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
Nothing that was predicted in the bible was anything more than a vague generalization that ANYONE could make. I'm sitting here right now and telling you that in the future, there will be murders, war, famine, drought, overpopulation, global warming, ect.
So are you going to take my prophecies seriously and then bow down and worship me?
From your response to my post, it seems as though you are illiterate, ignorant, and blatantly retarded.
A God can transcend the physical rule of creation because a God is not physical. We are only aware of this rule because it is the only one that applies to our existence. A universe is completely physical. In my opinion, a universe would have to be derived from something else to exist, in other words, created. You may ask me then, "How can a God create something physical like the universe without interacting with the physical world?" Think about an artist who creates a picture. He can display incredible beauty, but cannot interact with the picture at all. Of course I could be wrong. This is just my speculation.
We cannot attribute "God" with any physical characteristics or phenomenons, because God is not physical. If he was physical, he would exist physically, which he doesn't.
My point was not whether god was physical or not. I was trying to say why can't the universe exist in a dimension which has the same characteristics as your god. As you put it, why can't that dimension be non-physical as well. If god exists as a non-physical being, then he must exist in a non-physical dimension. So if the normal rules do not apply to non-physical things, whats stopping the dimension where our universe exists to have no creator, no end and no beginning.
I'm not sure if my point is coming across clearly. Why does it have to be a non-physical higher being that created us and not just another dimension which has the same characteristics as a god, but overall has no design, consciousness or any will for creation. As in it was all just random. It just seems illogical to put a creator at the start of it to me if the whole concept is that past our universe everything is non-physical (speculation by the way), meaning that the same rules don't apply.
The concept of an accidental god is one thing, but a god that cares about us, that makes an afterlife for us, but simply rejects all other forms of life from experiencing it sounds like complete bullshit to me. How are we any superior to any other form of life? Just because our brains are more developed? It just makes no sense. Surely if there was a god, it would cherish all forms of life and ensure that they all lived in harmony. It's all just so contradictory. The words written in the bible seem to me to be the words of flawed humans, not coming from some higher power. There is only one way someone can prove to me that there is a god, they would only have to show me proof. Not circumstantial evidence or speculation, but actual proof.
To those that are religious I am not trying to offend, just sharing my opinion. I realise that as unlikely it is for you to convince me that there is a god, the same goes for me convincing you.
Anti-Islamic sites, are sites that degrade the meaning and will grab slabs from anything to make it sound bad. Have you not see the difference in detail the islamqa website I offered you and this one you pointed out.
Hadith were offered generally at situations during the era of Prophet Muhammad [Peace Be Upon Him]. During those times apostates were executed who converted to Islam on the sole purpose of spying, and once there knowledge was satisfied would convert back. The issue was betrayal and espionage, not apostasy. The Prophet(saws) never executed a death simply on someone being an apostate. Overtime ignorance of people took the liberty over logic, and thus became more cultural with the killings of apostates that you see and hear now rather than the sunnah of the Prophet.
Here is a further explanation on the hadith, if the information I have supplied you with still does not satisfy you and continues to allow to boldly point out sections without proper explanation.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
Many prominent scholars throughout the centuries have held the view that apostasy is not a hadd (singular for hudud = capital) offence. This view is founded on the fact that the Qur'an is completely silent on the death penalty for apostasy. In fact, freedom of religion is a fundamental tenet of Islam. In Surah al-Baqarah, 2:256, Allah explicitly states: "Let there be no compulsion in religion". This Medinan verse was revealed when some Companions asked the Prophet for permission to compel their relatives to profess Islam. It has been widely interpreted to mean that no one can be compelled to embrace Islam because religion depends upon faith and will, and this would be meaningless if induced by force. Islam itself means submission to the will of God; and the willing submission of the self to faith and
belief must be attained through conviction and reason, not through coercion and duress.
Islam began by inviting and persuading people to embrace it on the merit of its rationality and truth. In Surah Yunus, 10:99, a verse revealed in Mecca at the advent of Islam, Allah says: "Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Do you then force people to become believers?" This and verse 2:256, together with the norm of Shari'a which affirms freedom of religion, have led many Muslim countries today to include in its Constitution an article on freedom of religion as a fundamental right.
In his book, The Punishment for Apostasy in Islam, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, noted that even though the subject of apostasy occurred no less than 20 times in the Qur'an, the Holy Book remained silent on death as a punishment. Surah An-Nisa', 4:137-138, state that "Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path. Give to the hypocrites the tidings that there is for them a painful torment." If indeed it was Allah's intention to impose the death penalty for apostasy, then such occasion of repeated apostasy could have provoked such a punishment. But neither the first instance of apostasy, nor repeated apostasy brought about capital punishment.
Those who advocate the death penalty for apostasy based their reasoning on a hadith which proclaims, "kill whoever changes his religion". But this hadith is open to varying interpretations on several grounds.
First, this hadith is considered a weak hadith with just a single isnad (this means there is only one chain of transmission or narration) and thus according to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not enough to validate the death penalty.
Second, this hadith is also considered a general ('amm) hadith in that it is in need of specification (takhsis); for it would otherwise convey a meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious reading of the hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the intention of the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, when a text is interpreted once, it becomes open to further interpretation and specification. Therefore, many scholars interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high treason (hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or God or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.
Third, and most importantly, there is no evidence to show that Prophet Muhammad saw or his Companions ever compelled anyone to embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of the faith.
Based on these three reasons and the Qur'anic principle of freedom of religion, prominent ulama (scholars) from the seventh to the twentieth centuries have come out with the position that there can be no death penalty for apostasy. According to Professor Hashim Kamali in his award-winning book, Freedom of Expression in Islam, two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions, Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences, it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.
In modern times, the celebrated Sheikh of al-Azhar University, the late Mahmud Shaltut who was esteemed for his vast knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and Qur'anic interpretation, wrote that many ulama are in agreement that hudud cannot be established by a solitary hadith and that unbelief by itself does not call for the death penalty. The current Sheikh of al-Azhar, who was Egypt's former Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also declared that apostasy is not a capital crime.
Many scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaltut and Tantawi, said that the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith, but to hirabah, that is, when apostasy is accompanied by rebellion against the community and its legitimate leadership.
"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.
1.You have not given me an example of how "death for apostasy" is rational.
1. The sharee'ah law, is the teachings of the Sunnah and Qur'an. At the time of Prophet Muhammad (saws), people weren't able to completely change their ways of life, so the Qur'an was slowly installed at the time Allah deemed appropriate. The banning of alcohol wasn't imminent, it was instilled when the change was believed ready. When the law(the sharee'ah) was decreed, people followed suit out of rationality, not out of being forced, or imposed with death penalties.
2. Once again you're pulling out ayaht from different sections of the Surah, either read it all or don't bother trying to use it in support of this discussion. It's like having Harry Potter, starting from "The Boy Who Lived" and then ending with "He killed Voldemort". You miss out on all what's inbetween.
3. After reading the above sources I provided you with, you should be at terms now and understand that an apostate is someone of any religion who leaves it. The punishment and severity of a person's leaving depends on their jurisdiction, how they handled leaving and the leaders of the time. People tend to follow ignorance more than logicality.
Thus, you will not be put to death, for simply disagreeing if people follow the Sunnah and Qur'an. There is a single powerful phrase in Qur'an, "Let There Be No Compulsion in Religion". If people simply don't want to believe, let them be. Don't go saying you would be dead for speaking an opinion.
4. The rationality for death, there is no such thing. Judgement is only for God. People imposing death is generally out of self-defence, or protecting a general society on the notion of whether they are doing more harm than good to themselves and others.
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.
I'm not taking insult on your ignorance and wanting to topple Islam, I'm defending what I believe in, committing Jihad, which means 'to struggle', in prevention of you possibly informing others about lies.
Children have more questions to offer than the narrow minded adult. They do not take insult, they question. Children are filled with curiousity. I questioned God as a child, was I killed? No? It is merely an innocent child's curiousity, whether to believe in something he cannot see. Through the years, based on logicality, gaining knowledge and faith, I've arrived at the point I am at now able to hold my ground in discussions like this.
So what is wrong with being a child, people should have more of the same non-judging naivete that a child bears. Then grow up knowledge and then be able to support the world through their journey.
Not carry on making false assumptions and defaming them.
How is religion above criticism? You're doing it right now. The difference with religion to anything else though, is because you are insulting the way someone has been living almost there entire life. Your definition of criticism is subjective. If I "criticised" athiesm, with some not to nice words and false assumptions, people would be on my back. The same in reverse, which is the current situation.
The Harry Potter example is non-valid in this situation.
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.)
What defines morality? Is it the current corrupted state of society? Where ignorance prevails over simple human necessities? Forgotten basics and limitations of human behaviour? A collective group of subjective laws from a bunch of non-religious people? A collective group of subjective from a bunch of religious people? A group of laws brought on by God?
People bring on the argument, that it doesn't take a God and a book to teach someone how to be good. But that isn't the case, God and a book are merely reminders of things the human soul has forgotten. You know your conscience, it needs reminders of what is good and bad in the world. People choose to ignore that nourishment. And that's where corruption in society begins.
How does the explanation relate to this current proposition? The way, subjectively, rules are thrown about. Your version of criticism, lacks the constructive approach. You do not explain why you feel that way, and what you feel needs to approached and prepared, rather finding whatever you can to throw off people from Islam. Faith and logicality combined are powerful.
"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."
The lesson in this situation was that the tribe did not take up Islam. Despite the command being delivered by the same God of the Jewish. This again is understood on a mixture of what you believe in, logicality, having an abundant about of knowledge on the teachings of the Prophet, knowledge of factual history and a subjective opinion.
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.
I've addressed this issue. The "Child" example above.
Once again your level of understanding is taken into consideration. As a Muslim, this is seen as merciful. But from outside, I can see where you do not see the merciful act of Allah. It's only logical to put the value of the human body before everything else, which is why the people who repent are valued. And it is, which is why God only has the power to course judgement. Allah commanded Prophet Muhammad (saws) to take those actions, thus anyone in the way, is going against God's judgement.
Why tell me things that are obvious, I addressed the issue above as well. The human conscience is installed naturally with the ability to sense what is bad and good. But sometimes this is forgotten, due to the influences of the devil (cue arguments of another imaginary being). Thus religion, refreshes and nourishes it, to allow people to continue doing good.
How many parents forget to praise their children, or offer discipline? How many children forget to say thanks and good morning to their parents, or be respectful?
The result of this generation, I'm not judging anyone. But anyone can agree with me when they have spotted an ill mannered child fangasming over a popular pop band that they wanted to slap out for a lack of common sense and taste. Or an ignorant fanboy/girl that does nothing but defend their favourite 'imaginary' character rather than help their parents or do something that could benefit them.
Yes you have an ill translation. So by your jurisdiction, cops shouldn't carry guns and/or any weapon for their self-defence, dodgeball shouldn't be allowed, vigorous training for the olympics shouldn't be allowed, bmx riding, etc. Shouldn't be allowed. People experience far more broken bones, and permanent injuries from extreme sports and political abuse than a husband having the option to 'lightly' discipline his wife, if she puts the consequence upon herself, rather than allowing her to make a further fool out of herself.
Beating is not taken as "punching, abusing, kicking the wife". Rather it is said men cannot hit woman on the head and face and they cannot hit them so redness is visible once contact is struck. The 'beating' is similar to when a mother might slap a child's hand to not touch what is not theirs.
Take this scenario, one that I have witnessed of a recent addition to my extended family. There is a standard Muslim man, who follows Islam to the best of his ability, not as extreme as people claim it, but nonetheless follows and practices it. His previous Muslim wife, not forced or demanded to marry him, they were in love at one point. Both came from the same high school, but society influenced her to cheat on him. He gave her a warning, and she asked for a divorce. Through that divorce she tried to take as much money she could claim from him, he was of course mad. But he controlled himself not to abuse her with the remembrance of God, he signed the divorce papers and thought it was the last he had seen of her.
A few days later, it turned out she still had a set of keys on her to his apartment, one day he had taken off a day at work, which she thought he would be at and trespassed. Bringing a few other men with her to help take as much property as she could. He busted her, waking up to the noise. He didn't even call the cops or embarrass her, he rather confronted her actions, gave her the option to leave and never contact him or he would call the cops.
Her latest facebook states, she's already in a new relationship, parading her body, and a Muslim no more.
He is now married to relative of mine, and a positive addition.
The women in this case is the offender, her actions, even after offered respect and options, continued to go against them and let her settle for illegal action. No where was a finger lifted at her, discipline is one of the last resorts taken if the woman continues to misbehave. She puts on herself.
The action of "Beating" isn't barbaric, it's the intention imposed to lead someone to this action that decides whether its barbaric or not.
Stopping someone from making a fool of themselves or harming others, does not seem barbaric to me.
According to you they have. Prophets were sent to stop these atrocious things. Sometimes extreme actions had to be taken, otherwise people would still be stuck in the same situation they were thousands of years ago.
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.
1. The fastest growing rate, shows that with an understanding of the religion and not a defaming approach can easily change be beneficial to someone's life. The same with the principles of Buddhism and Christianity. One religion just reaches the individual first.
2. Logic, and reason are fundamentals to a way should live their life. But basing it solely on that will lead humans to be creatures that will do anything they can to question and tear apart information sources. Evidence of the arguments between theists and atheists. Thus tolerance and faith counterbalance those attributes.
--------
I have a long weekend ahead of me, if you want to continue asking questions, I'll be happy to answer and offer my time. But if you want to claim Islam does something, without authentic evidence and backing up then you will go ignored, or be embarrassed when corrected.
Meanwhile gotta go prepare dinner, I lose track of time.xd
Why tell me things that are obvious, I addressed the issue above as well. The human conscience is installed naturally with the ability to sense what is bad and good. But sometimes this is forgotten, due to the influences of the devil (cue arguments of another imaginary being). Thus religion, refreshes and nourishes it, to allow people to continue doing good.
How many parents forget to praise their children, or offer discipline? How many children forget to say thanks and good morning to their parents, or be respectful?
The result of this generation, I'm not judging anyone. But anyone can agree with me when they have spotted an ill mannered child fangasming over a popular pop band that they wanted to slap out for a lack of common sense and taste. Or an ignorant fanboy/girl that does nothing but defend their favourite 'imaginary' character rather than help their parents or do something that could benefit them.
Yes you have an ill translation. So by your jurisdiction, cops shouldn't carry guns and/or any weapon for their self-defence, dodgeball shouldn't be allowed, vigorous training for the olympics shouldn't be allowed, bmx riding, etc. Shouldn't be allowed. People experience far more broken bones, and permanent injuries from extreme sports and political abuse than a husband having the option to 'lightly' discipline his wife, if she puts the consequence upon herself, rather than allowing her to make a further fool out of herself.
Beating is not taken as "punching, abusing, kicking the wife". Rather it is said men cannot hit woman on the head and face and they cannot hit them so redness is visible once contact is struck. The 'beating' is similar to when a mother might slap a child's hand to not touch what is not theirs.
Take this scenario, one that I have witnessed of a recent addition to my extended family. There is a standard Muslim man, who follows Islam to the best of his ability, not as extreme as people claim it, but nonetheless follows and practices it. His previous Muslim wife, not forced or demanded to marry him, they were in love at one point. Both came from the same high school, but society influenced her to cheat on him. He gave her a warning, and she asked for a divorce. Through that divorce she tried to take as much money she could claim from him, he was of course mad. But he controlled himself not to abuse her with the remembrance of God, he signed the divorce papers and thought it was the last he had seen of her.
A few days later, it turned out she still had a set of keys on her to his apartment, one day he had taken off a day at work, which she thought he would be at and trespassed. Bringing a few other men with her to help take as much property as she could. He busted her, waking up to the noise. He didn't even call the cops or embarrass her, he rather confronted her actions, gave her the option to leave and never contact him or he would call the cops.
Her latest facebook states, she's already in a new relationship, parading her body, and a Muslim no more.
He is now married to relative of mine, and a positive addition.
The women in this case is the offender, her actions, even after offered respect and options, continued to go against them and let her settle for illegal action. No where was a finger lifted at her, discipline is one of the last resorts taken if the woman continues to misbehave. She puts on herself.
The action of "Beating" isn't barbaric, it's the intention imposed to lead someone to this action that decides whether its barbaric or not.
Stopping someone from making a fool of themselves or harming others, does not seem barbaric to me.
According to you they have. Prophets were sent to stop these atrocious things. Sometimes extreme actions had to be taken, otherwise people would still be stuck in the same situation they were thousands of years ago.
It's a long discussion, but it comes to down to, if the woman can hold out against the man. Men are generally physically stronger than women, but their minds are more adaptive then men. If the man is acting like an idiot, the woman of course has a right to defend herself, as a human being, in any situation. If she can't handle the situation on her own though and is being harassed, calling on her father, brother, uncle, etc. police whatever to stop the abuse is justice.
But generally if there are problems in both sides of the relationship, a divorce is usually in order.
I have a couple of muslim friends, this is what they gave me (in regards to that beating post??):
You must be registered for see links
^explanation (i just had a quick read of the conclusion at the end, seems pretty reasonable to me.)
and
''Sort of feminist convert here. Someone told me that that verse is actually a way of teaching men not to hit their wives. All those who have reminded a disobedient wife of what Allah expects of them and then spent a few days on the couch when they wouldn't listen know that by the time you've spent some time apart, the problem has usually resolved itself. This only happens when your treat your spouse as your garment and try to be kind and peaceful towards them.
This is the only explanation that has satisfied me. Allah helped people stop drinking in much the same way, telling them how to do it step by step. This khutbah/sermon about domestic violence might be beneficial.
Others addressed the issue of witnesses.
Regarding fundamentalism, even a Muslim who reads the Qur'an literally must acknowledge that some parts of the Qur'an are allegorical and some are clear-cul, because the Qur'an literally says so. (
You must be registered for see links
)
Insha'Allah I explained that properly and accurately.''
It's a long discussion, but it comes to down to, if the woman can hold out against the man. Men are generally physically stronger than women, but their minds are more adaptive then men. If the man is acting like an idiot, the woman of course has a right to defend herself, as a human being, in any situation. If she can't handle the situation on her own though and is being harassed, calling on her father, brother, uncle, etc. police whatever to stop the abuse is justice.
But generally if there are problems in both sides of the relationship, a divorce is usually in order.
Interesting. My brother literally watched as a woman physically beat her husband with an umbrella or something...her husband was then dragged out of the lawyer's office by police who accused him of beating his wife while all the while it was the wife who was beating him. The cops knew this, and the lawyer was trying his best to tell them this, but despite what they were saying, the officers accused the man of being abusive, even though he was the only one with bruises.
In the USA, men are beaten and women get away with it. It doesn't matter what's happening, men are always the first to blame.
Interesting. My brother literally watched as a woman physically beat her husband with an umbrella or something...her husband was then dragged out of the lawyer's office by police who accused him of beating his wife while all the while it was the wife who was beating him. The cops knew this, and the lawyer was trying his best to tell them this, but despite what they were saying, the officers accused the man of being abusive, even though he was the only one with bruises.
In the USA, men are beaten and women get away with it. It doesn't matter what's happening, men are always the first to blame.
"★Shinobi Train Will be an NB mod someday, so watch your back...then I will be known as the Banhammer..."
well, if you do become a mod, don't forget that I'm also in, you can leave me behind because I'll be your partner in crime xd
----------
-Back on topic of this-
I have seen such cases as well, they shouldn't let the women who do such things and get away with it but there can be a possibility that she was abused by him for a long time, she kept quiet and finally one day she exploded and beat him up or threaten to kill her?
We shall never know though I have been watching this one show in ID (Investigation Discovery)
There all about real cases of murders women do. You would think that only men are the killers but we cant blame people for that. As a society, we have been diminishing women, making seem weak, making be the princesses who need to be rescued etc..
Thus when we hear about such cases "A women murder a man by beating him up" or "she abused her husband"<-- some people find this hard to shallow.
I myself, don't accept sexism, I think as men we should try to also do our best to stop it. Some may say "when did your mangina grow?" which are stupid remarks but if we want to see a change in gender equality, people need to stop believing all women are weak and that all men are tough.
P.s this is the show I'm talking about:
Sorry I went off-topic from the whole religious discussion.
"★Shinobi Train Will be an NB mod someday, so watch your back...then I will be known as the Banhammer..."
well, if you do become a mod, don't forget that I'm also in, you can leave me behind because I'll be your partner in crime xd
----------
-Back on topic of this-
I have seen such cases as well, they shouldn't let the women who do such things and get away with it but there can be a possibility that she was abused by him for a long time, she kept quiet and finally one day she exploded and beat him up or threaten to kill her?
We shall never know though I have been watching this one show in ID (Investigation Discovery)
There all about real cases of murders women do. You would think that only men are the killers but we cant blame people for that. As a society, we have been diminishing women, making seem weak, making be the princesses who need to be rescued etc..
Thus when we hear about such cases "A women murder a man by beating him up" or "she abused her husband"<-- some people find this hard to shallow.
I myself, don't accept sexism, I think as men we should try to also do our best to stop it. Some may say "when did your mangina grow?" which are stupid remarks but if we want to see a change in gender equality, people need to stop believing all women are weak and that all men are tough.
P.s this is the show I'm talking about:
Sorry I went off-topic from the whole religious discussion.
xd Sure, but I give all people a chance no matter what until they betray that trust...so yeah, when I'm a mod...xd
It's true that this could have been happening and that said woman was abused previously...but I still believe in chivalry. For example, if I see a man getting beat up by other men, I always assume he deserves it and won't butt in. If I see a woman mistreated in the slightest way by a man, then said man will have an extended stay in a hospital...that is...if he makes it there...
My brother's wife always abused him. Sure he grabbed her a couple times and used his excessive strength to subdue her and keep her from hitting him, but he never hit her intentionally. However, she'd run down the street yelling for help and have officers arrest him for nothing...just off of her word, nothing more.
I know my bro, and while I don't like him and think him to be the devil, I also know he wouldn't ever harm a lady. Despite that, his ex wife used to constantly abuse him physically. There was only a few times when he actually tried to restrain her...he told me about them personally and I saw it happen once, but he never hurt her...she was just crazy. She also knew that the police would always side with her, so that was an easy thing to exploit.
xd Sure, but I give all people a chance no matter what until they betray that trust...so yeah, when I'm a mod...xd
It's true that this could have been happening and that said woman was abused previously...but I still believe in chivalry. For example, if I see a man getting beat up by other men, I always assume he deserves it and won't butt in. If I see a woman mistreated in the slightest way by a man, then said man will have an extended stay in a hospital...that is...if he makes it there...
My brother's wife always abused him. Sure he grabbed her a couple times and used his excessive strength to subdue her and keep her from hitting him, but he never hit her intentionally. However, she'd run down the street yelling for help and have officers arrest him for nothing...just off of her word, nothing more.
I know my bro, and while I don't like him and think him to be the devil, I also know he wouldn't ever harm a lady. Despite that, his ex wife used to constantly abuse him physically. There was only a few times when he actually tried to restrain her...he told me about them personally and I saw it happen once, but he never hurt her...she was just crazy. She also knew that the police would always side with her, so that was an easy thing to exploit.
Don't worry, I'm not the type to back-stab people or disrespect them. If they treat me with respect, I will respect them. Btw you didn't forget me right? xd
I live next to a young couple who back in the days, the guy would beat up his wife. Now, I couldn't do anything to be honest. I was around 14 and almost every day I would hear screaming and hear her cry/beg for him to stop. Even once it broke me inside when he locked her outside their house and she was telling her oldest boy who was 5 or so to open the door, she was all in crying. I felt like sh*t, I had told my mother but she always told me to stay out of it because her boyfriend was a gang member and we often saw him with a bunch of other guys smoking 'their stuff' and once the guy came with a shot wound on the arm. He said it was an accident but later on police came to their house.
My ex gf was abused by her ex bf, she was indeed very 'shy' and always 'easily hurt'- she had love issues and admitted that she was afraid of guys. She was 15, I was 16.
I guess we just see more women being abused than men but even so, stuff like that shouldn't be hidden from people.
Btw watch this:
I find it kind of funny how both sides base their arguments around an assumption.
Don't deny this, I know you're doing it o_o
Theists, you base all your arguments on the assumption that God is real.
Atheists, you do the opposite.
It's very natural, but it also makes the discussion literally impossible to conclude in any way.
Note that with 'conclude' I'm not talking about convinving the other faction, merely about reaching a conclusion.
Now, God is said to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
You must be registered for see links
Furthermore, think of this sentence: 'To know is not to understand.'
Say, why would God be a good guy again? Why would he be bad? You can't apply logics to a being that knows everything and does everything. Morals end ethics don't apply. Nothing applies to something that can do everything.
But how would he understand what you're doing? God forgives, God understands, God punishes, etcetera. Why would he? Because it's his job? Something he wants to do?
What is the point of God?
This is an assumption in and of itself, since you can't possibly know what all theists and all atheists know or believe, much less how they came to hold the positions they do.
It's very natural, but it also makes the discussion literally impossible to conclude in any way.
Note that with 'conclude' I'm not talking about convinving the other faction, merely about reaching a conclusion.
The entire point of having any discussion is to establish what each party knows/believes, and why. If one party is having difficulties doing that, then it's not worth participating in a conversation with them.
Now, God is said to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
It completely depends on which religion you are talking about and how you are defining god. That said, your statement excludes a great many different gods of other religions.
Furthermore, think of this sentence: 'To know is not to understand.'
What does this incorrect statement have to do with anything? Understanding is a state of knowledge. How can you know something without understanding it?
Say, why would God be a good guy again? Why would he be bad? You can't apply logics to a being that knows everything and does everything. Morals end ethics don't apply. Nothing applies to something that can do everything.
But how would he understand what you're doing? God forgives, God understands, God punishes, etcetera. Why would he? Because it's his job? Something he wants to do?
What is the point of God?
Again, which god are you talking about? First you need to define god, then we can have a discussion about it. For all anyone knows, you could be talking about a Banana or a hockey puck.
That's an assumption in and by itself. Don't go into semantics.
This is an assumption in and of itself, since you can't possibly know what all theists and all atheists know or believe, much less how they came to hold the positions they do.
You're over-analyzing an attempt to further a debate, but alright.
Throughout this entire thread you've been giving arguments to either a) disprove pro-theistic claims, or b) to further atheistic claims. At no time during this entire discussion have you taken a neutral stand point, which is fine and dandy since you're participating in a discussion, but that does not make my point any less relevant.
To be a Theist is, by definition, to be a believer. Naturally, there's a difference between 'knowing' and believing, but the assumption that God is real and the belief of so is the fundamental pillar of Theism. Thus, my point.
The same applies to Atheism, merely with non-belief.
Furthermore, the background-story of how someone reached his/her conclusion in regards to religion is very much irrelevant; they reached the conclusion all the same.
The entire point of having any discussion is to establish what each party knows/believes, and why. If one party is having difficulties doing that, then it's not worth participating in a conversation with them.
Indeed. Exhanging knowledge, thoughts and beliefs ^^
However, your discussion has become circular. It repeats itself over and over. I attempted to move the discussion somewhere, which, obviously, was a mistake on my part, it seems.
Furthermore, a discussion can be the very thing that changes ones beliefs and viewpoints. You enter a discussion with a set of viepoints and beliefs and the arguments to back them up, but you might not leave with the same set, which is why the discussion has to evolve, which is what it's being prevented from doing.
It completely depends on which religion you are talking about and how you are defining god. That said, your statement excludes a great many different gods of other religions.
Oh I'm terribly sorry, I shouldn't have referred to the God of the Christian majority here.
Now you're just arguing for the sake of the argument itself. A comfort-zone, perhaps?
What does this incorrect statement have to do with anything? Understanding is a state of knowledge. How can you know something without understanding it?
Then I'm sure you understand why Theists are Theists, right? You know why, you've heard all their arguments before. You understand, right?
You understand the burning hatred of someone left behind, right? You've seen the video's, heard the stories. You understand, right?
You understand how it feels to be tortured, right? You've read about the methods, seen the documentaries. You understand, right?
Bull-... (and excuse my French) shit.
Again, which god are you talking about? First you need to define god, then we can have a discussion about it. For all anyone knows, you could be talking about a Banana or a hockey puck.
What makes your God any better then other religions ? Why is Allah/Jesus/Moses/Yahweh better then Athena/Zeus/Hades/Hel/Horus ?
Horus even shares Jesus's story, but is way older then Jesus. Born of a virgin, Dec 25th, was called Son of God, Messiah, Shepard, The Light etc..so what makes Jesus better then Horus ? Horus is older..and story was told by one of the most advanced civilizations of the ancient world.
What if you are wrong about Jesus being the Son of God, what if the real god is the Great JuJu of the Mountain ?
This is what I do not understand about religion, you all claim to be right but fail to understand your "God's" story is just a reboot of another culture's story.
Here is a list of God's/Deities who pre-date Jesus but have very similar storys:
I believe in God.
My beliefs are if you believe in the whole big bang then surly you have to at least have a thought that God could exists in some form.
The big bang was cause by atoms/heat but where did those atoms came from? From nothing,just like what people might say about God.
Now in some ways I believe God is not omnipotent,god is omnipresent, god observes,god does not move the hand of everything that occurs on the Earth and every movement on Earth is not controlled by God. God is omnipresent,he is everywhere but he does not control the destiny of every individual. Otherwise we are robots,and let me tell you we are not puppets.
On why,I just do. Though what strengthen my faith on God is what happen to my Uncle and what he said on his death bed. I won't go into details about it.
No. An assumption is when you give justification for a belief without any reason to. Ignorance is the tool by which people give justification to beliefs without any reason to. If you don't know anything about a subject, yet you make claims about it, those claims are all assumptions you're making from ignorance. If a person DOES have knowledge of a subject, then they don't need to make any assumptions. They can speak from a position of authority and have a good reason to justify any claims they make.
Assumptions, by definition, require ignorance.
You're over-analyzing an attempt to further a debate, but alright.
Throughout this entire thread you've been giving arguments to either a) disprove pro-theistic claims, or b) to further atheistic claims.
It's obvious that you haven't read any of my previous posts, in which I explain the differences between theism and atheism. Nowhere have I 'over analyzed' anything, and it's obvious at this point you're just spewing big words just to appear intelligent.
Theism is making the claim 'there is a god, who is responsible for all existence. That god is a personal god who loves me and cares about my existence.' These are positive claims that require the burden of proof.
Atheism is not making any claims about God. Instead, it is simply a statement saying 'I don't believe the claims of theism.' It arrives at this position based on the premise that theism HAS NOT met its burden of proof.
At such a time when theism HAS met it's burden of proof, that's when the position of atheism would become one of ignorance and assumptions, if it persisted. However, many atheists would become theists if there was such evidence to support it.
At no time during this entire discussion have you taken a neutral stand point, which is fine and dandy since you're participating in a discussion, but that does not make my point any less relevant.
Atheism IS a neutral standpoint. Its a position of reason in which a person does not assert belief in theistic claims. It's no different than any other neutral position. If we were talking about belief in Santa Claus, the neutral position is to NOT believe in Santa.
To be a Theist is, by definition, to be a believer. Naturally, there's a difference between 'knowing' and believing, but the assumption that God is real and the belief of so is the fundamental pillar of Theism. Thus, my point. The same applies to Atheism, merely with non-belief.
This is not true. Your understanding of atheism is so tragically skewed it's not funny. All the label 'atheism' signifies, is that a person DOES NOT believe theistic claims. That's it. Some atheists take a position where they assert that they know there is no god, which is called gnostic atheism.
Most intelligent atheists would not make such an assertion, leaving open the possibility of a god, simply because there is no evidence to prove otherwise. This position is called agnostic atheism. This is why it's important to discuss what you believe and why. It does absolutely zero good debating this subject without first taking a position on the subject.
Indeed. Exhanging knowledge, thoughts and beliefs ^^
However, your discussion has become circular. It repeats itself over and over. I attempted to move the discussion somewhere, which, obviously, was a mistake on my part, it seems.
Furthermore, a discussion can be the very thing that changes ones beliefs and viewpoints. You enter a discussion with a set of viepoints and beliefs and the arguments to back them up, but you might not leave with the same set, which is why the discussion has to evolve, which is what it's being prevented from doing.
Explain how my discussion is circular. No where have I used any circular logic or reasoning. Instead, I've only clarified the position of atheism, and explained that the position of theism is one that is lacking evidence.
Oh I'm terribly sorry, I shouldn't have referred to the God of the Christian majority here.
Now you're just arguing for the sake of the argument itself. A comfort-zone, perhaps?
You can refer to whatever god you want to. The reason why it's important to clarify which one, is because you really could just be claiming that your god is a banana, and I would be dumb to argue any of your claims from that point on.
I'm not going to assume you are talking about the Christian god or which denomination you are going to be speaking from. I try not to assume anything, as that is a position from ignorance.
Then I'm sure you understand why Theists are Theists, right? You know why, you've heard all their arguments before. You understand, right?
You understand the burning hatred of someone left behind, right? You've seen the video's, heard the stories. You understand, right?
You understand how it feels to be tortured, right? You've read about the methods, seen the documentaries. You understand, right?
Bull-... (and excuse my French) shit.
What does this have to do with anything? My point is that understanding is a position based on knowledge. You can believe anything you want to about something, but you can only understand it once you have factual knowledge. Otherwise, it would be a false understanding.
Or Russell's Teapot, but I'm pretty sure you have a hunch.
Again, you're missing the point. If we are discussing the existence of god, and your idea of god is a banana, then what good would it do me to argue against it's existence? I can verify that the banana exists, and I can even eat it, just to be 100% positive that it's real.
This is why it's important to distinguish which god/religion you're talking about. It would be a waste of time for me to argue against the existence of your banana god. I could just as easily eat him then shit him out the next day.
Lastly, Russel's Teapot is a perfect example of atheism. There very well could be a teapot orbiting the moon. However, until such evidence of a teapot is discovered, I don't believe that it's true.
Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you o_o
Your definitions of knowledge and assumptions are so terribly, terribly skewed. Really now, Atheism is a neutral standpoint? Again, do you not know what neutral is?
