Do you believe in God?

[Ashflura]

The penalty of death for apostasy is a traditional custom that is supported by Islam.

Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Hadith Vol. 9:57

Copying a slab of hadith from an anti-islamic site is legit write. The addressing to the prophet isn't appropriate.

Now here's an appropriate link, that'll explain how the penalty for apostasy comes about and the punishments for it in Islam from a respected Sheikh.

You must be registered for see links

Read it thoroughly before making another blunt statement. You sound like Muslims want to do nothing but slay your head. This is my last input on the discussion of apostasy.

It is childish to think that just because that person does not agree with me, I should kill him.

The way you put it, if I say I like Naruto, but you hate it, then I should kill you. :shrug:

No, that is not what I have been saying. Once again making blunt statements.

Comparing a voting age is hardly similar to a child being indoctrinated in a religion in which one does not have the luxury of leaving.

There is rationality in the rule of voting at a certain age. One must be at the accepted age of maturity and intelligence. Furthermore, if one disagrees with this rule, they are not silenced.

I put that comparison because it was so blatantly silly and obvious on terms of the sense of that rule. There is rationality in the decisions made by leaders, anywhere in the world, who have to come to decide whether a person is doing more harm to the public than good.

How customs handle situations is beyond my power, I'm only speaking on behalf of Islam, and those Muslims who follow it whole-heartedly. Not those who waver and are only Muslim by name.

However, for apostasy, what is rational about killing someone because of their disbelief?

Like I said from the start, I think it's adding up to the fifth time now. It depends on who is in charge, different people take different outcomes seriously. Depending on the level and intensity of their disrespect and hatred towards the religion, there will be consequences. Everyone has been told since they were a kid - 'if you don't anything nice to say, then don't say it at all'. It's not oppression. It's common morality.

Different religions, handle apostasy differently. There is nothing rational about killing someone, once you have, your hands are stained with blood.

Muhammad doing and saying some good things does not make him a good person.

Then what makes someone a good person? You're contradicting yourself.

Muhammad led a genocidal campaign against the Bani Qurayza, killing men and saving the rest for slavery.
He also raided the caravans of Mecca among other things.

You must be registered for see links

"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter." (5. Surah al Maidah:Verse 33)

What tolerance?

Here is a better translation. Read the Ayaht that comes afterwards.

You must be registered for see links

Learn to see from two different sides. If the Prophet[PBUH] offers peace, allows the non-muslims to live in Islamic land without disrespecting it and then they betray it - that's when the penalties apply.

You are making it sound like if these "conditions" apply to the apostate, the apostates execution is justified.

But you say you are against it.

Leaving Islam on "Islamic land" does not justify killing, anymore than leaving Islam elsewhere. Location is irrelevant.
"Feeling" insulted does not justify killing. That is childish.
What harm has someone like Abdul Rahman done to Islam? He was arrested and threatened with the death penalty for converting to Christianity.
What of Salman Rushdie?

And you speak of tolerance?

The Abdul Rahman case, was one that was propagandized my media, and extremist rulers at the time. His wife and children even mentioned that he hadn't been treating them appropriately. There are way more causes of death from alcohol related incidents (that are not highlighted in world news), than this case. Sure it is sad, but he was offered asylum in Italy.

What of Salman Rushdie? He outright insulted Islam, creating a book and calling the verses Satanic. His origins are rather shady as well.

All I see here is this.
"The values of Islam trump anyone else’s - which is
what any follower of Islam does assume, just as any
follower of any religion believes that theirs is the sole way,
truth and light. If people wish to love a 7th century
preacher more than their own families, that’s up to them,
but nobody else is obliged to take it seriously.
- Andrew Mueller

'Nuff said.

Allah states that directly after his worship, is the high respect and value of your parents. Displeasing your parents, is displeasing God.

I will not stay silent simply for fear of hurting someones feelings.
If you cannot handle criticism, that is not my problem.



Because it is a lie.

xd

Hallucinogens are not the sole cause of hallucinations. Sleep deprivation and neurological disorders can cause hallucinations.

Charity is good. However one does not need religion to be charitable. Look at Oxfam. It's now a secular, non-governmental, independent and not-for -profit organization.

Religion itself is superstition...

Allah cares more of what you do in your bedroom than those afflicted with disease, famine, abuse, torture. Religion has not a monopoly on marriage or ***.

Quran (4:34) - Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

The abuse, mistreatment, and inequality of women. Tell me how this correlates with humanity.

Spirituality is superstition.

Which God must you worship to attain a better hereafter?
Many religions advertise "paradise". We have the Ancient Egyptian faith, the Christian faith, the Judaic faith. All promising "heaven."
All superstition.

Willfully taking hallucinogens, for the purpose of losing your mind, such as the intake of alcohol, illicit drugs, etc. Natural causes is not a voluntary action. You're point null void.

Good work Oxfam! I did not say charity needs religion to work. Islam just makes it compulsory for any able Muslim to donate. So yay Oxfam, yay Islam, yay WorldVision, yay Red Cross, etc.

It's up to you to judge what you believe is superstition or not.

Islam starts with the self, if you are not correcting your own actions. They why bother informing others? That's a hypocrite. So it's a standard you are personally judged by God in Islam.

You had an ill translation. Here is a more logical one, closely related to the original arabic words.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allâh orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill *conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.

Men are naturally stronger than women, thus they are their protectors from harm that can come their way. Women who follow Islam strictly, will naturally be willing to support her husband (obedience), and in return protects the husband. If the husband is a bastard, divorce is allowed. If the husband is following the religion correctly, but the wife isn't more measures are taken to keep the marriage stabilised. Generally when both play their part correctly in the relationship, both treated as equals then the marriage is happy and love lived. Like any partnership. Thus correlating with humanity.

Your own fate is your own choosing, whether you want to bother exploring different religion to find what satisfies you or continue to do what you are doing, is your own business. I won't be shoving anything down your throat, I know how everyone hates that. I'm only informing what you have been falsely stating or assuming.

For me:
I say Allah is the only god, and I bear witness that he has no partners, and that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) is the last messenger.

All the prophets in the past brought down lessons with them, thus the revelation of the Torah, which was then lost through translation over the years. Followed by the Gospel, and the most recent installment the Qur'an. All three initially worship the same God. Different branches of faiths have expelled and changed basics.

There is a limit to being respectful and tolerant. I will not respect religions. However I can respect individuals.

Sounds legit. By respecting individuals, you should be respecting the way they live their lives too, and not openly criticising it, respecting is taking people's emotions into consideration. We are all people. We all make mistakes, and we all want to be treated justly.

I cannot respect something that is a lie. I cannot respect something that is used to mistreat people. I cannot respect abuse. I cannot respect something that is illogical.

I'm going to end my participation in this subject, as the posts are becoming longer and longer, and taking much time.

I'll end with:
If it were a lie Islam wouldn't be the fastest growing religion in the world. Islam enhances a person's well being, not mistreats it. People out of it, make false assumptions without reading the Qur'an, learning the way the Prophet lived truthfully, not from biased sources, that is how this "abuse and mistreatment" is spread, like gossip in a school playground. You can not accept something that is illogical? Not everything in this world is about logic.

Good night.

 

[kellzfresh]

"In the old testament, the israelites punished pple who didn't follow God as the only true God."
Exactly.
"He saved them from war, provided for them and punished them when they didn't obey him."
Exactly.
"Just like a father."
I disagree. This is an abusive father. This creator creates human's with the ability to disobey. Punishes them for it. This creator allows human's to have thoughts of other imaginary beings. Punishes them for it.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
The mistreatment of women.




Jesus is the son of God who is also God himself.

To believe in Jesus you have to believe in Adam and Eve's "sinful" act of eating a fruit from the forbidden tree. According to Augustine of Hippo, the sin of Adam and Eve is passed down through the male line, through semen.

Newborn children "inherit" this sin.

How is a newborn child responsible for the "sin" of another? In this case Adam and Eve, both of which are imaginary.

This all powerful God does not think of a better way to absolve "sin" (which he can easily erase. He is God after all...) than to send himself down to be tortured and executed.

In the bible, God had an angel who disobeyed him and wanted to be a God himself, promoting evil. So God threw him out from heaven. So the bad angel (satan or lucifer), has made it a priority to make the humans that God loves so much to sin against him.
Satans first victims were adam and eve.
They sinned and ate the forbidden apple which they were warned not to.
(Gods greatest gift is the freedom to choose)
The way you want God to resolve sin is not happening because he gave us freedom to choose. Do u want to be controlled like a robot to do good? No.
He gave us Jesus to forgive our sins any time we pray to God. But he didn't decide to control us like robots or how tobi wants to do moon eye plan.

 

[Qmaster]

Yes, I do believe in God.
All the complicated creations in the world approves my belief and life is too organized, it must have someone who can control it.

 

[ZK]

Yes, I do believe in God.
All the complicated creations in the world approves my belief and life is too organized, it must have someone who can control it.

Imma do the old trick then.
If life, Earth and nature is too complicated to have slowly evolved over time, wouldn't the creator of this need a creator, too, as the creator would, by definition, be more complicated than its creation?

 

[squigles]

1. I never said it was the end of the world prediction, I said it was a prediction that has happened

It doesn't matter what kind of prediction you are talking about, nothing about the bible counts as an accurate prediction. Everything the bible says about the future is so vague it's likely to hold true just by chance and the nature of humanity. People are divisive and violent by nature, so a prophecy of war or a civilization in turmoil 'with sin' is pretty much an inevitable fact.

I could make the prediction that there will be murders, disease, famine, war, genocide, and natural disasters in the future. Those are all vague things that happen naturally in our world. So when those things happen in the future, I am not actually making any real predictions. However, some nutjob would see those predictions and would fall into the sharpshooter's fallacy for each one, claiming that there is some meaning in those vague predictions.

2. Homosexuallity existed, but is rampant now

Homosexuality isn't any more rampant now than it was back then. You are illogically believing in some nostalgic 'better times' scenario that never actually existed. Furthermore, homosexuality is a natural occurrence (as is bisexuality) in nature amongst all species of animals.

Humans are also an animal species, so it's not like we are exempt from nature when it comes to sexual behavior. Most mammalian species reproduce in the same way, so it's completely understandable that humans would also experience homosexuality like most other mammals.

3. Sicknesses are formed like air these days another new one was formed in japan recently (there are a thousand times more sickness than they were before)

Diseases and viruses do not form out of 'thin air.' Both diseases and viruses occur naturally within other species as a result of genetics and cell mutation. New strains of diseases occur when there is contact between two different species and a disease mutates and becomes adaptable to a new host.

There is no truth to the claim that there are more diseases and viruses now than there ever was before because we don't know what kinds of diseases and viruses used to exist. People who were living during the biblical days were completely ignorant to diseases and viruses because they had no medical science.

If you got the flu at the time when Jesus was alive, people prayed for you to get better. Most people who got the flu DIED, despite being prayed for. Now you can get a flu shot every year or two and never worry about getting the flu, thanks to our understanding of science and medicine.

It's fundamentally flawed logic to think that a people who's average life expectancy was age 30, due to the fact that they had absolutely zero scientific or medical knowledge, would have been able to distinguish the number of diseases that existed back then and provide a reliable comparison to the number we have now. People used to die from infection, the common cold, their teeth, and child birth. Now our average life expectancy is nearly 3x as long, again, thanks to our understanding of science and medicine.

4. Natural disasters were increased rapidly from 2003 till now (check the stats online it is definately a million times more than jesus time)

Again, this is fundamentally flawed logic. During Jesus' time, there wasn't an accurate or reliable method for recording natural disasters, since books were scarce, most people were illiterate, and there was no technology. Back then, when a natural disaster occurred, it was thought to be an act of god being angry, and so people prayed and made sacrifices to try and appease the gods.

However, there wasn't a single person who kept track of worldwide natural disasters in order to give us an accurate record as far back as the times of Jesus. So like your disease claims, your natural disaster claims are also false.

Now, let's assume for a moment that both your claims WERE true. What do those claims have to do with whether or not god exists, and how would they prove anything?

5. False prophets about the bible is what I mean

A prophet is someone who is picked by god to deliver his message. Ironically, no one can provide evidence that there has ever been a real prophet. On top of that, there isn't a single prophecy within the bible that couldn't have been foretold by the average person who has half a brain and even the slightest understanding of society.

Again, the prophecies within the bible are so vague and generic, anyone could reliably make them. They are not compelling, much less proof of god.

6. Yeah which calender does 95% of the world use. Check ur sources, 2012 is actually 2012AD (after death of jesus)

It doesn't matter what calender system we use. Most of the world just happens to be religious, that doesn't make religion true, nor does that prove god's existence. Look at Christmas in America. We still celebrate it every year, even as non christians and non pagans.

7. Some people believe in scientists who say the world is created by reactions(blah blah) and humans are formed. I would like them to create a living human or another world from their theory and then give me a call.

I already explained the difference between belief and knowledge. People can believe in scientists all they want to, but that isn't a necessary position to hold in order for science to be true.

We have facts that science gives us based on evidence, so the proper position to hold in the realm of science, would be knowledge, not belief. However, there are plenty of people who do not accept scientific claims simply because they don't have a good enough understanding of science to be able to justify that position, and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, when it comes down to it, no matter who doesn't believe in science or accept it, it is still providing facts and evidence to support what it says. Religion is NOT. The bible is not proof of anything. The Koran is not proof of anything. Neither one can be used as evidence to validate anything that religion says.

On top of that, both are full of immoral behaviors and events that are both condoned and commanded by god. If we still got our morality from the bible, we would never have gotten out of the bronze age.

 

[Wesobi]

Keep the discussion clean, and for the love of god, don't send PM's to people asking them to convert to your religion >_>.

 

[ZK]

Hey, squigles! Stop saying the same as me just with smarter words! D:

 

[Ashflura]

Keep the discussion clean, and for the love of god, don't send PM's to people asking them to convert to your religion >_>.

Has that honestly been happening...:sy:

 

[AngryRock]

"Someone has to be there to give life and someone has to be there to take life."

then who created your god? and the one before that?
and which one is it? Zeus? Thor? Ra? Flying Spaghetti Monster?

by your logic, disease, famine, torture, everything that is "bad" is created by your god.

if god did not, then god does nothing to prevent them. and god knows it too.

that is not a loving god. that is an abusive god who toys with us.

God is not created. He is the creator. He is eternal with no beginning or end. He is not created and cannot be destroyed.

 

[AngryRock]

Has that honestly been happening...:sy:

Glad I have not gotten any yet

Jesus died for 'our' sins. This implies that somehow I am responsible for another person's mistake. This is scapegoating.

How moral is that?

Everyone sins so He died for everyone's sins which is why He died for "our" sins. You keep attacking some of the most easiest things to understand. xd

 

[Skylar Knight]

Im an atheist ... I dont believe in God ... If Im going to believe something that big, I want evidence ... I dont want a book written by someone around 2000 years ago ... I dont want some Christian lecturing me and tell me its real without evidence ... If God is proven to exist, then I would believe in him/her ...

Im not an atheist who tell all Christians or other religious people that their beliefs are wrong ... I respect their beliefs, but I dont believe in it myself ... It isnt proven that God doesnt exist, so I cant say Im right ... I could be the one who is wrong ...

I dont believe in Heaven or Hell either ... I believe I seize to exist, and my conscious is gone when I die ...

This is my opinion and view on religion, and I hope Im not insulting someone in some way ... If I do insult you, then Im sorry, and I would say I respect your beliefs

 

[CELLryuu]

which one, there is like a thousand of them.

i dont personally believe in any of them. i think it is silly to believe in unsubstantiated claims. but people are free to live their lives as they choose, even though 99 percent of them had their religious views chosen for them but are hopelessly unaware of it.....yes this means YOU.

ultimately, it doesnt matter. in the end, we are all dead. live life the way you wish....you only have one of them.

 

[squigles]

God is not created. He is the creator. He is eternal with no beginning or end. He is not created and cannot be destroyed.

How do you know that? What evidence is there to prove your assertion?

Everyone sins so He died for everyone's sins which is why He died for "our" sins. You keep attacking some of the most easiest things to understand.

This is illogical, and the reason why 'sin' is nonsensical to begin with. Whether or not I behave in a manner that is undesirable to other people, has nothing to do with the teachings of a 4000 year old book or the words of an imaginary sky daddy.

Morality is a social construct that is created by humanity as a social species. We have evolved intelligence, so we can determine how to behave in society as a method for positive coexistence. This is how we created our laws, and why our laws are not consistent with the bible's laws (except for killing and stealing).

If I go and have *** with my neighbor's wife, the only person who can make that up to him is ME. Jesus dying will not take away the fact that I wronged my neighbor by sleeping with his wife, and even if Jesus died 1,000 times it would not have anything to do with the fact that I wronged my neighbor.

Furthermore, it is not ILLEGAL to have *** with my neighbors wife, and even if it's something that is determined to be not good for their relationship, it can still be deemed as morally acceptable by myself and my neighbors wife. To that extent, morality is a matter of opinion so long as we are discussing individuals. But when it comes to society, morality is determined by the group and not the individual.

Jesus Christ isn't even historically verified to have existed. So when you parade around this ideology that Jesus has died for everyone's sins, you are removing the penalties for behaviors that negatively impact people and saying that 'it's okay' because this man died to absolve the ramifications of those actions.

The problem with this is that when someone commits an egregious act against another human being, your religion states that as long as that person repents for his 'sins' he will be 100% forgiven and not be punished for his crimes. This in and of itself removes moral accountability and gives anyone who believes in god a free ticket to do whatever bad things they want to do, knowing full well that they are forgiven ahead of time by Jesus' death.

Whereas in the real world, we have determined a system for actual punishment based on the crimes people commit against society, where they are held morally accountable for their actions. If I blow up a children's hospital, society will determine my punishment accordingly and I will not escape from my own accountability.

Biblical morality completely marginalizes real life morality and accountability on every single issue, giving otherwise good people free license to do bad things. Good people can do good things without religion. Bad people can do bad things without religion. But in order for good people to do bad things, you need religion.

So please don't trivialize my secular morality with the notion that Jesus died for my sins, that's an offensive claim for you to make.

Hey, squigles! Stop saying the same as me just with smarter words! D:

No!

 

[sorablade33]

"People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." -Blaise Pascal

I believe in God. Not because of my parents, family, because of its what I grew up with or even just because of what I've read in the Bible. But because everything in this universe points to an existence of a God. If you want me explain send me a message.

First, people who say that Old and New Testaments of the bible are false or untrue. Or those who say that all religion is wrong or evil but don't even know if God exists or don't believe in God really can't voice that. What I mean by that is: You have no grounds to stand on, to say that. Because you just said that you don't believe in a god or you don't know if he even exists.

The three major religious world-views are: 1. Theism (God made all) Judaism, Christianity and Islam fall under theism. 2. Pantheism (God is all) Zen Buddhism, Hinduism and New Age fall under Pantheism. And 3. Atheism (No God at all) Another term we use frequently or that I hear is agnostic (and that is someone who is unsure about the question of God.)

Now, the claim that religion is simply a matter of faith is nothing than a modern myth, it's just not true. While, religion certainly requires faith, it's not only about faith. Facts are also central to all religions because all religious world-views including atheism or any belief no matter make truth claims. Thats why we say "where's the facts?" "Show me the proof!" and many of those truth claims can be evaluated through scientific and historical investigation.

People with their different religious world-views all say something different right? For example, theists(e.g. Christians, Muslims, Jews say that the universe had a beginning, while all others atheists, pantheists(e.g., New Agers, Hindus) say that the universe did not.(that the universe is eternal) These are mutually exclusive claims. They can't both be right. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. By investigating nature and the history of the universe we can reasonably conclude that one view is right and the other one wrong.

The alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ presents us with another example. Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead, while Muslims say that Jesus never died. Again, one of these views is right and the other one wrong. How do we know which one is right? By evaluating each of these conflicting truth claims against historical evidence.

Do you all notice, that not only do these different religions attempt to answer these claims but, that scientists also have something to say about them. That is that science and religion often address the same questions: Where did we come from? etc. In other words, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive categories as many will say or have suggested. And certainly not all religious claims are open to scientific or historical investigation. Some are invariable dogma (like reincarnation.) Nevertheless, the validity of many religious beliefs can be checked out. Some beliefs are reasonable- while others are clearly unreasonable. Again if you would like to know more on where I stand of topics like these I would be more than happy to explain and more than happy to answer any questions you might have. I don’t just believe in God because its attractive or believe what others do just because. I am learning that through science and historical evidence(including the bible) that God exists. If you are willing to listen and want to know the truth I can pass on what I have learned to help answer these questions that we face everyday. I am also willing to listen to you as well.

“Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up as if nothing has happened.” -Winston Churchill

 

[Naruto 10]

I apologise if i made any aggressive advances in my previous posts. My sincere apologies. But I do believe that at a certain point in our lives i think we all experience spirituality. But i personally think that this thread should be closed because everyone has his/her own set of thoughts and we have to respect it cuz we can't change a person's mindset which he has developed over the years so faith has to be termed as a personal affair and futile arguments with others should be effectively closed

 

[sorablade33]

How do you know that? What evidence is there to prove your assertion?



This is illogical, and the reason why 'sin' is nonsensical to begin with. Whether or not I behave in a manner that is undesirable to other people, has nothing to do with the teachings of a 4000 year old book or the words of an imaginary sky daddy.

Morality is a social construct that is created by humanity as a social species. We have evolved intelligence, so we can determine how to behave in society as a method for positive coexistence. This is how we created our laws, and why our laws are not consistent with the bible's laws (except for killing and stealing).

If I go and have *** with my neighbor's wife, the only person who can make that up to him is ME. Jesus dying will not take away the fact that I wronged my neighbor by sleeping with his wife, and even if Jesus died 1,000 times it would not have anything to do with the fact that I wronged my neighbor.

Furthermore, it is not ILLEGAL to have *** with my neighbors wife, and even if it's something that is determined to be not good for their relationship, it can still be deemed as morally acceptable by myself and my neighbors wife. To that extent, morality is a matter of opinion so long as we are discussing individuals. But when it comes to society, morality is determined by the group and not the individual.

Jesus Christ isn't even historically verified to have existed. So when you parade around this ideology that Jesus has died for everyone's sins, you are removing the penalties for behaviors that negatively impact people and saying that 'it's okay' because this man died to absolve the ramifications of those actions.

The problem with this is that when someone commits an egregious act against another human being, your religion states that as long as that person repents for his 'sins' he will be 100% forgiven and not be punished for his crimes. This in and of itself removes moral accountability and gives anyone who believes in god a free ticket to do whatever bad things they want to do, knowing full well that they are forgiven ahead of time by Jesus' death.

Whereas in the real world, we have determined a system for actual punishment based on the crimes people commit against society, where they are held morally accountable for their actions. If I blow up a children's hospital, society will determine my punishment accordingly and I will not escape from my own accountability.

Biblical morality completely marginalizes real life morality and accountability on every single issue, giving otherwise good people free license to do bad things. Good people can do good things without religion. Bad people can do bad things without religion. But in order for good people to do bad things, you need religion.

So please don't trivialize my secular morality with the notion that Jesus died for my sins, that's an offensive claim for you to make.



No!

Well someone hasn't done all their homework…

 

[kellzfresh]

It doesn't matter what kind of prediction you are talking about, nothing about the bible counts as an accurate prediction. Everything the bible says about the future is so vague it's likely to hold true just by chance and the nature of humanity. People are divisive and violent by nature, so a prophecy of war or a civilization in turmoil 'with sin' is pretty much an inevitable fact.

The predictions were still accurate from 2012 years ago
why didn't he say that diseases will reduce because of the improving medicinal care. But he accurately knew it will still increase. You can't beat that

I could make the prediction that there will be murders, disease, famine, war, genocide, and natural disasters in the future. Those are all vague things that happen naturally in our world. So when those things happen in the future, I am not actually making any real predictions. However, some nutjob would see those predictions and would fall into the sharpshooter's fallacy for each one, claiming that there is some meaning in those vague predictions.

Looool. They were still accurate. No single fault

Homosexuality isn't any more rampant now than it was back then. You are illogically believing in some nostalgic 'better times' scenario that never actually existed. Furthermore, homosexuality is a natural occurrence (as is bisexuality) in nature amongst all species of animals.

Humans are also an animal species, so it's not like we are exempt from nature when it comes to sexual behavior. Most mammalian species reproduce in the same way, so it's completely understandable that humans would also experience homosexuality like most other mammals.

Homosexuality was a sin then and you could be killed if caught in public. But it is not now. Stop denying that it has substancially increased and that prediction was correct, it is ignorance U_U

Diseases and viruses do not form out of 'thin air.' Both diseases and viruses occur naturally within other species as a result of genetics and cell mutation. New strains of diseases occur when there is contact between two different species and a disease mutates and becomes adaptable to a new host.

There is no truth to the claim that there are more diseases and viruses now than there ever was before because we don't know what kinds of diseases and viruses used to exist. People who were living during the biblical days were completely ignorant to diseases and viruses because they had no medical science.

If you got the flu at the time when Jesus was alive, people prayed for you to get better. Most people who got the flu DIED, despite being prayed for. Now you can get a flu shot every year or two and never worry about getting the flu, thanks to our understanding of science and medicine.

It's fundamentally flawed logic to think that a people who's average life expectancy was age 30, due to the fact that they had absolutely zero scientific or medical knowledge, would have been able to distinguish the number of diseases that existed back then and provide a reliable comparison to the number we have now. People used to die from infection, the common cold, their teeth, and child birth. Now our average life expectancy is nearly 3x as long, again, thanks to our understanding of science and medicine.

Lool, as a modern person yourself, go and research from 1900 till 2012 the number of new diseases and come back and tell me if it is increasing or reducing U_U don't be ignorant. it was accurate

Again, this is fundamentally flawed logic. During Jesus' time, there wasn't an accurate or reliable method for recording natural disasters, since books were scarce, most people were illiterate, and there was no technology. Back then, when a natural disaster occurred, it was thought to be an act of god being angry, and so people prayed and made sacrifices to try and appease the gods.

However, there wasn't a single person who kept track of worldwide natural disasters in order to give us an accurate record as far back as the times of Jesus. So like your disease claims, your natural disaster claims are also false.

Now, let's assume for a moment that both your claims WERE true. What do those claims have to do with whether or not god exists, and how would they prove anything?

I told you to check for your science statistics and you can tell that it is increasing. Am I lying with this statement?
No
Hence the prediction was correct. More natural disasters than before. More earthquakes and flooding (according to scientists caused by global warming, unless you don't listen to the news too)

A prophet is someone who is picked by god to deliver his message. Ironically, no one can provide evidence that there has ever been a real prophet. On top of that, there isn't a single prophecy within the bible that couldn't have been foretold by the average person who has half a brain and even the slightest understanding of society.

Again, the prophecies within the bible are so vague and generic, anyone could reliably make them. They are not compelling, much less proof of god.

I said there are people saying that they are the messiah from God.(False prophets are more rampant)
. The prediction was still accurate. You must be trolling to deny this :sy:

It doesn't matter what calender system we use. Most of the world just happens to be religious, that doesn't make religion true, nor does that prove god's existence. Look at Christmas in America. We still celebrate it every year, even as non christians and non pagans.

Loool the fact still remains that the calendar was made from after Jesus death :shrug:

I already explained the difference between belief and knowledge. People can believe in scientists all they want to, but that isn't a necessary position to hold in order for science to be true.

We have facts that science gives us based on evidence, so the proper position to hold in the realm of science, would be knowledge, not belief. However, there are plenty of people who do not accept scientific claims simply because they don't have a good enough understanding of science to be able to justify that position, and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, when it comes down to it, no matter who doesn't believe in science or accept it, it is still providing facts and evidence to support what it says. Religion is NOT. The bible is not proof of anything. The Koran is not proof of anything. Neither one can be used as evidence to validate anything that religion says.

On top of that, both are full of immoral behaviors and events that are both condoned and commanded by god. If we still got our morality from the bible, we would never have gotten out of the bronze age.

God gave us brains to create, and be smarter. So some people will definately use their brains given by God to discover ordinary things and they think they are higher than God, hence there is no God. :sy:
The evidence science should provide is not petty cars. They should create (mountains, sky, new air, planets or even ordinary new human) then they can proudly confirm there is no God. :shrug:

 

[kral]

again i guess i'm gonna hop back into the debate.
there is a chance that there was a flood. also this would help explain why people lived so long before the flood n not after.
it would also explain the miracle of the rainbow.
at the time people believed it was a miracle but now that science has proven it i still think its still a miracle that it aligns perfectly like that.
there are a few things that the old testament tells us to do.
running water before surgery is one of those. way ahead of its time.

just because science explains it doesn't make it any less of a miracle(imo)
yes i have faith and yes it wavers from time to time.

my faith wasn't based on what i was raised on or what i went to church on(because i didn't go to church during my childhood nor were my parents believers)
i've taken a different path then anyone else that i was aquanted(sp) with.
i'm a christian and i dont believe in any of the churches because i feel there are too many man made ideal's and practices that dont make sense.

if you take nothing away from this take this
everything that happens in nature is a small miracle that is meant to humble us and make us realize how great his love is.

also take this as well.
nothing is more beautiful then a small miracle that happens each in every day in our lives. all we have to do is look for it.
ex:
baby being born
rainbows
blossoms
the innocence of a child's laugh
and the beauty of only loving 1 woman.

if only we were all so lucky to look around us each n every day to realize the beauty of this world then maybe people wouldn't have so much hate

 

[toothpaste]

1. Copying a slab of hadith from an anti-islamic site is legit write. The addressing to the prophet isn't appropriate.

Not at all correct:

You must be registered for see links

(Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Vol. 9:57)

Now here's an appropriate link, that'll explain how the penalty for apostasy comes about and the punishments for it in Islam from a respected Sheikh.

You must be registered for see links

You accuse me of using an "anti-Islamic" site(which I did not), but you use "pro-Islamic" sites.
Do you not see a bias?

"Rather he has to accept the ruling based on evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is essential to put the texts and rulings of sharee’ah before all else."
Is this a personal rule of his?

Does he accept Quran (4:34)?

Quaran 4:74?
So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward.
------
"Apostasy (riddah) and going out of Islam are things that may be done in the heart, on the tongue or in one's actions."

If I was a Muslim and disagreed with Islam, I would be considered an apostate. If I did not "believe."

"The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose. Rather he should be asked to repent and he should be offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts, if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that, he is to be put to death.

I am be put to death for disagreeing.

I put that comparison because it was so blatantly silly and obvious on terms of the sense of that rule. 1. There is rationality in the decisions made by leaders, anywhere in the world, who have to come to decide whether a person is doing more harm to the public than good.

1.You have not given me an example of how "death for apostasy" is rational.

There is nothing rational about killing someone, once you have, your hands are stained with blood.

Exactly.

"Like I said from the start, I think it's adding up to the fifth time now. It depends on who is in charge, different people take different outcomes seriously. 1. Depending on the level and intensity of their disrespect and hatred towards the religion, there will be consequences. 2. Everyone has been told since they were a kid - 'if you don't anything nice to say, then don't say it at all'. It's not oppression. It's common morality.

1. Insulting an imaginary being is one thing and one thing only. However, taking insult personally from this is simply the act of a child.

"I don't want you to say that!" says the child, stomping his feet angrily. The child acts as though his values are to be followed by everyone. The child takes insult at the slightest bit of criticism.

No where does it say I'm obliged to your follow your request.

If I disliked the Harry Potter books, Harry Potter enthusiasts would not punish me.

There is a double standard here.

Religion is somehow above and beyond criticism. Only Religion has this. Religion is not above criticism.

2. That is not morality. That's merely bending over backwards.
I have already addressed this. If you feel insulted by my criticisms, that is not my problem. (When I say "you", I am not specifically addressing you. I'm addressing any who 'feel insulted' by my criticisms.)

Then what makes someone a good person? You're contradicting yourself.

Not raiding caravans, committing genocide, asking for complete submission to some imaginary being.

Simple. Doing good for the sake of doing good.

You must be registered for see links

"On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy. "

The word "can" is the problem.

"1. One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner the significance of the event would have been greater. 2. There would have been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it would be normal to expect only a brief reference. "

1. As though the killing of more people is grander.

2. Lesson to be learned?: That 600-900 people were killed.
How is that a lesson?

Plausible? Maybe is what I got from reading your "source."

1. Here is a better translation. Read the Ayaht that comes afterwards.

You must be registered for see links

Learn to see from two different sides. If the Prophet[PBUH] offers peace, allows the non-muslims to live in Islamic land without disrespecting it and then they betray it - that's when the penalties apply.

1. A "better" translation? No, merely a different interpretation.

Except for those who (having fled away and then) came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (5. Surah al Maidah:Verse 34)

They must adhere to your conditions otherwise face death.
Merciful? Unlikely.

What of Salman Rushdie? He outright insulted Islam, creating a book and calling the verses Satanic. His origins are rather shady as well.

I've addressed this issue. The "Child" example above.

Allah states that directly after his worship, is the high respect and value of your parents. Displeasing your parents, is displeasing God.

Ben Parker, the uncle of Peter Parker, states "With great power comes great responsibility."

Did you need "God" to tell you that you should respect your parents?

Parents should also respect their children.

"If you cannot handle criticism, that is not my problem."

I've adressed this above.

You had an ill translation. Here is a more logical one, closely related to the original arabic words.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allâh orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). 1. As to those women on whose part you see ill *conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.

I have an "ill" translation?

1. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that beating someone "lightly" is any different than beating someone at all?

Why is "abuse, beating" even in that?

That is barbaric.
------
I've met plenty of men and women that do good.
What counts is the individual.

All the prophets in the past brought down lessons with them, thus the revelation of the Torah, which was then lost through translation over the years. Followed by the Gospel, and the most recent installment the Qur'an. All three initially worship the same God. Different branches of faiths have expelled and changed basics.

Don't forget. The "prophets" have said and done atrocious things.

Sounds legit. By respecting individuals, you should be respecting the way they live their lives too, and not openly criticising it, respecting is taking people's emotions into consideration. We are all people. We all make mistakes, and we all want to be treated justly.

I've addressed this with the "Child" (And #2 in the same section)example above.

I'll end with:
1. If it were a lie Islam wouldn't be the fastest growing religion in the world. Islam enhances a person's well being, not mistreats it. People out of it, make false assumptions without reading the Qur'an, learning the way the Prophet lived truthfully, not from biased sources, that is how this "abuse and mistreatment" is spread, like gossip in a school playground. 2. You can not accept something that is illogical? Not everything in this world is about logic.

Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in Western societies.

You must be registered for see links

Evangelical Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Brazil.

You must be registered for see links

So what if it is "growing really fast."

1. Islam may well be the "fastest growing religion" in the world, however, that has not the slightest shred of evidence for it being true.

2. That is not to say logic is not a good way to go about things.
Reason and logic are the best way to go about. If you have a better proposal, by all means let it be heard and let it be criticized.

 

[toothpaste]

I believe in God. Not because of my parents, family, because of its what I grew up with or even just because of what I've read in the Bible.1. But because everything in this universe points to an existence of a God.

Does a parasite inside a child's eye point to the existence of a God?
Do the occurrences of natural disasters point to the existence of a God?
What about having something like an appendix. Does that prove the existence of a God?

First, people who say that Old and New Testaments of the bible are false or untrue. Or those who say that all religion is wrong or evil but don't even know if God exists or don't believe in God really can't voice that. What I mean by that is: You have no grounds to stand on, to say that. Because you just said that you don't believe in a god or you don't know if he even exists.

Religious people make the assertion that "God" is real.

The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the assertion.

The one's who claim that Gods are non-existent are not wrong. There is lack of evidence to prove God. By default, there is no God, because of the lack of evidence.

The three major religious world-views are: 1. Theism (God made all) Judaism, Christianity and Islam fall under theism. 2. Pantheism (God is all) Zen Buddhism, Hinduism and New Age fall under Pantheism. And 3. Atheism (No God at all) Another term we use frequently or that I hear is agnostic (and that is someone who is unsure about the question of God.)

This is ill-informed. Atheism is not a religion. It is the rejection of belief in deities.

Now, the claim that religion is simply a matter of faith is nothing than a modern myth, it's just not true. While, religion certainly requires faith, it's not only about faith. Facts are also central to all religions because all religious world-views including atheism or any belief no matter make truth claims. Thats why we say "where's the facts?" "Show me the proof!" and many of those truth claims can be evaluated through scientific and historical investigation.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in deities.
Atheism does NOT make make truth claims. However, Religions do and they do so without evidence.

People with their different religious world-views all say something different right? For example, theists(e.g. Christians, Muslims, Jews say that the universe had a beginning, while all others atheists, pantheists(e.g., New Agers, Hindus) say that the universe did not.(that the universe is eternal) These are mutually exclusive claims. They can't both be right. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. By investigating nature and the history of the universe we can reasonably conclude that one view is right and the other one wrong.

We don't know how the universe started.

"By investigating nature and the history of the universe we can reasonably conclude that one view is right and the other one wrong."

I would like to know how you have concluded that "God" exists.

The alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ presents us with another example. Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead, while Muslims say that Jesus never died. Again, one of these views is right and the other one wrong. How do we know which one is right? By evaluating each of these conflicting truth claims against historical evidence.

You assume that because it was said, it has to be real.

It was once said that the Earth is flat. Is that true?

Do you all notice, that not only do these different religions attempt to answer these claims but, that scientists also have something to say about them. That is that science and religion often address the same questions: Where did we come from? etc. In other words, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive categories as many will say or have suggested. And certainly not all religious claims are open to scientific or historical investigation. Some are invariable dogma (like reincarnation.) Nevertheless, the validity of many religious beliefs can be checked out. Some beliefs are reasonable- while others are clearly unreasonable. Again if you would like to know more on where I stand of topics like these I would be more than happy to explain and more than happy to answer any questions you might have. I don’t just believe in God because its attractive or believe what others do just because. I am learning that through science and historical evidence(including the bible) that God exists. If you are willing to listen and want to know the truth I can pass on what I have learned to help answer these questions that we face everyday. I am also willing to listen to you as well.

The difference between Science and Religion is this:

The former is real and the latter is false.