When you say "So in other words, nowhere", you're looking for an implied meaning in my post, even though I did not use the word "nowhere". You recognise that it's possible to say something by implication without using the actual words to say it. If I apply that same trick on a sentence you actually agreed with, I get it that the Bible implies that it's OK to do many horrible things excluding blasphemy, provided that you repent afterwards. It says it by implication.

If you don't agree, then it seems you're not being consistent, and I'll be happy to ignore you. 

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Explaining the Trinity

« on: October 05, 2007, 12:16:27 PM »

Ok, talk about irrational, first of all the Judaeo-Christian God is normally referred to as a "he."

So... have you any evidence for the existance of the Judaeo-Christian God's testicles?

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The official blasphemy thread

« on: October 05, 2007, 12:01:34 PM »

Where in the Bible does it say it is "ok" to kill six million Jews?

Well, technically, if you repent from killing the Jews, you're home free. On the other hand, just string certain words into a sentence and you're condemned no matter what.

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God Is An Atheist

« on: September 25, 2007, 11:37:58 PM »

Bookmarked. 

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The inexorable proof of God:

« on: May 08, 2007, 01:46:57 PM »

  ....   

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The inexorable proof of God:

« on: May 08, 2007, 01:18:18 PM »

And they do a remarkably poor job even at that

Really? The general principles of don't steal, don't kill, don't go shaggin' your friend's wife (loose adaptation of thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife etc ) are fairly sound guides to acceptable behaviour. And religion does focus the mind on the spiritual, even if it is generally a narrow-minded view, but it's a start.

That would be true if they were consistent at it, but that's not the case. Take the Bible, for instance. First it comes with rules like the one against killing (which in practice only meant not killing fellow believers; the Bible's god orders his people to massacre entire towns many times), and then it turns around and says homosexuals, disobedient children and people caught working a certain day of the week shall all be put to death.

So based on this, who goes to hell, the man who kills those people or the one who fails to do so? More importantly, where's the morality lesson in regards to killing? I'd have to say it DOES fail at that, at least...