Do you believe in God?

[TexRex]

What?

The notion that any interpretation of a religious text, however reasoned the interpretation may or may not be, is the cause of any act (even good ones!) is...just...aggressively stupid. That individuals perpetrate (or perform, when they're benevolent) such acts absent any interpretation of a religious text is indication that the cause is something else.

Unless you've read the interpretation of a Bible.

What interpretation? Which Bible? I gather there are numerous examples of the latter and uncountable examples of the former.

Why debate the afterlife if you don't believe in it?

Because I want to and because the narrative to which you so desperately cling is wholly unsupported by evidence.

As I said, it's one thing to make up an explanation for things we observe and another thing entirely to assert that something unobserved occurs at all. I figure it's a means of control. "Do what we say so you can go to the good place, while failure to obey will result in you going to the bad place." It's very silly.

We're all going to die. I expect my own experience after death will be comparable with my own experience prior to my birth, which is nothingness. I'm okay with that. The absence of an afterlife doesn't dissuade me from respecting the rights of--and performing benevolent acts for--others while I'm alive.

No matter how many verses I quote from the Qur’an you still wouldn't believe.

Why should I? It's not substantive. It's a work of fiction.

Unless you're genuinely interested in what are the events that will occur on Judgement Day & what Heaven & Hell look like I'm willing to quote you verses.

I put no more stock into the Qur'an, Bible, Talmud, or Buddhist and Hindu texts than I do into Harry Potter. Fiction is fiction, however many deluded individuals use it as a foundation for their worldview notwithstanding.

Using the collective West as an example, your leaders are supposedly Christians & they also concur that child rape is heinous & illegal. So the question is: If they were abiding by the Bible which absolutely forbids rape (Genesis 34 & Judges 19 to name a few) why is there still rape? No matter how many they catch & throw in prison, the sentence for this must be execution & it must be public. Then again you will most definitely disagree with me on public executions.

What purpose does orthodoxy serve if Christians or any other purported believers of particular doctrine don't actually adhere to it? That purported believers, indeed those who have accepted the task of spreading the word, are still given to perpetrate heinous acts purportedly proscribed by doctrine is sufficient to question its relevance and efficacy.

If they require that adherents respect individual rights, fine, but the Bible and any other religious texts needn't enter into respect for others' rights. Indeed the Bible and other religious texts frequently denigrate individual rights.

Where orthodoxy denigrates rights, individuals should steer instead toward heterodoxy. Countless do. Too many don't, and too many of those who don't possess authority such that denigration of rights results in violation of rights by force of law.

Paedophiles? Nothing. That's thought-crime.

It's the actions that matter, and it's something of a spectrum from vicarious acts (such as watching kids a bit too intently in a changing room) to raping multiple children, so there ought to be a spectrum of punishments - and rehabilitation if possible and appropriate.

So much this. I don't understand pedophilia, but as it's thought without action, I can't justify condemnation of it, much less an Earthly punishment, and so I can't accept others' justifications for the latter.

But then we already know that capital punishment isn't a deterrent to any crime (on the same basis; the crimes for which it's deemed appropriate still occur, everywhere where capital punishment exits). It's, at best, a bargaining chip to secure convictions and confessions in exchange for lesser sentences.

A bargaining chip too often leaned upon in the absence of a compelling case for conviction at trial. Just as the state may execute those not guilty of a crime, the state may coerce confession with the threat of execution when a party isn't guilty of a crime. Mandatory minimum sentences for convictions at trial serve an identical purpose even if the result isn't as severe or final. They're more tools for coercion than the means of affecting justice.

It is rare that sexual abuse (and rape) is merely abuse. Yes, physical and verbal abuse don't typically have addictions behind them. But sexual abuse (and, yes, that includes rape) rarely (if ever) does NOT include a sex addiction.

[citation needed]

As Allah pointed out in many verses in the Qur’an, one of the many non believers arguments revolve around His ability to resurrect them for judgment.

Examples:

1. Chapter 44, Verses: 8, 35 & 36. In 35 & 36 is the non believers mocking Allah's messengers by telling them to resurrect their forefathers ultimately denying Allah's ability of Resurrection & Judgement Day.

2. Chapter 45, Verses: 24 to 29. The non believers, again, claiming their death is eternal & demanding Allah's messengers to resurrect their forefathers. The non believers arrogance blinds them & when Judgement Day happens Allah responds in verses 31 to 35.

lol. That sure is convenient. Or rather it's very clever of the bitch what penned this fiction to include passages with the explicit intent, however feckless, to terminate skepticism.

As in, it's an easy default explanation to go to without entertaining other possibilities. It makes it more likely that it's a pathological issue with perception, but it doesn't mean it necessarily is.

I mean I thought attributing it to defect to be a kindness.

Another reasonable explanation is that @TRLWNC7396 is a liar. After all, every Christian is a liar even if they lie only to themselves, though they are given to proselytize.

I'm not going to discuss homosexuals as you already know my stance on that topic. However from a humanitarian point of view, they have every right to live...

"From a humanitarian point of view," but not your point of view, which you shared previously:

Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, and the story of the people of Lut is a textbook example of homosexuals who refused to repent and thus were wiped off of the face of the Earth.

If you were proven guilty of homosexuality then its sentence is death.

Gosh, that's awkward.

That religious doctrine--especially where child rapists are counted among purported adherents--prohibits homosexuality isn't particularly substantive. It's all fiction. It ought to affect only those purported adherents but it ends up affecting those who don't believe through enforcement of law which violates individual sovereignty.

...just not rub their homosexuality in everyone's faces just as much as we straights don't shove our straightness down everyone's throats.

lol. "We straights." That doesn't sound at all like something a closet case would say to someone who suspects they are homosexual to cknvince them otherwise. Not at all...

I'm straight and I'm happily married to a remarkable woman for whom I show my affection publicly and without the slightest regard for how others may feel about it because it doesn't legitimately affect them. Homosexuals have the right to do the same.

Crying like a little bitch because others live their lives in a manner that you don't like but which doesn't legitimately affect you is certainly a choice, and it's one that deserves mockery of an intensity that is likely to run afoul of this forum's guidelines so I'm going to stop here.

I suggest you start with the book "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

I believe religion is good because it not only provides a person with inner peace due to his connection with his Creator...

Delusion certainly can be comforting but it isn't guaranteed to be.

...but also gives his life a purpose so that he strives to become a good, law-abiding citizen & do good to mankind in general...

Individuals abide by the law and do good to others (there is no practical collective "mankind" beyond basic compositional similarities as individuals are so wildly varying in personality) in the absence of religion. Individuals frequently abide by the law not because it's the right thing (and the law frequently isn't the right thing, such as--but certainly not limited to--where it prohibits homosexuality) but because the state or similarly ruling entity may affect punishment for failure to abide by it.

...which will ultimately fall into his stack of good deeds when He meets his Creator.

And you've circled back to delusion. There is no substantive difference in the dynamics I highlighted above when delusion is removed. The delusion is superfluous.

I am tolerant but not to the point where I see sick stuff & brush it under the carpet.

...just not rub their homosexuality in everyone's faces just as much as we straights don't shove our straightness down everyone's throats.

Oops.

Say, speaking of "sick stuff," isn't your prophet said to have married a girl aged something like six years and consummated that marriage still prior to her having reached puberty? Isn't it said that there was an age difference of decades between Muhammad and Aisha? Hard to imagine this marriage and subsequent consummation were truly consensual given that disparity, even before you consider the prophet's status as such. Could she really have declined? I mean I'm already skeeved out by adult women who have removed pubic hair, thus having the appearance of pre-pubescence...to each their own, I guess...but one whose pubic hair hasn't even grown yet? Jesus Christ. The creep factor there is off the charts and you choose to follow his teachings. Sick stuff indeed, but I suppose it's different...because reasons.

60-something-year-old man, zipping up after ejaculating into a nine-year-old girl: "Homosexuality is a sin."

You: "YASS KING!!!"

Amazing.

Disrespect for consent seems rather fundamental to Islam and other religions. I posit that when you fail to respect the consent of others, including--but certainly not limited to--that of exclusively adult participants to homosexual relationships, there's less in the way of you violating another's consent, including that of children, with rape or some other harm.

Well He is the lawmaker of this universe & He has the final word. I hope He guides you to Him because no human being throughout history won a fight against Him. The story of Pharoah, people of Sodom, Ad, Thamud & many others are proof of this.

"proof"

I'm sure you didn't mean to, but it's easy to read this as calling Jesus a bad person.

I think this particular quote is fascinating as it misrepresents the mythology in the bible for the purpose of propping up modern day authoritarianism. Despite the hero figure of the new testament being tortured and murdered innocently, you STILL go out of your way to assume that the authority figures of the time were just going after the bad people. The boot licking for authority goes all the way to roman crucifixion.

Rome killed a lot of people for the things that romans wanted to kill them for. People who did good things, who did bad things, who were guilty of crimes and who were innocent of crimes.

I said god damn.

You're talking about extending a massive dose of benefit of the doubt to a person who can't give their interlocuters even a pinch of it.

I said god damn.

What does rubbing it in people's faces entail?

No response to this, huh? Weird. I expect it's as inane a bitchfit as when American conservatives throw it.

Don't you think maybe because they're hypocrites lying to God & themselves?

I'm again curious what purpose orthodoxy really serves when it doesn't even guide those who purport to adhere to it.

Since you're an atheist I'd like to know what your criteria for good & bad is, since any action or person isn't really good nor bad unless there's an objective moral foundation behind it?

"Where do rights come from if they're not God-given" is one of the more pathetic gotchas from those desperate to defend their delusional belief in a supreme being.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's such a profound lack of self-awareness that I really have trouble putting much stock in any of it. You're talking about extending a massive dose of benefit of the doubt to a person who can't give their interlocuters even a pinch of it.

I'd still be interested in the reasoning behind why they feel it is very different to the symptoms of schizophrenia, especially since I have some limited experience with schizophrenic patients.

I do wonder how this would be possible too:

A little bit after my wife's grandmother passed (a month or less? Don't remember exactly), our youngest was sick. We were very worried about her. We said a prayer, and I felt a presence pass through me. Immediately afterward, I heard a voice say, "Everything will be alright." My wife felt and heard the same thing at basically the same time. She told me that that phrase was her grandmother's favorite phrase. Also, at about the same time, our child began clapping their hands and interacting with someone we couldn't see. Definitely the grandmother doing all of that.

• Lies?
• Folie a deux?
• Something....unnatural?

 

[Scaff]

If you want to know why homosexuality became trendy in this day & age you have to read into it & I suggest you start with the book "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" where Zionists explicitly state their intentions of turning the western world into a God-less nation which would ultimately lead to internal conflict & Zionists emerge as the saviours.

It's fake, and a rather well known anti-Semitic tract at that.

Guess you like conspiracy theories

 

[evldave333]

Its interesting to think how can we even perceive god or an afterlife as they are seemingly out of reach without the observer colouring an experience a particular way. Ive had an interesting experience whilst meditating, and taking psilocybe mushrooms, it seemed to suggest we are a consciousness within a wider ocean of consciousness. The experience was almost beyond words, very meaningful, but I look back at it pragmatically as a beautiful moment that was essentially imagined. Having been unsure on the god question for many years, this trip has opened my mind to new possibilities, but its still very much all you know is you don't know. Altering perception with psychedelics at least highlights that reality as we perceive it is biased by the observer.

 

[kjeldsen]

Its interesting to think how can we even perceive god or an afterlife as they are seemingly out of reach without the observer colouring an experience a particular way. Ive had an interesting experience whilst meditating, and taking psilocybe mushrooms, it seemed to suggest we are a consciousness within a wider ocean of consciousness. The experience was almost beyond words, very meaningful, but I look back at it pragmatically as a beautiful moment that was essentially imagined. Having been unsure on the god question for many years, this trip has opened my mind to new possibilities, but its still very much all you know is you don't know. Altering perception with psychedelics at least highlights that reality as we perceive it is biased by the observer.

And it was basic (reaching here) chemistry in your brain 0_o

 

[evldave333]

And it was basic (reaching here) chemistry in your brain 0_o

All perception is chemistry indeed, perhaps our biological perception limits make understanding the true nature of reality near impossible. We may need technology or chemistry to extend our perceptual limits to answer the big questions if they can even be answered at all. Given how short life is its important to not spin your wheels with the god question too long, eyes on the prize.

 

[Danoff]

• Lies?
• Folie a deux?
• Something....unnatural?

Retcon on the part of multiple people who have motivated reasoning.

 

[JDM_GT7]

I acknowledge that no evidence of Zeus has ever existed.

 

[Imari]

I acknowledge that no evidence of Zeus has ever existed.

They don't have thunder storms where you are?

 

[UKMikey]

I acknowledge that no evidence of Zeus has ever existed.

Magnum P.I. lied to me...

 

[GBO Possum]

I acknowledge that no evidence of Zeus has ever existed.

Ask Hera, Poseidon, Hades, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Hermes, Dionysus and Demeter. They have all had first hand experience.

 

[Imari]

Ask Hera, Poseidon, Hades, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Hermes, Dionysus and Demeter. They have all had first hand experience.

If you were within 50 miles of Zeus and you had orifices, you had experience. Dude would **** a puddle if it gave him the glad eye.

 

[Oreca 1998]

That acting like the Qu'ran is the only true book and your preferred interpretation of it is the only true one is no different than the myriad versions of other holy books and sub-divisions of their religions.

They all think that. All of them.

○Goes the same for you Famine. Atheists believe they're correct & all believers are wrong, but this is a subjective view.

Also, you claim you're an atheist, so why are you questioning the interpretation of my book & my religion when you don't believe in a Creator nor His books (the Qur’an, Bible & Torah) nor the religion of Islam, Christianity & Judaism?


○Anyhow, it isn't my duty to convince you whether Islam or any other religion is true because you have to have genuine interest in a religion before learning about it.

I'm carrying the same message of all Messengers of God (from Muhammad back to Adam) which is: There's only one entity worthy of worship and praise. And this entity is unlike His creation in that He doesn't give birth, has no parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc...

Qur'an (114:3): "He never begets nor is born"

He created the universe. He is the lawmaker and He gave us the objective morality in his books. He gives life & takes them away (i.e Death), and He has every right to test His creation whether they believed in Him or not.

(67:2): 2. "[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed"

(29:2-4): 2. "Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tried?"

3. "But We have certainly tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars."

4. "Or do those who do evil deeds think they can outrun Us? Evil is what they judge."

(2:155): 155. "And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient,"

This life is a test to the people's faith & morality. And as Jordan Peterson put it: "It's not a game. You're not an infant. You have a job to do".

Qur’an (51:56): 56. "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me."
*Worship is achieved by both prayers & doing good to the society you live in.


○As for why I chose a Sunni scholar's interpretation is because the Qur’an & Sunnah (Sunnah: meaning how messenger Muhammad lived his life & his Hadiths) are Islam.

(33:21): 21. "There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day."
●Summarized Tafsir from Ibn-Katheer: Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow to the end of times.

The Qur’an and Sunnah are binding to the Muslim & are the reference to how he should live his life in preparation for Judgement Day. The reason some Muslims misinterpret the Qur’an is because they're sick in the heart & mind, and want to follow their false worldly desires. The likes of ISIS & Al-Qaeda do this to justify killing whether the killed were believers or non believers.

(4:59): 59. "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger."
●Tafsir Ibn-Katheer: (Obey Allah), adhere to His Book,(and obey the Messenger), adhere to his Sunnah, (And those of you who are in authority) in the obedience to Allah which they command you, not what constitutes disobedience of Allah, for there is no obedience to anyone in disobedience to Allah, (And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger.) The necessity of referring to the Qur'an and Sunnah for judgment.

Prophet Muhammad companions memorised the Qur’an, wrote & organized it in the same order it was revealed to him. Prophet Muhammad is the first & fundamental source of the Qur’an's interpretation - continue reading at: https://bayanulquran-academy.com/what-is-tafsir-in-islam/

*Tafsir Ibn-Katheer is bil Riwaya & it's regarded as the greatest & most comprehensive Tafsir to this day along with many others.

*The science of interpretation as you'll read in the link provided relies mainly on the Sunnah & Qur’an, hence Sunni scholars are the most trustworthy because the refer to both for interpretation.


○An endless chain of causes is rationally impossible. So we conclude that there is a necessity for the existence of an eternal Creator who has no beginning, and He is the origin of existence, without whom neither you nor I nor the universe would exist. To illustrate this, here is an example: We have a soldier who wants to fire a bullet from his pistol, but he is waiting for a reason to do so, which is the order of his commander, but his commander is waiting for an order from his commander, and so on.. If we assume that the matter continues for an infinite number of reasons, the bullet will not be fired. But if the bullet is fired, we will be certain that there is a distinguished commander (or a special reason different from the rest of the reasons) who stopped this sequence, and this commander does not wait for an order from anyone, and no one precedes or surpasses him. This is a simplification of the idea of the existence of the universe, since if the universe were merely material causes that were eternally sequential, it would not exist and we would not have existed in the first place.

○Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Everyone knows consciousness exists but can you touch, taste, see, hear or smell it?

○When you buy a vase for example you notice the attention to detail & the time & effort put into it yet you don't know who or what made it. Nonetheless you're certain that it was made by this someone or something which means it has a creator.

Nope.

I see double standards here, Famine. Atheists believe that science is the only objective truth since it's tangible. Your "Nope" here is dismissive to the hundreds of thousands of research papers on how to treat & rehabilitate patients with physical & psychological illnesses.

Again, if you think this is fair, there is no way to reason with you.

And are they your Heaven & Hell or are they His? Again He's the lawmaker.

Sure thing. Check out the Human Rights thread.

Atheists can't tell if an action is right, wrong, good, bad, moral or immoral. Because they see everything around them as an interaction on the cellular & atomic level, they can't "perfectly" judge. Hence, atheists are unqualified in this domain.

Back to the story of priests & children.. To an atheist, rape is morally undetermined & it could fall under human rights.

Here's rape from the atheist's point of view: "There are two entities, a male/female adult and a male/female child, occupying a certain space at a certain time, engaged in an interaction known as: Sexual Intercourse.". I can make it more absurd but you get my point.

@TexRex has called it "a pathetic gotcha" but that's how atheism works. Unless he was offended by the ugly truth that even his role models like Richard Dawkins struggle not to accept.

What's funny about Richard Dawkins is, in a debate with Mehdi Hasan 11 years ago, he was asked by one of the audience: "If God revealed himself would you believe in him?". He answered: "There is a real problem that we are easily fooled".

Richard Dawkins who is a materialistic atheist doesn’t believe his EYES. Talk about double standards.

Also, 2 months ago, videos of him exploded on YouTube when he embraced cultural Christianity (not that he didn't already in 2007).
He's having his cake & eating it at the same time which is just hilarious.

@TexRex I find your replies amusing because of how triggered you are by people having different beliefs.

@Scaff, @Exorcet I'm sure Wikipedia was a reliable source to copy from ay? Bet you haven't downloaded the book of 97 pages & read what's written in it NOR read about Zionism & how it uses Judaism as a cover to commit crimes in cough Palestine cough.

@Liquid
(41:3): 3. "A Book whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know"
When Islam spread around the globe there was a need to translate the Qur’an & Hadiths to other languages to deliver the final message of God before the end of times.



One final word: There sure is a lot of chaos on this thread & replying to everything is, subjectively speaking, time consuming that such debates could take forever to end. The faith of people is tested in near death situations and the death of a loved one. So I'll let life speak for itself & convince you. And as @TRLWNC7396 said: "We shall see".

Have a good day everyone.

 

[Famine]

Atheists believe

Atheists believe

Guess again.

 

[TexRex]

his role models like Richard Dawkins

Swing and a miss. I don't feel any particular way about Dawkins. I certainly don't look to Dawkins as you do to your pedo prophet.

@TexRex I find your replies amusing because of how triggered you are by people having different beliefs.

Deflection.

 

[Danoff]

Atheists can't tell if an action is right, wrong, good, bad, moral or immoral. Because they see everything around them as an interaction on the cellular & atomic level, they can't "perfectly" judge. Hence, atheists are unqualified in this domain.

Back to the story of priests & children.. To an atheist, rape is morally undetermined & it could fall under human rights.

You definitely do not understand Atheists, or morality. Morality and moral teachings existed before your religion existed. A god who can command all of the horrible things that the god of the bible(s) does is DEFINITELY not the source of any moral thinking.

Here's rape from the atheist's point of view: "There are two entities, a male/female adult and a male/female child, occupying a certain space at a certain time, engaged in an interaction known as: Sexual Intercourse.". I can make it more absurd but you get my point.

I don't. I'm an atheist and I think rape is wrong. The bible doesn't always take that viewpoint though.

○An endless chain of causes is rationally impossible. So we conclude that there is a necessity for the existence of an eternal Creator who has no beginning, and He is the origin of existence, without whom neither you nor I nor the universe would exist. To illustrate this, here is an example: We have a soldier who wants to fire a bullet from his pistol, but he is waiting for a reason to do so, which is the order of his commander, but his commander is waiting for an order from his commander, and so on.. If we assume that the matter continues for an infinite number of reasons, the bullet will not be fired. But if the bullet is fired, we will be certain that there is a distinguished commander (or a special reason different from the rest of the reasons) who stopped this sequence, and this commander does not wait for an order from anyone, and no one precedes or surpasses him. This is a simplification of the idea of the existence of the universe, since if the universe were merely material causes that were eternally sequential, it would not exist and we would not have existed in the first place.

Not dusty old Thomas Aquinas. This has been debunked so many times, it's preposterous that you're bringing it in here. For one, all you get from this is a "first cause", in no way do you get anywhere near whatever god it is that you like or whatever scripture it is that you like. But even the "first cause" is not solid - because the assumption about infinite regress is not a good one. All of this misunderstands the nature of time, which is integral to space and loses meaning as you approach the big bang in the same way that space loses meaning as you approach the big bang.

Basically, you need to learn some quantum mechanics to fully understand the mistake about reality that this reasoning makes. Quantum mechanics maybe sounds like mumbo jumbo to some, but it is real and we use it in lots of technology at this point - and chemistry relies on it. The beginnings of our universe are rooted in quantum mechanics, not classical.

If you want a starting point to see what I'm poking at, look up hawking radiation.

 

[GBO Possum]

Atheists can't tell if an action is right, wrong, good, bad, moral or immoral. Because they see everything around them as an interaction on the cellular & atomic level, they can't "perfectly" judge. Hence, atheists are unqualified in this domain.

To claim that "only theists are qualified to identify actions as being right/wrong, good/bad, moral/immoral" is surely absurd at best.

It is this kind of (ab)use of language that has been successful in recruiting members to cults over the ages. Often, the recruiters are persuasive narcissists who have no problem with saying what they want the truth to be as it occurs to them in the moment, and have no problem with being self-contradictory. The more they can persuade people to believe this claptrap, the more private jets they can afford.

Even animals have a capability of understanding what is moral/immoral, and they seem to be smart enough to ignore preachers.

"In The Bonobo and the Atheist, renowned primatologist Frans de Waal argues that moral behavior in humans is not predicated on religion. Drawing from extensive research on animals—primarily bonobos and chimpanzees, our nearest primate relatives—as well as research on fossil records of early hominids, he shows how evidence of moral sentiments, like empathy and altruism, predate the advent of religion by millennia and co-evolved in non-human primates as well as in humans."

Finding Morality in Animals

Two new books explore research on animals to better understand the roots of human morality and challenge human specialness.

greatergood.berkeley.edu

That said, it appears that from an evolutionary point of view, the ability to succumb to bull's droppings is a move in the right direction, if "right" in this sense, means "surviving and thriving via the promotion of cooperation at mass scale to the detriment of the planet".

What Makes Humans Different? Fiction and Cooperation

Historian Yuval Noah Harari previews his book on the past and future of Homo sapiens

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff, @Exorcet I'm sure Wikipedia was a reliable source to copy from ay? Bet you haven't downloaded the book of 97 pages & read what's written in it

That's a bet you would lose, it's a tract with no objective basis in fact, it's been proven to be fabricated, and in large part lifted from works of French satire with references to Judaism added in.

However, it's interesting that you would bet on it, isn't gambling a sin in Islam?

NOR read about Zionism & how it uses Judaism as a cover to commit crimes in cough Palestine cough.

One has nothing to do with the other. It's quite possible to condemn the actions of the Israeli state in Palestine (which I 100% do) and also be aware that the protocols are nonsense.

On an unrelated note, you have zero concept of what Atheism is, or how it relates to morality.

 

[Exorcet]

○Goes the same for you Famine. Atheists believe they're correct & all believers are wrong, but this is a subjective view.

People are trying to avoid being subjective because they are interested in the answer. It's not a case of "you don't agree with me so you're wrong". People have studied and tested how the world works and religious stories only work in gray areas where we have little understanding at best. That's being generous. In many cases they are blatantly wrong.

Also, you claim you're an atheist, so why are you questioning the interpretation of my book & my religion when you don't believe in a Creator nor His books (the Qur’an, Bible & Torah) nor the religion of Islam, Christianity & Judaism?

It's important. If there is a god and he wants us to follow rules we need to know which rules. Most people belonging to a particular faith see their religion as obvious correct, but they have a very biased view. If it was so obvious why are there so many religions?

I'm carrying the same message of all Messengers of God (from Muhammad back to Adam) which is: There's only one entity worthy of worship and praise. And this entity is unlike His creation in that He doesn't give birth, has no parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc...

Qur'an (114:3): "He never begets nor is born"

Well if you read Theogony you will clearly see that gods do give birth and there are many of them. What makes your source better?

An endless chain of causes is rationally impossible. So we conclude that there is a necessity for the existence of an eternal Creator who has no beginning, and He is the origin of existence, without whom neither you nor I nor the universe would exist. To illustrate this, here is an example: We have a soldier who wants to fire a bullet from his pistol, but he is waiting for a reason to do so, which is the order of his commander, but his commander is waiting for an order from his commander, and so on.. If we assume that the matter continues for an infinite number of reasons, the bullet will not be fired. But if the bullet is fired, we will be certain that there is a distinguished commander (or a special reason different from the rest of the reasons) who stopped this sequence, and this commander does not wait for an order from anyone, and no one precedes or surpasses him. This is a simplification of the idea of the existence of the universe, since if the universe were merely material causes that were eternally sequential, it would not exist and we would not have existed in the first place.

The solider was nervous and pulled the trigger by accident. There is a solution that doesn't rely on an infinite chain and also doesn't need some kind of will behind it. Either way, you're not going to know why the gun fired unless you investigate. You can read an account of the events but you need also need to be careful that you're not reading something incorrect or made up entirely.

Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Everyone knows consciousness exists but can you touch, taste, see, hear or smell it?

I don't think anyone is arguing against the intangible existing.

When you buy a vase for example you notice the attention to detail & the time & effort put into it yet you don't know who or what made it. Nonetheless you're certain that it was made by this someone or something which means it has a creator.

Only because you were taught that vases are manufactured. You can't tell the origin of something just by looking at it without any other information. And let's not discount natures ability to order itself. Crystals follow regular patters without any designer.

I see double standards here, Famine. Atheists believe that science is the only objective truth since it's tangible. Your "Nope" here is dismissive to the hundreds of thousands of research papers on how to treat & rehabilitate patients with physical & psychological illnesses.

Science is the closest we get to truth because it is verifiable.

Atheists can't tell if an action is right, wrong, good, bad, moral or immoral. Because they see everything around them as an interaction on the cellular & atomic level, they can't "perfectly" judge. Hence, atheists are unqualified in this domain.

It's pretty easy to judge right or wrong in general. Nothing is wrong unless you're not respecting someone else's rights.

Back to the story of priests & children.. To an atheist, rape is morally undetermined & it could fall under human rights.

No, it can't.

Here's rape from the atheist's point of view: "There are two entities, a male/female adult and a male/female child, occupying a certain space at a certain time, engaged in an interaction known as: Sexual Intercourse.". I can make it more absurd but you get my point.

You don't have a point here. You haven't said anything.

If you want to know why rape is wrong it's because one of the people involved doesn't consent to sex. That's it.

What's funny about Richard Dawkins is, in a debate with Mehdi Hasan 11 years ago, he was asked by one of the audience: "If God revealed himself would you believe in him?". He answered: "There is a real problem that we are easily fooled".

Richard Dawkins who is a materialistic atheist doesn’t believe his EYES. Talk about double standards.

You're proving his point. If something came down and claimed to be god it would be wise not to believe it. Even from a religious view it would be unwise. What if it was Satan? What if it was these people:

List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You should just believe them? Has Jesus come back 100 times?

@Exorcet I'm sure Wikipedia was a reliable source to copy from ay? Bet you haven't downloaded the book of 97 pages & read what's written in it NOR read about Zionism & how it uses Judaism as a cover to commit crimes in cough Palestine cough.

I asked you for details, so no need to deal with Wikipedia. If you want to defend the book go ahead.

@Liquid
(41:3): 3. "A Book whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know"
When Islam spread around the globe there was a need to translate the Qur’an & Hadiths to other languages to deliver the final message of God before the end of times.

Would have been nice if he didn't split human language into so many parts then.

The faith of people is tested in near death situations and the death of a loved one. So I'll let life speak for itself & convince you.

Those same situations happen to everyone regardless of faith.

 

[Blitz24]

That's a bet you would lose, it's a tract with no objective basis in fact, it's been proven to be fabricated, and in large part lifted from works of French satire with references to Judaism added in.

However, it's interesting that you would bet on it, isn't gambling a sin in Islam?

One has nothing to do with the other. It's quite possible to condemn the actions of the Israeli state in Palestine (which I 100% do) and also be aware that the protocols are nonsense.

If someone takes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact and uses that as the entire basis of Judaism, they immediately lose all credibility to me.

 

[GBO Possum]

There's only one entity worthy of worship and praise. And this entity is unlike His creation in that He doesn't give birth, has no parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc...

Qur'an (114:3): "He never begets nor is born"

I can "disprove" that in one simple diagram. As the footnote says "solid lines show children". The facts in this family tree were well-known a long, long time before the Qur'an was written, so it must be "correct".

 

[TexRex]

What's funny about Richard Dawkins is, in a debate with Mehdi Hasan 11 years ago, he was asked by one of the audience: "If God revealed himself would you believe in him?". He answered: "There is a real problem that we are easily fooled".

So I skipped over this because it was offered as part of a bizarre bitchfit following a flawed and false assumption that because I'm an atheist I must revere or otherwise look to other atheists--indeed a particular other atheist--for insights. But l think there's something to be probed here, either in tandem with or expanding upon what @Exorcet posted above.

Let's first look at the solicitation by the audience member. If your account is accurate, the audience member has solicited a counterfactual, or a hypothesis counter to fact, which is a logical fallacy. One cannot accurately predict the outcome of hypothetical events, and anything that is purported to come out of said event is unfalsifiable because there is no event or evidence from the event to observe and examine.

Instead of indulging the solicitation, Dawkins looked at the hypothetical event that was proposed. Many purport to have had contact with deities. These accounts can be categorized as either delusion or deception.

In the case of delusion, as with broader religious psychosis, the individual who purports to have had contact believes the contact occurred, which is to say that they have been fooled by some mental defect or by interpretation of some phenomena which they can't--or don't want to--otherwise explain.

In the case of deception, one who purports to have had contact simply wishes to convince others that they have, wich is to say fool them, to either provide cover for or enable action. The action is likely to be perpetrating some form of harm. The purported contact may be used to justify some act they have perpetrated, as physical harm, or it may be used to enable some form of fraud. In extreme cases, the purported contact may be offered as a means to coerce others to perpetrate physical harm, such as terrorism.