₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: Lol, don't cry.

The issues raised derive from causality, and that is how we infer the attributes i raised. Those attributes are what should form the debate. FSM does not address such. It is thus a ridiculous non issue. Wrap your head around it.

Don't worry, I'll survive, I have tissue around somewhere if I feel the need to cry. The issue seems to be one you've created to help you feel more special though.

Mr_Anony: Lol, that's a loaded statement which suggests that if an entity does not have a particular characteristic, then it is somehow deficient.
I told you what God's nature is like. You are the one who is assuming that some characteristics you feel God should have automatically makes God deficient if he does not have them. That's like saying that color red is not fully blue.

Anony, and perhaps someone else can help me out here as I care about the technicalities of religions about as much as I do those of the zodiac, is the christian god claimed to be all of omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant?
I am not asking about your anony-god anony, I'm asking about the official version of abrahamic sky-tyrant

Deep Sight: It appears you do not read.

I have already told you that the question is that of causality for material phenomena. Addittionaly i went so far as to point out the attributes at issue in light of that fact. In case it missed you, those attribute concern such issues as time and space, issues of eternity and causality.

It is eveident from your comment that these issues, their relevance, and well as their philosophical implications are as completely lost on you as light is from day.

For if that was not the case, there is no way you would see relevance in asking why these necessary attributes are not the function of spagetti and meat balls.

Go figure.

For the most part in situations like this I only read posts directed to me, so you'd be correct. My attention span is a little too low, I bore easily, so I just skim the other posts. Also, it's not mandatory. You state the Fsm is not relevant, I show how it could still be useful. You rant.

You're also right about how much I value the issues you raise, I think them useless. I'm not sure what a purpose is doing in there. Though I admit I've only skimmed through them. Again, they weren't addressed to me, nor did you point them out to me before your silly post.

To be fair I was the one that engaged you. I'll stay out of your way.

Mr_Anony: I don't know exactly what you want me to address. I can only tell you about the nature of God as He has revealed Himself to me. I cannot go beyond that.
You may start by asking a sincere and direct question.

What in the world does this mean?
Did you, or did you not accept that a fully omnixxx being does not exist?
You're accusing me of being dishonest? Wtf?

Mr_Anony: lol, if you say it that way, then it will also be fair to say it is a fact that people believe today that man cannot fly.


You have not yet demonstrated this.


lol, you need to read what i have been saying again and properly


I don't see how this relates to anything I am saying now.


Good, could you please demonstrate with logic how God can be objectively false because you haven't


Hogwash, you are rejecting my claims yes but you are not giving any reasons why. That is what I want to see.

.


Unless I'm missing something, you already have accepted it doesn't exist when you accepted an omnixxx being cannot exist. It's anony-god, the one that's all true with no false, that is all-loving, not omnibenevolent (even then your arguments failed miserably though). Abrahamic god is all omnixxx.
If you want to debate all the other silly contradictions, nonsense claims etc attributed to abrahamic god, the fairy tales in the holy books, find someone with even more time to waste than I do.

So, address my post now properly, ser. I will see you bleed, even another wharrgarbl will suffice.

Deep Sight: No: this is wrong: the FSM argument does have everything to do with causality because it asks the question as to whether a ridiculous conjuration such as a food monster could not be the cause of the universe. That is manifestly silly.

Intelligent design as a notion is not limited to Religious precepts as you know, and as such, cannot and should not be attacked with reference to the ridiculous notions of the ontology of God proffered by any religion.

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of processed food such as pasta and meatballs, is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

You cannot expect that to be taken seriously in any serious discussion, can you?

Fsm is still relevant when discussing a deist god, it illustrates how much weight should be given to unfalsifiable or unfounded claims, which I believe is its primary aim. If you're going to accept claims arbitrarily, you might as well accept our processed god. If god showed up ready made, why couldn't the fsm show up processed? Both notions are equally ridiculous.

Deep Sight: No: this is wrong: the FSM argument does have everything to do with causality because it asks the question as to whether a ridiculous conjuration such as a food monster could not be the cause of the universe. That is manifestly silly.

Intelligent design as a notion is not limited to Religious precepts as you know, and as such, cannot and should not be attacked with reference to the ridiculous notions of the ontology of God proffered by any religion.

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of processed food such as pasta and meatballs, is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

You cannot expect that to be taken seriously in any serious discussion, can you?

Fsm is still relevant when discussing a deist god, it illustrates how much weight should be given to unfalsifiable or unfounded claims, which I believe is its primary aim. If you're going to accept claims arbitrarily, you might as well accept our processed god. If god showed up ready made, why couldn't the fsm show up processed? Both notions are equally ridiculous.

Procrastinate the day away, why don't I? Yield anony, I might let you go with some concessions

Mr_Anony: My friend, what you call fact is simply what is believed for instance, you would say that it is a fact that the earth is round, there was a time it was equally a fact that the earth was flat. All we really have are perceptions that we accept and believe in.

The earth was never flat. It's a fact that at some point in time people considered the earth was flat as fact. It's a fact that the earth was always round (well, dunno about early stages, would need to ask science)

Mr_Anony: I don't quite get this reply. I'll assume that you are saying that you leave God in the realm of the "uncomfirmed"

Abrahamic god is demonstrably false, it is not even science, does not deserve unconfirmed.

Mr_Anony: frankly, I am tired of repeating to you over and over again that part of this entity's definition as first cause would mean it would be uncreated. A first cause is both necessary and plausible.
If also, you do not see any intelligence, then we cannot possibly have a meaningful conversation, neither can we begin to describe the universe in any way that is coherent.

Even if I accepted uncreated, why in the universe should I accept it having complex properties like intelligence, any omnixxx, or any of the other claims you make above? All of them are needless, you have no reason to add them. They even complicate the model you are pushing.

Mr_Anony: Lol, interesting how you say you don't know then say that my assumptions are false then also say that you are keeping an open mind. As I have said earlier, "false" cannot exist without "true". If you say you don't know, then you cannot rightfully declare something as false except you provide what it is you do know by which you are judging something else false.

This from the same person who says god is only true, and never false...

I don't know how this universe came about, but I know your claims (particularly the abrahamic ones) are false. Logic and science can show them to be objectively false.
Again, I am not making any claims, you are. I am simply showing you that your claims are false. How do I know they are wrong? Because we can test them. You can jump over the moon? Fine, prove it. You can't? Then your claim is false. The unfalsifyable ones we can dismiss, else anything goes. That, in no way, makes them true or facts. Zeus is more logical than abrahamic god for instance, why don't we accept it as true or fact? then?


I was joking about the concessions, yield..

Mr_Anony: My friend, what you call fact is simply what is believed for instance, you would say that it is a fact that the earth is round, there was a time it was equally a fact that the earth was flat. All we really have are perceptions that we accept and believe in.


I don't quite get this reply. I'll assume that you are saying that you leave God in the realm of the "uncomfirmed"


frankly, I am tired of repeating to you over and over again that part of this entity's definition as first cause would mean it would be uncreated. A first cause is both necessary and plausible.
If also, you do not see any intelligence, then we cannot possibly have a meaningful conversation, neither can we begin to describe the universe in any way that is coherent.



Lol, interesting how you say you don't know then say that my assumptions are false then also say that you are keeping an open mind. As I have said earlier, "false" cannot exist without "true". If you say you don't know, then you cannot rightfully declare something as false except you provide what it is you do know by which you are judging something else false.

Yield
I admire your spirit, and stamina, but this is getting sad.
Yield

fellis: I don't speak Arabic but that does not mean that I would give up on learning the Quran completely. There are translations and explanations (Tafsir) that explain the Quran and help you know if your translation tallies with the intended message.
You just weren't interested in learning.

True. That's my prerogative though. Same way I could care less about astrology. My quarrel with the way most kids are taught about islam is that they have no idea about what they are learning, it's simply rote learning. They aren't learning to think for themselves, just simply memorize and say yes sir. They might eventually get translations and what not, but the focus at the beginning is to breed zombies.
Are you trying to guilt me btw?

fellis: The Quran does not promote intolerance. There are verses in it that talk about being just and kind to people we live and interact with but you would not know this would you? Considering the fact that you didn't learn the meaning of the contents of the book. Nowhere in the Quran can be found support for intolerance like you made it seem. The Prophet and the first Muslims used to set examples for others with their accomodating and forgiving nature towards non Muslims. There is a Hadith that mentions how Prophet Muhammed (SAW) was constantly being troubled by a certain woman among the non-Muslims who used to pile heaps of garbage in front of his house just to make life difficult for him. That woman fell ill one day and the Prophet paid her a visit to console her and wish her well inspite of all the things she used to do to him. He would not have done that if the religion he was propagating teaches intolerance of others.

This is the same guy who was very tolerant during the infamous incidence with the jewish tribe? Killing the adult males, slaving the rest? Did that really happen? One might say that was normal for the time, I'd say well he supposedly was mandated by an omnibenovelant god, I would have thought he'd know better. After all buddhism, and jainism in particular, did. And there are probably other religions that were more humane (heck, the jesus in the legends would never do that)

fellis: This doesn't make sense. You went to get excerpts from a book which a non-Muslim and enemy of Islam wrote to find out about Islam. If you want to find out the true teachings of Islam, you can't go to an anti-Islamic source to do that. It is like me a female, going to ask a man-hating feminist to help me understand men and tell me what they are really like. She is bound to paint a negative picture of them for me just like the author of your book is painting a negative picture of Islam.

That's why I asked you to confirm.

fellis: This is false and Islam does not support suicidal terrorism. The verse that prohibits suicide is pretty explicit; there is nothing ambiguous about it. It says, 'Do not kill yourselves, indeed Allah is to you ever Merciful. Besides there are Hadiths that give further directives against suicide and those are enough for anyone who is truly interested in following the Religion.

Ok. But clarify if you will, against all suicides or are suicides for jihad exempt?

fellis: Any verse that is quoted out of context misses the whole point of the message of the Qur'an. The verses you quoted that sounded harsh to unbelievers were not meant to show hate, they were meant to serve as a warning and detterent to sin. And nowhere in the Qur'an can be found anything to show that the innocent victims of Sept. 11 were supposed to be fuel for any fire. Muslims don't even support the terrorist attacks that took place that day and they sympathize with the victims.
The Islamic teachings on the subject of hating or fighting non Muslims can be summed up in the following verses; Quran 60:7-8
"It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just."

Even if you were correct, ie this was quoted out of context, this is supposed to be the perfect word of god. If they were supposed to 'serve as a warning and detterent to sin', they seem to be failing, catastrophically. Not to mention that is quite overkill, don't you think? The point was made after page 1. There's a poll that has majority of muslims in pakistan, 9ja and some other country approving death for apostates. Bottom line is those lines disseminate intolerance by the bucketloads.
Lots of people cry islamaphobia, at least not so many here. The irony when it's made here though is staggering. It's the only religion that has its own section, I doubt its adherents acquired it by being tolerant.

Tl: dr; we aren't being ignorant, islam is faulty and violent. You might be evolved, and can discern natural good from evil, but most of your fellow muslims aren't. Frankly I think islam encourages a lot of questionable behavior, perhaps unwittingly, but it does nevertheless.

I'm hungry..

You make a lot of assumption that are off.

Mr_Anony: Now believing something or not believing it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false, However I get what you mean (also Purist and Wiegraf).
If for instance I claim that I can fly, you will immediately reject it until I actually fly and even if you actually see me flying, you will not still believe that I can fly until you have investigated properly and assured yourself that I am using no tricks to fly.

Notice that your disbelief here is based on the belief that people cannot fly. Without that belief, you would have no problem with my flying. Also, if you were able to check me properly and make sure I was not using any tricks but natural ability, your belief would change to "some people can fly".



This illustrates the point I have been making. You cannot disbelieve in a vacuum.
[size=14pt]
Part 2[/size]

My skepticism is based on the fact that people can't fly. Read your first sentence. Requires no belief for crying out loud, no subjectivity. The way you even use the word 'belief'.
Bring objective evidence that you can fly, then the fact now is Anony can fly, or a person can fly, etc.

Mr_Anony: To look at something slightly different, let's now come to Russell's teapot:


Note: Russell's teapot illustrates something slightly different, but I want you to note something. If Russell hadn't said there was a teapot but a little rock, he would be more readily believed (because that is more plausible and compatible with our belief of what sort of things exist in space).
What if Russell had equally said that this little rock was necessary because it had some function in the solar system. It becomes even more believable. Notice that at this point, it becomes irrelevant whether information about this special rock was written in an ancient book or not.
Let's call this Russell's little rock.

The components that russell's teapot lacks are plausiblity and necessity. That's what makes a story believable.

Russell's little rock however has plausibility and necessity. It would have to be accepted as true until it has been sufficiently disproved i.e, we get better telescopes or we find something else that performs it's function. Do you agree?

No. I tend to subscribe to the scientific method.
As examples, see string theory for unconfirmed. See the 'god' particle for unconfirmed that is eventually confirmed. See the ether (and many others) for unconfirmed eventually proven false.

Mr_Anony: [size=14pt]Part 3[/size]

Now about God. . . . .
Remember that Dudugirl's argument (and mine also) is that God is the ultimate creator of all things and the explanation for existence.

Now whenever we see order, we infer an intelligence and we immediately seek one who gives order. When we look at the universe and nature and ourselves, we see order and a very sophisticated intelligence because of this, we infer that there must be an intelligent designer that gives order. It is even more fascinating when we find out that the universe has not always existed but has a beginning. This tells us that whatever made the universe to begin must itself not be subject to the laws within the universe i.e. it is eternal and of immense power.

Note that unlike russell's teapot, this entity is both plausible and necessary. To not believe that such an entity exists, one must believe something more sufficient that better explains what it is out to explain.

I don't see order and intelligence. For patterns in nature that dazzle you see fractals and chaos theory. I see aimless gene mutations. I see a lot of suffering to life, etc
As for 'This tells us that whatever made the universe to begin must itself not be subject to the laws within the universe i.e. it is eternal and of immense power', we could make a blackhole. Doesn't mean we'll be able interact with anything that goes beyond its event horizon, in any way whatsoever. This statement is completely off.
The entity may be plausible (as plausible as an invisible pink unicorn, if it's the omnixxx you ascribe to, or even the one you describe here), but it most certainly isn't necessary. What created this complex entity? This in no way deals with infinite regress, first cause, etc. It complicates it.

Mr_Anony: Now, when wiegraf was asked. "How do you explain your existence?" he replied "I don't".

This immediately tells me that he doesn't reject God based on reason, he only rejects God based personal bias (i.e. he finds the idea of God to be absurd). If he had a reason to reject God, he would have provided it.

As I have shown earlier, you cannot disbelieve in a vacuum. It is either you hold unto an incompatible belief which you ought to state and then we can weigh it's merits ........or you are just being irrational.

I don't means I simply don't know. You've created a lot of false reasons. You think your assumptions are rational? That complex materialized from nowhere before simple?

Your assumptions are off, all of them. I am being rational by keeping an open mind while being critical of the evidence, claims, conditions, assumptions made, arguments, etc. You've already made up your mind; there is a god. You are being irrational, you're making stuff up so it could fit your world view.

Kay 17: I think if God is omnipotent, Jesus wouldn't have been necessary.

You'd have thought this would be obvious, however, 'greater good' and 'free will'.
Wait for it...

fellis: That's not true. There is no such directive in the Quran, I expected that you would know this considering your history with Islam. The reason why some people think that the Quran promotes violence is because of the parts of it that directs Muslims that lived back then in the early days of the religion to fight against those that used to oppress them. These parts or verses are twisted and misinterpreted by sociopaths that want to take innocent lives to justify their actions.

Despite cramming half of the book and some random theological lessons, I didn't pick up much, mostly because I can't speak arabic (what's the point of memorizing text you don't understand anyways?). I can't even remember fatiha, or if that's what it's even called.
This has been done to death though. What you say might be true, but frankly, it is far too easy to use Islam as justification for violence. It does go out of its way to promote intolerance.
I'll just cull this rather long excerpt from a book by my prophet Harris (PBUH), to show the degree of the obsession with infidels/apostates.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you believe
anything like what the Koran says you must believe in order to
escape the fires of hell, you will, at the very least, be sympathetic
with the actions of Osama bin Laden. The prohibitions against "sui-
cidal terrorism" are not nearly as numerous as Pollack suggests. The
Koran contains a single ambiguous line, "Do not destroy your-
selves" (4:29). Like most commentators on these matters, Pollack
seems unable to place himself in the position of one who actually
believes the propositions set forth in the Koran—that paradise
awaits, that our senses deliver nothing but evidence of a fallen world
in desperate need of conquest for the glory of God. Open the Koran,
which is perfect in its every syllable, and simply read it with the eyes
of faith. You will see how little compassion need be wasted on those
whom God himself is in the process of "mocking," "cursing,"
"shaming," "punishing," "scourging," "judging," "burning," "anni-
hilating," "not forgiving," and "not reprieving." God, who is
infinitely wise, has cursed the infidels with their doubts. He pro-
longs their life and prosperity so that they may continue heaping sin
upon sin and all the more richly deserve the torments that await
them beyond the grave. In this light, the people who died on
September 11 were nothing more than fuel for the eternal fires of
God's justice. To convey the relentlessness with which unbelievers
are vilified in the text of the Koran, I provide a long compilation of
quotations below, in order of their appearance in the text. This is
what the Creator of the universe apparently has on his mind (when
he is not fussing with gravitational constants and atomic weights):
"It is the same whether or not you forwarn them [the unbeliev-
ers], they will have no faith" (2:6). "God will mock them and keep
them long in sin, blundering blindly along" (2:15). A fire "whose
fuel is men and stones" awaits them (2:24). They will be "rewarded
with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the
Day of Resurrection" (2:85). "God's curse be upon the infidels!"
(2:89). "They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An igno-
minious punishment awaits [them]" (2:90). "God is the enemy of
the unbelievers" (2:98 ). "The unbelievers among the People of the
Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing
should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2:105). "They
shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the
hereafter" (2:114). "Those to whom We [God] have given the Book,
and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that
deny it shall assuredly be lost" (2:122). "[We] shall let them live
awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall
be their fate" (2:126). "The East and the West are God's. He guides
whom He will to a straight path" (2:142). "Do not say that those
slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not
aware of them" (2:154). "But the infidels who die unbelievers shall
incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall
remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor
shall they be reprieved" (2:162). "They shall sigh with remorse, but
shall never come out of the Fire" (2:168 ). "The unbelievers are like
beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a
shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing"
(2:172). "Theirs shall be a woeful punishment" (2:175). "How stead-
fastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book
with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism"
(2:176). "Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the
places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage.
.. . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbe-
lievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merci-
ful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion
reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-
doers" (2:190-93). "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dis-
like it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and
love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know
not" (2:216). "They will not cease to fight against you until they
force you to renounce your faith—if they are able. But whoever of
you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing
in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the ten-
ants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have
embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought
for the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy" (2:217-18). "God
does not guide the evil-doers" (2:258). "God does not guide the
unbelievers" (2:264). "The evil-doers shall have none to help them"
(2:270). "God gives guidance to whom He will" (2:272).
"Those that deny God's revelations shall be sternly punished;
God is mighty and capable of revenge" {3:5). "As for the unbeliev-
ers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them
from God's judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire" (3:10).
"Say to the unbelievers: 'You shall be overthrown and driven into
Hell—an evil resting place!'" (3:12). "The only true faith in God's
sight is Islam He that denies God's revelations should know that
swift is God's reckoning" (3:19). "Let the believers not make friends
with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does this has
nothing to hope for from God—except in self-defense" (3:28).
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They
will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your
ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their
mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal"
(3:118). "If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy. We alter-
nate these vicissitudes among mankind so that God may know the
true believers and choose martyrs from among you (God does not
love the evil-doers); and that God may test the faithful and annihi-
late the infidels" (3:140). "Believers, if you yield to the infidels they
will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdi-
tion We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers The
Fire shall be their home" (3:149-51). "Believers, do not follow the
example of the infidels, who say of their brothers when they meet
death abroad or in battle: 'Had they stayed with us they would not
have died, nor would they have been killed.' God will cause them to
regret their words. .. . If you should die or be slain in the cause of
God, God's forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than
all the riches they amass" (y.156). "Never think that those who were
slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, and well provided
for by their Lord; pleased with His gifts and rejoicing that those they
left behind, who have not yet joined them, have nothing to fear or
to regret; rejoicing in God's grace and bounty. God will not deny the
faithful their reward" (3:169}. "Let not the unbelievers think that
We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite
only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful pun-
ishment awaits them" (3:178). "Those that suffered persecution for
My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them their sins
and admit them to gardens watered by running streams, as a reward
from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by
the fortunes of the unbelievers in the land. Their prosperity is brief.
Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place" (3:195-96).
"God has cursed them in their unbelief" (4:46). "God will not for-
give those who serve other gods besides Him; but He will forgive
whom He will for other sins. He that serves other gods besides God
is guilty of a heinous sin. . . . Consider those to whom a portion of
the Scriptures was given. They believe in idols and false gods and
say of the infidels: These are better guided than the believers'"
(4:50-51). "Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No
sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other
skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and
wise" (4:55-56).
"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those
who were given the Book before you, who have made of your reli-
gion a jest and a pastime" (5:57}. "That which is revealed to you
from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of
many among them. We have stirred among them enmity and
hatred, which will endure till the Day of Resurrection" (5:65). "God
does not guide the unbelievers" {5:67). "That which is revealed to
you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbe-
lief of many among them, But do not grieve for the unbelievers"
(5:69). "You see many among them making friends with unbeliev-
ers. Evil is that to which their souls prompt them. They have
incurred the wrath of God and shall endure eternal torment... . You
will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the
faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection
to them are those who say: 'We are Christians'" (5:80-82}. "[T]hose
that disbelieve and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates
of Hell" (5:86).
"[TJhey deny the truth when it is declared to them: but they shall
learn the consequences of their scorn" (6:5). "We had made them
more powerful in the land than yourselves [the Meccans], sent down
for them abundant water from the sky and gave them rivers that
rolled at their feet. Yet because they sinned We destroyed them all
and raised up other generations after them. If We sent down to you
a Book inscribed on real parchment and they touched it with their
own hands, the unbelievers would still assert: 'This is but plain sor-
cery.' They ask: 'Why has no angel been sent down to him [Muham-
mad] ?' If We had sent down an angel, their fate would have been
sealed and they would have never been reprieved" (6:5-8 ). "Who is
more wicked than the man who invents falsehoods about God or
denies His revelations 1" (6:21). "Some of them listen to you. But We
have cast veils over their hearts and made them hard of hearing lest
they understand your words. They will believe in none of Our signs,
even if they see them one and all. When they come to argue with
you the unbelievers say: 'This is nothing but old fictitious tales.'
They forbid it and depart from it. They ruin none but themselves,
though they do not perceive it. If you could see them when they are
set before the Fire! They will say: 'Would that we could return!
Then we would not deny the revelations of our Lord and would be
true believers' {6:23-27). "But if they were sent back, they would
return to that which they have been forbidden. They are liars all"
(6:29). "Had God pleased He would have given them guidance, one
and all" {6:35). "Deaf and dumb are those that deny Our revelations:
they blunder about in darkness. God confounds whom He will, and
guides to a straight path whom He pleases." (6:39) "[T]heir hearts
were hardened, and Satan made their deeds seem fair to them. And
when they had clean forgotten Our admonition We granted them all
that they desired; but just as they were rejoicing in what they were
given, We suddenly smote them and they were plunged into utter
despair. Thus were the evil-doers annihilated. Praise be to God, Lord
of the Universe!" (6:43-45). "[Tjhose that deny Our revelations
shall be punished for their misdeeds" (6:49). "Such are those that are
damned by their own sins. They shall drink scalding water and be
sternly punished for their unbelief" (6:70). "Could you but see
the wrongdoers when death overwhelms them! With hands out-
stretched, the angels will say: 'Yield up your souls. You shall be
rewarded with the scourge of shame this day, for you have said of
God what is untrue and scorned His revelations" (6:93). "Avoid the
pagans. Had God pleased, they would not have worshipped idols.. ..
We will turn away their hearts and eyes from the Truth since they
refused to believe in it at first. We will let them blunder about in
their wrongdoing. If We sent the angels down to them, and caused
the dead to speak to them,.. . and ranged all things in front of them,
they would still not believe, unless God willed otherwise. . . . Thus
have We assigned for every prophet an enemy: the devils among
men and jinn, who inspire each other with vain and varnished false-
hoods. But had your Lord pleased, they would not have done so.
Therefore leave them to their own inventions, so that the hearts of
those who have no faith in the life to come may be inclined to what
they say and, being pleased, persist in their sinful ways" (6:107—12).
"The devils will teach their votaries to argue with you. If you obey
them you shall yourselves become idolaters, .. . God will humiliate
the transgressors and mete out to them a grievous punishment for
their scheming" (6:121-25). "^ God w ^ s t0
guide a man, He opens
his bosom to Islam. But if he pleases to confound him, He makes his
bosom small and narrow as though he were climbing up to heaven.
Thus shall God lay the scourge on the unbelievers" (6:125).

This is from the hadiths, which are important enough that people have used them justify other human beings stoned to death, and deal with judging people in this world, not the next
"Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

Against this
"There shall be no compulsion in religion" (Koran
2:256}

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Good grief. Is all this actually in the koran? Even if the entirety of the rest of the book was concerned with "Love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek" etc (and it's not), this is a lot of hate. This doesn't seem to particularly promote tolerance, not sure how it can be spinned that way. We all know what intolerance leads to.
Don't get me wrong, I know many very good people that are muslims, but I think they are good in spite of it, not because of it.

Beyond the scope of this discussion though

At least we both agree this minister is being particularly stoopid. Well, at least you think he is misguided.

fellis: Very well. Sorry about the mail situation, will get to it.

Oh, never worry about that. Hope your exams went well.

edited a bit

fellis: You think you are the one that is not brainwashed eh?

Unfortunately, many of the non-Muslims on this thread don't read. They just unknowingly join the bandwagon of those insulting Islam.
Ignorance is a disease. :/

We are?
Let's ignore the fact that the west manipulates everybody else as well. Also ignore the fact that just about every culture competes and tries to manipulate every other culture. Hint, if your intention is to compete, and you're 'losing', it's probably because you are doing something wrong. Islam isn't even subtle when it competes, it's unapologetically burn the infidels/apostates, just because.

Sooo, ignoring the above, with this covert war where the west manipulates the islamic world, what in the world does killing this director, breaking no laws in his country and exercising his free speech, harming no one in any way, accomplish? This?
"I think you're a violent barbarian" *shows a really terrible film*
"Oh really? I am not. Let me prove you wrong by killing you and a few random people. That should show how civilized I am"
Is this the amount of respect islam has for something many of us consider irreplaceable, life?

How have you been, btw?

@jay, that's just beautiful...

Pink unicorn and fsm have nothing to do with first cause or infinite regress, etc. They're meant to demonstrate who the burden of proof rests with. They also illustrate how absurd unverifiable claims are. Mac's variant is meant to illustrate the importance of being critical.

Mr_Anony: here he goes again.....I left that thread because I got tired of dancing around in circles with you. The answer i gave you there was very sufficient.
Anyway, my point here was to show you that you equally reject God on blind faith and I think I have done that. let's see how Jay goes.

You no want make I sleep. You have not demonstrated that in any way. Where do I use faith? There's no faith involved when facts play around, you know that, yes? You make demonstrably false or illogical claims they are then objectively false. There is no chance that they are true, no faith was used in deeming the claims false. 1 = 2, charlize theron is in my bed, I can jump over the moon, all these can be shown to be false. Even most unfalsifyable claims can have their odds judged.
Those answers in that thread were terribly insufficient as well..

Mr_Anony: Lol, I have no such assumptions. I only hold that if you say that some claim is incredulous, it must be incredulous based on something else. When the op says that God is the explanation for human existence, You cannot rightfully say that her explanation is incredulous seeing that you do not provide an explanation yourself.

To say that something is a lie, you must provide a truth from which it deviates.

Maybe, but this wouldn't hold in this case. Many of the traits attributed to god(s) are illogical, or demonstrably false as they would be impossible. In other speak they violate common sense or scientific truths. At the very least the odds of them being correct are extremely low. We've run around some of these claims with the omnixxx, which you've abandoned YIELD
Anyways I want to see where @jay is going with this, and I should off the damned phone so I could sleep in peace...

Amazon. Do you mean to pirate your anime? That's stealing. Don't you feel bad? You should. You might be a horrible, horrible person

9ja bandwidth is $hitty, so what I used to do was use a grabber, like dap's own, and instead of watching the movies from an online viewing site (there are tonnes, just google, I haven't done this in a long time so I can't give you any recent sites, and their lifespans are usually short), I'd download them. The quality of video gotten this way was poor though. If bandwidth is not an issue, simply use torrents. In fact, I think mkv files are rather small so I would use torrents maybe even with bandwidth restrictions, again been a while so I'm not sure. Google for details (tip - dap works best with internet explorer from my experience)

Mr_Anony: Interesting. You have just shown us that your disbelief in God is equally based on blind faith.

Oh goodie! You can play now? I'm about to sleep off though (I've been up all night, don't ask). Hope you made lots of $$$

I can't see what you mean, am I missing something? My attention span won't let me scan the post properly. I haven't though, you assume atheists make a claim or have some sort of doctrines, etc we exercise faith with. It's like assuming a bald man has a ponytail.
Most of the claims for a god are incredulous, many downright impossible. It requires no faith to dismiss them, there is no chance that they are true.

Dudugirl01: I do not see my God, yet I believe in him, I have faith, I'm not a fanatic but I do believe, I didn't bring myself here,all the beautiful things around me point to His existence, take a look @ the skies, @ how beautiful they are, who created them, what about the vast ocean, with all its tempest, and the calm rivers,my thoughts? God created me, and all the wonderful things on earty, I cannot se Him because He is invisible,yet, I do believe and I will live my life believing

That's nice, and like I've already said most atheists could care less. In fact many would be happy for you if religion filled some need for you, like say it made you more productive, or gave you hope when you despair. Ie, so long as said religion doesn't turn you into a bigot, fanatic, and you stay out of our lives etc. Note that you've admitted you believe on faith, you do not have any evidence to back it up, so don't expect irreligious to take you seriously, at all. In fact, if your god is the abrahamic one, then your beliefs are undoubtedly unreasonable. Again, you have faith in them, that's your biz, good for you, don't expect us to humor you though.

All sorts of atheists about, only common ground is we don't believe in gods, so different ways to look at things. From my perspective, looking at your points, you believe god made you? You refer to the personal abrahamic god? Ok, who made god? Let me guess, nothing? He's always been there? So, why couldn't simple energy or nature have always been there? Just because you say so? Simple energy is a lot less complex than omnipotent, etc god. I would imagine it would be a lot easier for that to pop up from nothing, or existed forever, than the very complex god.

The universe was not made for us. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. God sure was wasteful if we were the intention. On this star system, only one of the 8 planets supports life. Humanity, the supposed magnum opus, can only drink about 10 % of the water on it. 70 % of the surface is uninhabitable to us. The universe wasn't tailor made for us, it's the other way round. Your awe is called the anthropomorphic principle, google it. Basically, if say a dog became sentient, it will assume god made the universe for it as well. It will marvel at its perfect teeth for juicy bone wrangling, its lovely tail for aimless but fun chasing, etc. It is not until it takes the time to reflect that it would realize its jaws adapted to fit the environment, not the other way round, and it chasing its own tail really is pointless but fun exercise, etc etc

Dudugirl01: How do you explain your existence then?

I don't

Do you believe in zeus, odin, the buddha (not a god actually), santa etc? It's the same thing for us and any god, yours included.

Random rant
Your confusion works in the same way for us. How do you know there is a god? Especially one described by most religions on this planet. The definitions are particularly flawed, ridiculous, and they are not backed up by any evidence. In many cases they are morally objectionable by modern moral standards, especially the admired western ones. They make claims that are demonstrably wrong as well. Chances are if you weren't indoctrinated you wouldn't believe your religions doctrines, at all. Very few of you would choose the religion of your birth, many won't even accept the existence of a god(s), if you weren't indoctrinated in it or it wasn't what your parents believed.

Let me waste a little more time here and show you why many of us may seem pissed with you guys. Note this carefully, we aren't the ones making claims here, you are. You claim there is a god, ok, no probs. Most of us really don't care, whatever rocks your boat. However, do you want us to bend over for you because it displeases your god? Most atheist reactions are like this, are you f*****g crazy? How f******g arrogant. You are the one claiming there is a god, at least provide some objectively verifiable evidence before you make any demands from us. I wouldn't show up at your house and demand you wash my feet everyday at 5pm sharp, make sure my noodles are warm, paid your tithes as my god Pikkiwoki needs it to do his work (despite his being omnipotent), etc etc. The onus would be on me to prove Pikkiwoki was real (and he is) before I can make any demands, no? Else I'd be infringing on your rights. I'll take it further, even if your god did exist, if you forced me to comply you would still be infringing on my rights.

So, before you ask atheists (and the others certainly know how to better manage their time than me) to explain themselves (the gall of you asking sef is amazing me), I would suggest you provide evidence for your god(s).

CrazyMan: I wasn't specifically referring to this thread...I was just speaking on a sad omen I've discovered here on Nairaland.

Em, yeah, actually you were
The same arguments still stand though. You just need to remain level headed. Again, just my opinion

On a random note, in general with censorship, it's my view that it's all or nothing. Either you censor arbitrarily, or you let everything in. Obvious exceptions to the case in the real world would be nazi's and holocaust deniers in some countries (eg germany), and other hate groups like the clan. Left to me though, everything would be allowed. Everything. I'd leave it to individuals to decide what they let in and out.

@crazy, while I symphatize, sort of, you're starting to sound like you endorse censorship, imo that is never a good thing. Some threads are started just to flame, true, and I'd recommend you simply ignore those. This one in particular was not. It has valid points that were never addressed (excepting some apocryphal stories). In fact the op was initially mocked by theists, though they were just playing around with him, actually seems they still are by ignoring him. But regardless, turn the tables around, imagine someone saying that xtian arguments must be approved by atheists before they can be made. Say my disdain for seeing quotes, imagine if I went around demanding there be no quoting in every thread. Think of a certain neighboring section.
If a thread offends you, prove it wrong, preferably with your deeds, then move on. Violating freedoms is wrong just about all the time (except maybe when direct harm is being incited, like mob violence being instigated). That's just my opinion though

obadiah777: LIKE MUSKEETO, I FELT LIKE I WAS READING ABOUT MYSELF TOO. MIND YOU I HAVE ONLY JUST BECOME ANTISOCIAL RECENTLY AFTER GETTING ON THIS JOURNEY. THIS JOURNEY STARTED FOR ME ABOUT JANUARY THIS YEAR.

Have you taken an MBTI before? Armchair psychology, but it's fun.
www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Post results if you take it. I predict-
xNxP - 90% certain.
As for the other letters, I'm going to go with ENFP as final choice

musKeeto: hmmmm... like I'm reading abt meself.. :-)

Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure most of us are rather similar. In particular, the fascination with the abstract, or the MBTI iNtuitives. And of course, Intraverts...

em, is he naked? If so, why?

Ishilove: Try 'un-jerk' yourself. It will do you a lot of good

Meh... Maybe. It takes a lot to convince me to do just about anything, that's maybe part of the problem actually. My goals are usually rather different from what the average persons are (I suspect most regulars are like this as well, else they wouldn't spend inordinate amounts of time here, they'd be outside 'blinging'). I also require very little actual human contact to survive, in fact too much will make me downright nasty/exhausted, doesn't mean I don't care though. I'm fine with being a jerk for the most part, I am at least a fair, honest jerk.