₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi3:
Well then. Feel free to test my claims whenever you want.

This is what we been doing bro, your claim had been tested and it seems like some who is much more of anti islam rather than a truth seeker.

if you wish to continue to debate with me assuming that I am just carrying about typical assumptions that other people make, you do so at your own risk

firstly, i deleted most of what you posted here, since i consider them out of point and those not relate with what we are discussing here. so to your query, i do not wish to debate you like i find it interesting, but it is part of my duty as a nairaland religuous member to expose any false allegation against any faiith or ideology even if it is atheism. so be rest assure, no false accusation either from you or some one else will be left to remain closed.

Now, I believe that you and I are done. If you don't think so, then find some way of explaining Surah 9 so that we can know that Christianity and Islam are both non-coercive systems that not only do not threaten but also actively promote national integrity.ifyou cannot, my claim stands that Islam is opposed to national integrity and will subvert nations and compromise their sovereignty if it is able to.

Both Christianity and Islam profess underlying theologies and exchatologies which necessarily are mirror images of each other.

i actually don't know your arguments here, mention suratul 9 without mentioning the verse. well , suratul 9 is called suratul tawbah and it contains 129 verses. which of the verse in them are you referring to .Do you want to know about the whole complete verses?

Ihedinobi3:
I don't understand the above but I agree with the idea that it is fruitless discussing with anyone who has decided never to entertain the possibility that they are in error.

Yes it is indeed a fruitless exercise.

Olive branch: you probably don't know anything about me, so I encourage you to avoid making such assumptions as the above. If you look through my post history, you will quickly learn that I know a bit about history, especially the historical background of the Bible. I will throw in a bonus and tell you that I also know something of the history of Islam and the Qur'an too.

Accept this olive branch for your own sake.

Do i need to learn more about you again, your post here is enough to judge your mind set and level of understanding. .you post what you know and belive. and i am sorry to say you seems not to appear like someone who knows. if i am even wrong with this assessment, the margin of error will be low.

The Pope and the Apocrypha are false authorities for anyone who believes the Bible.

Another confirmation bias. You claim to be a Methodist from birth, another Christian denomination. so it make sense to suggest you were raised/schooled to believe the pope and the apocryphal are false with a great deal of misinterpretation and flat out lies taught as truth. . therefore this lies is expected.

Ihedinobi3:
That is proof enough in itself that your defense is unreliable.

it is fruitless discusing with someone who is in fringe in his own cbristain teaching. on this issue, it is not about analytical and data-driven again but personal gullibility.

i amm not going to address your claims about the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists because I consider them all cults that twist the meanings of the Bible to serve their own ends. That already means that you cannot justify your own arguments to me by appealing to their methods.

A well display of confirmation bias.If you as a Christians really read through your bible and actually understood it in terms of historical context of what was happening at the time, in which i was pointing to you about islam. You would understand that your belief is a much more like islam itself But you are not interested in this information, you ignored it or not even cared about it . same thing is what is happening here, blackmailing other denomination becuse of your personal bias.

Now, are you saying that the Hadith, the Islamic scholars and the Qur'an are together absolute in authority?

There is different between augmenting and absolutness. catholic is a typical example, we have the pope, the bible and the Deuterocanon. all occupying their various position.

TayserMahri:
Hati13, Please come correct what needs to be corrected here. As a Kenyan I wont let ANYONE misrepresent facts of my very beloved neighbor Ethiopia.

wait, me and hati13 once walk in this lane before and he later agree there was military occupation which was synonymous to colonization.


History is much more eaeier and accessible now than before, infact it is even cheaper, it will only cost you some few megabyte to proof me wrong.


anyway what is the diffrence between this and this picture .

Ihedinobi3:
So far, all I have seen is you

1. accusing me of judging Islam by the actions of some Muslims;

2. accusing me of taking verses out of context;

3. arguing that Islam will go extinct and thus will not conquer the world;

4. arguing about some undefined historical context involving Muhammad;

5. arguing that the Qur'an's authority is not absolute for Islam;

6. arguing that Islam should be judged by the actions of Muslims that you approve of.


I'm afraid none of this really flies. If the Qur'an is not the absolute authority on Islam, then Islam is whatever any Muslim wishes it to be. Therefore, there is no true definition of Islam. Therefore, the Islam of terrorists is no less legitimate than the Islam of the progressive Muslims. Therefore, my argument still stands.

i think this is worth replying, the rest doesn't matter since it fall on deaf ear.

Hadith and jurisdiction of the islamic scholars augment Quran, it does not stop it from being an absolute islamic book. just like how some books augment bible, it does not stop bible from it being an absolute book to the Christian . for example the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) recognize the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. They also believe in continuing revelation. Jehovah's Witnesses use the periodic publications of the Watchtower as authoritative.The Catholic Church recognizes the Deuterocanon as part of the Bible, which most other Christian faiths do not. even seventh Day Adventists use the writings of Ellen White. all this does not invalidate the absolutness of the bible.

themonk:
What kind of logic is this? Good night bro.

i am not using logic with you. i am applying a similar case study. .

ok good night.

budaatum:
But that does not mean we wouldn't correct his errors, as you well know we would! Or the op would go propounding the same ignorance thread after thread misinforming everyone then some lazy theist would quote op to support their silly argument!

Besides, his thread was to correct such ignorance so we must help op!

he sound too confidence with his ignorance.

themonk:
It was not an intelligent prank, the challenge exposed very popular magicians and people with claim to the supernatural.

They wouldn't have ridiculed their reputation with a prank.

i see, you forgotten MMM operated in Nigeria successfully without considering their reputation.

themonk:
I read your comment, you implied the money dosent exist but it did exist. That particular demonstration was organized by Randi for jokes. Others were real and evaluated by third parties.

This topic had once been treated here. the money don't exist. everything about the whole show was an intelligent prank.

themonk:
That was an April fool video by James Randi, did you even watch the video or read the comments?

Do you even read my comment before the video

Bacteriologist:
I've ignored him. I got no energy for that level of thinking.

stop being obtuse, what is the purpose of your knolwedge if it is full of ignorance . And what i am doing here is to brighting your understanding. i realised your post is full of the usual mantra

And if you think by ignoring we serve you well , so be it.

tintingz:
The OP already mentioned what atheist and agnostic atheist is,

And you want me to swallow the ignorance. and as for arguing, leave that for the lawyers

for education purpose only, this link explain the taxonomy behind atheism definition.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

tintingz:
My goodness, you're just mixing everything up.

like what bro. maybe you are right

Bacteriologist:
No, Atheists are people who reject the claim that a god exists. The same way a Christian rejects the Hindu god. The same way a Muslim lacks belief in Buddha. The same way we all don't believe in unicorns and phoenixes.

rejection is not the issue, but rejecting on what ground , perharps lack of evidence which does not take into account the philosophy of every atheist. There are some atheists who would say that they simply do not know if there is a god or not. They would claim that they are atheist not because they assert that there is no god but because they simply don't know, and that they really do have just a lack of belief (sincerely that is the line between agnosticism and atheism). In this case, is it still true that atheism is not a belief?

Atheists do NOT deny. They reject.
I really don't understand how difficult this is for you lots.

rejecting on what ground, knowing or what ? may be this question will perhaps enlight you?

XxSabrinaxX:
You're yet to debunk anything though

ok...

budaatum:
This does depend on one's definition of "god". I for instance reckon you and everyone else on here are 'gods'. I'd even go as far as claiming I try to 'worship' you (hold you in high esteem and regard). But that does not man I should bow down to anyone or delude myself that anyone of us created the heavens and the earth or Adam and Eve, nor is it a requisite for godness. Jesus did not after all create any earths or heavens or Adams or Eves. But I hold it as a truth that each and every one of us can do so much more than Jesus did, including healing the sick, curing the blind, raising the dead, feeding the poor and so on. Doctors do the first few and you do the last all the time on here.

Funny enough, Jesus thought me this when it is written he said, " know ye not that ye are gods?" In my version I hear, "know that these are the gods". Or how else does one regard the mud that God is said to have breathed life into? I sometimes wish the gods had created buda a theist instead of an atheist. I would become a pastor to that mud!

ORUNMILA wi eniyan ni dorisha

XxSabrinaxX:
Can you demonstrate this claim?

open a thread for that and invite me or better still visit my what created God thread and contribute your counter claim.


This is a different topic on his own and i have contribute my own view which by now, it should be debunked.

XxSabrinaxX:
Do you know that a god exists?

i believed a God exist. any problem?

budaatum:
Lol I'm so honoured! Though, by some of my posts, some might think I'm a Christian Atheist.

To be honest, some don't know the meaning of the words they use to describe themselves. Imagine an atheist claiming they don't believe gods exist, or believing in a big bang for that matter. If I were a theist, I'd call such people fools for thinking the nonsense they decide to hold in their heads makes the gods go bang because they believe!

The only way to truly not believe anything is to live your life knowing that you truly know nothing at all. This includes the possibility that vaxx or budaatum might be god. There are some atheists who strive to live this way but there are others who do not. And those that do generally don't identify as atheists, or anything for that matter. So it depends.

budaatum:
That's not true! Remember the 70 something year old man who said he was 30 and the black girl who said she was caucasian? If I recall correctly, you called her deluded, and I bet if I put on my skirt, wear my bra, stick on high heels and call myself a man you'd tell me I'm deluded too or call me Bobriskyman, but many will still not let me in a toilet with their sons or throw me in jail with proper men for fear I might rape them.

One may declare oneself anything one wants to but that don't mean one is one.

Not going to debate that anyway.. but i am yalking of a statement of conviction.

budaatum:
It means they are not atheists. They are agnostics.

God bless you for this statement. i wonder why they should use the word atheist to qualify themselves.

budaatum you might reallly be the only true atheist on nairaland

ednited:
Maybe you will agree with this one

Northern part of Ethiopia was colonized by British which is now Eritrea.

Yet this those not changed the fact that Ethiopia claims ownership of this region and is recognized as Ethiopia both within and outside of Ethiopia. infact this argument does not change Ethiopia’s past as a colony if that region that was formerly part of Ethiopia was colonized.

Eatern part of Ethiopia was colonized by British, which was part of Somalia which is now part of Ethiopia.

Good and that is true.

But Ethiopia is not colonized.
You being an African does not make you an authority of the subject. You can't make things about any county's identity.

Your premises does not follow thru, if those part were once and part of the empire. it become its history. and to the second question. i am not an authority on the subject either but know fully well, any unproven evidence will be disqualify and that is what i just did.

Do I have the right to say

Jomo Kenyatta was a man who spread colonization??

first, i am not a Kenyan, and to your question, Do you have any evidence for it.

rvp2018:
I think it correct to say part of former Ethiopia empire was colonized -by Italians - Eritrea - and now that it's own country - present day Ethiopia was never colonized - which was quite a feat!!!

This is not even true, present day Ethiopia was colonised. Ethiopia as it mostly know did not exist. It was a small region that incorporated the northern-most region of today’s Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Ethiopia as an empire later invade and conquer various parts of Eastern Africa that make up the larger region we now call Ethiopia. It was later gifted the region of Ogaden and Haud by the British, which makes up a little over 1/3 of its present land mass). and these region were colonized by the British.

theenchanter:
she's Ethiopian, u cant know her country than her. Leave it like that.

And be lenient toward ladies.

That is a false argument.

ednited:
You are an African right Please please please At least know just a little about other African countries. It is people like you who make wrong maps and put in the museum saying the whole Africa was colonized. Rather than fighting on the GDP stuffs, fight illiteracy. I am not sorry I am mean

Same goes to every Kenyan here. If it makes you feel proud and big having big GDP, then here it is. . . Ethiopia has lower GDP, lower civilization, low literacy and is low on everything are you happy now? Make a party for that

AFRICA IS HOPELESS

i wanted to ignore you, but on another look, some reader may think, you have made a point. if there is any traces of ignorant here. it should be you.

i care less about Ethiopia poverty or her GDP, my argument is simple. Ethiopia was colonised both by british and italian and i have gave my reasons as to why, if you think it is false argument base on the drum of ignorance that has been beaten to your skull, let me know.

perharps, you could argued your point out instead of the foul mouth, you being an Ethiopia does not make you an authority on the subject.

Bacteriologist:
An 'atheist' by definition doesn't say "I don't know if there is a god."

An atheist says, "I reject the claim that your God exists."

"I reject the claim that your God exists. But I'm not sure." ----> Agnostic atheist.

I reject the claim that your God exists. And I'm sure." -----> Gnostic Atheist.

Get it?

Atheists are people who declare themselves atheists.

No one who does not declare atheism is an atheist. Some have said babies are atheists. Wrong. Babies have no concept of God or gods. So they have not made a conscious decision to be atheists. Babies do just lack a belief in God or gods.

Some have said animals are atheists. Wrong again. Animals cannot make a decision to not believe in God. Animals too just lack a belief in God or gods.

The moment a person declares himself to be an atheist, he can no longer rationally claim a neutral stance towards God's existence. They have taken a stance against God's existence.

Some are even honest enough to frankly admit this but i doubt your argument support that .

No atheist who insists atheists have no beliefs has ever given a simple, straight answer to each of the following questions: not even richard darkwins

Do you believe the proposition: No God exists?

Do you believe the proposition: The God of the Bible /quran/pagan does not exist?

Do you know that no gods exist?

and if that is the case why are you denying believe.

Bacteriologist:
Having observed a lot of ignorant definition of Atheism and Atheists from Theists, I find it will be of great help to aid everyone in understanding what Atheism really means.

Let's start with what Atheism is not:

First, Atheism is NOT a religion. Religion is the belief in or worship of a supernatural/higher power. Which is exactly what atheists NEVER do. So, dear theists, again, Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is NOT a belief. Atheism is a complete, total and absolute LACK OF BELIEF in all gods, goddesses and deities. Atheism is a rejection of belief and so therefore does not, in itself, require belief or faith as that would be illogical. You do not believe that Unicorns or leprechauns exist, do you? That's exactly how Atheism is, too.

Atheism DOES NOT offer explanation for the origin of the world. Being an atheist DOES NOT mean that one automatically accepts the big bang theory, or big crunch or "something from nothing." Some Atheists believe in the big bang while some others simply state that "We do not know YET how the universe came to be." Which seems to be pretty honest since no one knows for sure how the Universe started. So, beloved theists, Atheism is a total rejection of the belief that any god exists.

Atheism is NOT satanism: Rejection of belief in a supernatural god also includes rejection of belief in a supernatural devil. Get it, theists? God does not exist, same applies to Satan. We're not Satanists, we're atheists.

LASTLY, Satan is NOT an atheist: Satan is a fictitious deity who by definition has been "god's friend" according to most religion. So, literally, Satan is a theist and it makes it really stupid to say Satan does not believe God exists.


So there, Theists, is what you need to stop making up ridiculous conclusions about Atheists and atheism in general every now and then.

Atheists feel free to add other hasty generalisations about Atheism from theists that are often false.

lets start from here, what does it mean when some atheist says , i don't know if there is God?

americaninja1:
wicked people/.. u turn d boiz to vampire.

At least, they were provided drinking water to wash down the bites to ensure they really ate the raw meat. thsy are not that wicked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opXf1EFg2ZU


The Akomadan District Police Command in Ashanti has arrested four men including a Community Policing Assistant (CPA) for forcing three Senior High School students from Akomadan to chew raw chicken.

The students were alleged to have been caught stealing the chicken

The suspects are Prince Adu, 40, a farmer; Peter Owusu Aduomi, 41, CPA; Francis Osei, 31, teacher and Abukari Anaba, 57.

According to the Ashanti Regional Police Public Relations Officer, Assistant Superintendent of Police Godwin Ahianyo, on January 21, 2019, the students, all juveniles, were arrested by the suspects for stealing a fowl.

And as their punishment, they were made to chew the fowl raw and were videoed while chewing the fowl. They were provided drinking water to wash down the bites to ensure they really ate the raw meat.


He said the video went viral and police investigation led to the arrest of the suspects who are currently in police custody to be processed for court.

According to him, “the police command condemns the behaviour of these suspects and assures the public that whoever is involved would be made to face the full rigours of the law to serve as a deterrent to others.”

https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/4-in-trouble-for-forcing-students-to-eat-stolen-fowl-raw.html

Ihedinobi3:
Nations are conquered. Individuals are not. Individuals are oppressed, subdued, or persuaded

Nations simply means a large number of individual bonded with same historical background and culture.for you to conquer nation, you will be conquering induvidual that makes the nation.

ri eally wonder what you'll do when the Mahdi shows up.



Na wa.



What?

stick to the point of discussion, the discussion is about your false allegation that islam aim is to conquer the world, which i says it is not true.

What factual evidence? How did Muhammad treat the non-Muslims of his day

You may need to go read my early first three reply again.. not gonna repeat myself.

That part I put in bold text is an obvious lie

lets see..

What similar case in Christianity?

That there also exist extremists among Christian, those who nurses the idea that everyone should be christain.

So, basically, the Qur'an is not to be relied upon to know what Islam is?

how those this correlate with what i said there. Islamic teaching fall into three part, the quran, the hadith, the scholarly opinion. all of this are vital to islamic teachings.

Why then were you making such a fuss about verses allegedly taken out of context?

i guess your inability not to accept you are lacking the knowledge here is an issue. jumping toward conclusion when validation is yet to be made.

The fact that Islam is fragmented does not mean anything. The Mahdi is expected to come and unite Islam, restore it and rid the world of evil

i dont really know how this relate to the question at hand. this is why i said you lack the knowledge you are debating. and if you must know, not all muslim are expecting Mahdi, some believe he is dead and gone (The hamadiya) some believe NOTHING of such is coming (another fracture of islam) different sect with diffrent opinion.

But I didn't understand anything you said there.

Read it again but this time around, read it slowly.

What do the Haddith and Islamic scholars say about the verses I posted

This question was historically answer in my first three response to you. go back there and read it again.i am having the notion that you are not reading my reply but just interested to make your point.You are only appealing to poppular demand instead of critics and skeptic.

What is this historical context you keep talking about?

again, it is stated in my first three response to you. will not be repeating myself.

If I should judge by the Muslims you like, why should I not also judge by the ones you dislike?

and how those this contribute to the disscussion at hand.judging muslim is irrelevant, what to judge is quran, hadith and consensus agreement of the muslim scholar.

What made it a poor question?

The premises of the question itself.

You appeared to suggest that the Qur'an is outdated in some respects at least. So, I was asking you why it did not provide information that at some point in history, some parts of it would be outmoded. Why is that a poor question?

No, dont get me wrong, i appear to suggest that Quran gives allowance to borrowed outside of it, that those not mean my response literarilly suggeast it is outdated. Quran being the ultimate source of Islam, is considered the base of every rules and regulation for present time and the time which has yet to come. some islamic country use it as constitution but If one thing is not openly declared in Quran, then Hadith (Muhammad's words, action and agreeness to any action done in front of him) is the reference for Islamic Laws. Any event which takes place and isn't covered already will be addressed by scholars (Islamic Reasoning) by exploring the existing teachings in Quran, Hadith sharia base.

What I am getting from you so far is that the Qur'an is not the authority in this matter. But if that is true, why are you insisting that the verses I quoted were taken out of context? If they are outdated, why didn't you just say so?

You are not reading my words, you are only replying for the purpose of argument. Quran is not the only sole authority of islam as their other source if clarification does not exist in quran.
In muhammed time there was no missile or atomic bomb, neither can we find reference to even fire arms like Gun.. so any validation about that will be taken out of Quran.

But if they are, how do you explain the Mahdi

This is irrelevant anyway. but if i must answer. diffrent islamic denominations has different understanding to it. it is not a general idea thall all Muslim follow.

Ihedinobi3:
Your response is a non sequitur. The fact that Muslims will be removed from the world does not contradict any goal of world conquest. Even if Muslims conquered the whole world, there would still be unbelievers. Those unbelievers would be the reason that Allah would take all Muslims away so that he could punish the unbelievers since the Muslims have demonstrated their faithfulness by warring so resolutely for him.

Are you listening to yourself,? the word conquer means overcome and taking control of the whole world in this context. meaning everyone regardless of everyone faith will be conqured. so therefore, everyone will be under muslim rules amd regulation. and by your double standard here, there still exist unbeliever after the conquest, then that is not conquest since unbeliever still exist.. this is the problem i am having with your reasoning. trying to pin a point where it does not exist. Islam can not even rule over itself or it’s many, many factions and different sects. Islam does not exists. What exists is sunni islam, shia islam, wahabi islam. Just like in any other religion across the world. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that it will

Oga, I don't understand what you are saying.

Your reasoning ability does not impress me.

First, I don't believe a word you say about your not being an apologist

Not necessarily, you dont need to believe but i have made my point clearer. .

Second, what factual demonstration?

The historical account i gave about islam in his earier age was the factual evidence. how muhammed was surrounded by non muslim alike and the treatment he melted out to them.

You just told me that other Muslims were nice and I should judge Islam by them. Why would I do that if I don't judge it by the terrorists either?

none of my writting suggest this, i was only presenting to you what islam represents, i even made mention of similar case in Christianity. the best form of judging islam is by studying Islam, is to study his histrorical account that birth the ways and life of muhammed including quran. Islam is made up of 1.8 billion Muslims, all over the world, representing dozens of cultures and mindsets, as well as a vast spectrum of religious views, ranging from ultra-conservative (i.e. Saudi Salafists) to ultra-liberal (i.e. mystical Sufis, found around the world) — and so, from a pragmatic standpoint, there’s really no single islam to even try to dominate the world.

What

Do you miss anything?

That is a very unconvincing and bad argument. Is Islam defined by the Qur'an or by governments of official and unofficial Muslim states?

islam is defined by the haddith (the saying and doing of muhammed , the quran and the islamic scholars. hence, It’s only the most conservative-extremist that we want to dominate . and not only that. some extremist followers of any religion may also want to try to dominate others in any case, and within Islam, such people and groups are a tiny percentage of the total - and without the military, political or economic power to engage in much domination outside of their own small countries or regions of control.

Your historical facts are beside the point. The question is what Islam teaches,

yes and to understand that you need to factor in the historical account of jslam itself. and it is not by randomly quoting quranic verses because it literarilly agree with your preconsive notion without understanding the historical connection leading to such verse. even bible require exegesis.

not what Muslims do. Are you telling me that they are one and the same?

muslim are those who practised islam. without the former, the latter can't exist.

Oga, I was giving you an example for the question I was going to ask.


So, basically, the Qur'an teaches things that are outdated or outmoded in some cases?

Then that is poor question by the way,

it simply tell that the tradition that hold islam go beyond quran and hadith. e.g the use of traffic light or effect of high rise building in an Islamic world . hope you know fully well quran is a constitutional book to some islamic country. and since quran is silent about this, it become necessary to borrow knolwedge outside of it.