Because many NL Muslims can't take criticism like well-adjusted adults, and the NL admins showed a complete lack of spine by giving them their own circlejerk section.
postmann: Reply isn't mandatory but If you must, don't try to sound like a cheap butt-licker. State your point like a skilled debater. Or else stay away from my thread. You haven't shown enough intelligence that earned you the right to comment.
#CheapPoint
Easy there, dude. You're not even trying to make a point here. You made a series of questionable, and sometimes asinine assertions in your OP so I'm just calling you out on them. Try to defend them like an actual human being when you finally hit puberty.
You seem so threatened by ambitious women. Could it be self-esteem issues? Are you unhappy with where you find yourself?
Blatant misogyny on display. Trying to stigmatize the word 'feminism'. Claiming that demanding equal pay is a bad thing. Doesn't every member of a democratic society have the inalienable rights to make demands to the government? But suddenly it's a bad thing when women do it?
Gender equality is a right and there's no particular 'place' for women. We see women succeed in every facet of life.
So don't try to make feminism seem like a derogatory term.
Scholar8200: Do you have info on anyone that committed bestiality in Israel? I have tons of evidence that whole tribes in Israel went into idolatry! Did God command the free tribes to go execute that command? NO
Why you may ask?
The law exposed the sinfulness in all men and anyone trying to execute that command will be gnawed at by his conscience for hypocrisy! Just like the story of the woman caught in adultery!
So God didn't actually mean it? I wonder what other commandments served this purpose. I can now see why Christians cherry-pick only the verses they like in the Bible.
Scholar8200: Chronological order? No! Even the books are not chronologically arranged. eg Job came centuries before Ruth, Samuel etc. Reading that passage, you will notice that the part of Jephthah's vow came in like a parenthesis. Try this without the aspect of the vow:
29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.
32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.
33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel Judges 11:29,32,33
The books not being chronologically arranged is one thing. But not within the same chapter of a book. As a matter of fact, these verses that you posted don't show anything.
Scholar8200: The highlighted shows that it was a prescription not a direct command against a named Tribe/City etc
Now, can you show us ONE instance when this was done to one of the Tribes of Israel? And, is this prescribed action (which was never carried out) done for pleasure or as a retribution for unfaithfulness to a covenant which they willingly entered into?
This is a very weird response to make if I say so myself. Can you show one instance when someone was killed for bestiality in Israel? So why should the fact that this commandment wasn't carried out in the Bible negate what God said?
Scholar8200: The ellipses inserted there omits what happened after the Spirit came and links it to the wrong vow.
Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. Judges 11:29
The vow was made before this time: Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and captain over them: and Jephthah uttered all his words before the Lord in Mizpeh. Judges 11:11
That's not true. The vow wasn't made before that time. The first time, Jephthah only sent messengers to Ammon. This time he went there himself. And it clearly states that when the Spirit of God came upon him he went to the places and then made the vow.
Also, why is that segment of the Bible that doesn't sit well with a lot of people suddenly not in chronological order?
yemixi4real: I am not saying he disobeyed being fully aware the vow he made was voluntary and not ordered by God, the misconception I will love to clarity on is how he redeemed his vow... Taking the bible passage as reference
But the vow wasn't exactly voluntary. Read for reference:
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah ... And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.... And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child.... And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth.... And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed. Judges 11:29-40
The Spirit of the Lord came upon him for that to happen.
Here is a Prof who was formally an Atheist. You could read what later made him changed his view.
PROFESSOR František Vyskočil of Charles University, Prague, is internationally known for his research in neurophysiology. Once an atheist, he now firmly believes in God. In an interview with Awake! Professor Vyskočil explains why he changed his viewpoint. What was your view of religion before you started your career in science? I was raised an atheist, and my father often made fun of the clergy. I graduated from college in 1963 with degrees in biology and chemistry. In my school years, I believed that the theory of evolution explained life’s diversity. Tell us a little about your career in science. In my postdoctoral work, I studied the chemical and electrical properties of nerve synapses. I also studied neurons, membrane pumps, transplantation, and drug desensitization. Many of the results have been published, and some articles have been selected as classical. In time, I became a member of the Learned Society of the Czech Republic, a community of scientists chosen by their peers. After the December 1989 “Velvet Revolution,” I became a professor at Charles University and was allowed to travel to the West to meet with colleagues, some of whom were Nobel laureates. Did you ever think about God? In a sense, yes. At times, I wondered why many highly educated people, including some of my professors, believed in God—albeit quietly because of the Communist regime. To me, however, God was a human invention. I had also been outraged by atrocities committed in the name of religion. How did you come to change your view of evolution? My doubts about evolution began when I was studying synapses. I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense. Then, in the early 1970’s, I attended a lecture by a famous Russian scientist and professor. He stated that living organisms cannot be a result of random mutations and natural selection. Someone in the audience then asked where the answer lay. The professor took a small Russian Bible from his jacket, held it up, and said, “Read the Bible—the creation story in Genesis in particular.” Later, in the lobby, I asked the professor if he was serious about the Bible. In essence, he replied: “Simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.” The Bible book of Genesis, he felt, made much more sense. How did the professor’s comments affect you? His observations, along with my own nagging doubts, moved me to discuss the subject with several religious colleagues and friends, but I found their views unconvincing. Then I spoke to a pharmacologist who was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. For three years he explained the Bible to me and my wife, Ema. Two things amazed us. First, traditional “Christianity” actually has little in common with the Bible. Second, the Bible, though not a science book, actually harmonizes with true science. Has your change of view hindered your scientific research? Not at all. Every good scientist, regardless of his beliefs, must be as objective as possible. But my faith has changed me. For one thing, instead of being overly self-confident, highly competitive, and unduly proud of my scientific skills, I am now grateful to God for any abilities I may have. Also, instead of unfairly attributing the amazing designs manifest in creation to blind chance, I and not a few other scientists ask ourselves, ‘How did God design this?’
But you see, how exactly did the speaker come to the conclusion that beneficial mutations should take longer than 4 billion years? Does he have solid evidence to back up his claim? Also, if he believes that 4 billion years of evolution isn't enough to be where we are today. Then how does he reconcile that fact with the diversification just about 4,000 years after the global flood that many Christians tout as fact?
This thread is just someone trying (and failing) to make a valid argument and going "la la la, I cant hear you" when someone doesn't support her shallow-minded beliefs. How does questioning whether logic exists prove that your imaginary friend exists?
Then one other guy is here, lying that transitional fossils do not exist when there are several to date. He's lying that we don't see animals of the same species with different traits (maybe he doesn't know what a dog is).
So let me ask this, where is the evidence for biblical claims? Why isn't there evidence of the flood? Studies show that all the water in the earth's atmosphere would raise sea levels by about an inch, how do you circumvent that? If you can't then don't come here to talk about logic, because you obviously aren't using it.
Speechless3: Looooooooool ive found an atheist who would not believe logical laws exist. So how do we recognise an illusion?
Urgh, you're still strung out on this thing? Even after everything that people have told you. Allow me to enlighten you, even though I doubt the possibility of that happening anytime soon.
Logic is just a system for solving problems. There is no entity like logic. From logical reasoning, we've attained systems like mathematics, physics, chemistry, computing, etc to solve problems.
Logic is held in high esteem because of its success in solving problems. For example, all computer programming languages are based on logical sequences, the fact that we can use operating systems and run apps means that logic is a valid method of solving problems.
Another example, is earth's gravitational constant 'G'. To date, nobody has physically weighed the earth, but using physics (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to be precise), we were able to evaluate the mass of the earth, the value of 'G', and hence value of acceleration due to gravity on earth 'g'. Now why am I telling you this? I'm telling you because we know that all the calculations are correct. If the derived value of G was lower than it was supposed to be then all the artificial satellites that are orbiting the earth would have crashed back to earth. If it was estimated too high, they would have drifted into space. The fact that I'm sending this via the internet means that none of that happened, so we can say that physics and therefore logic are reliable and useful constructs.
OLAADEGBU: We are not accountable to the allah of the qur'an but we are all accountable to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob either you like it or not.
And this right here is the reason we can't make head way.
Speechless3: Laws of Logic are abstract and not material but atheists say they exist! funny. I mean you cant see logical laws but you believe they exist. How so?
Why are they not consistent in their reasoning when it comes to God? God cannot be seen too but atheists say he must be seen first before they believe? Loooooooooooool
Atheism is unreasonable and illogical if you ask me.
looOOOOooOOoOoooOoOOoooOoooOOoooOOooOoOL, I've been checkmated.
The laws of logic are a human construct, a lot of things are just human constructs when you think about it.
beau49: @bolded what defines a right or wrong conviction?
For a scientific conviction, you can test whether it is right or wrong by checking whether it can be substantiated by empirical evidence and whether it can make valid predictions.
For a moral conviction, you should test whether it causes direct or indirect harm to the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of an individual. There are grey areas, though.
KingEbukasBlog: There are old earth creationists , theistic evolutionists , progressive creationists and there are young earth creationists . Cold , aint you the one that claimed that atheists know about our Religion even more than we do Looks like you told a blatant lie cos every damn time I see none sense I can't even care to respond to
misterbear: The third and fourth points are correct: It is Christians that tend to be opposed to stem cell research and abortion. Those things do not contravene Islamic doctrine.
As for the other points: being against equality in marriage and imposing your beliefs on others; other religions particularly Islam are guilty of that as well. In fact, Islamic culture is guilty of these things in some ways even more than Christian culture is (especially in the west). Nevertheless, as a man of science, it is to be expected that Dawkins would be particularly focused on those areas where science is threatened especially in his own part of the world. (Note that Muslims also tend to be opposed to evolution.)
But the Muslim influence in the American government is very limited. So they don't really need to be criticized.
Imagine a country, where some evangelical universities take dinosaur fossils and date them to 4,000 years ago. That's the kind of thing that would piss Richard Dawkins off.
misterbear: No Speechless3 is right. Atheists - especially in the west - do tend to concentrate exclusively on Christianity and often appear to give other religions a free pass. If you listen to the public speeches of Richard Dawkins during the past decade, and if you read his book The God Delusion, his blows are largely if not exclusively directed at Christianity and Christians in particular (even the old testament Judaic text is attacked only in the context of it being part of the Christian bible). While this may be easily explained by the fact that Christianity is the religion that has traditionally dominated western culture and thus is the one western atheists are most likely to attack, it doesn't explain the relative apathy they often seem to display towards other religions even when they are prominent in public consciousness and even when they are characterized by violent extremism. Islam is the most obvious example. Many Christians have pointed out that secular liberals in the west are often extremely tolerant and even protective of Islam and tend to excuse Muslims of behaviors that they would attack Christians for if they were the ones doing it. These are legitimate complaints that even atheists like Richard Dawkins have recognized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a7igsWpPSQ.
By the way, it is also true that atheists do often attack Christians (not just Christianity) as being "stu.pid", "du.mb", "mentally ill" etc etc...
Richard Dawkins' behaviour is not always worthy of emulation. But I we should try to see why it's Christianity he attacks mostly.
First, it is Christians who are trying to stop schools from teaching evolution and the Big Bang Theory, as a man of science, he has the rights to be peeved.
Secondly, the Christian right, is strongly against equality in marriages.
Third, it is the Christians who are against planned parenthood.
Fourth, the Catholic church opposes stem cell research.
His attitude towards Christians, while not ideal is mostly a function of the tendency of Christians to try to enforce their beliefs over others in a democratic government.