ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Other General Discussion => Topic started by: Respect on May 18, 2011, 07:57:19 pm
-
Hi, i was watching this video on youtube the otherday, and it was quiet instresting, saying that Muhammed was mentioned in the bible and the torah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czwkw8cbjT0
Anyone care to discuss this...?
-
not really no
-
Yes, he was. Didn't you know that?
-
Yes, he was. Didn't you know that?
ohh, then so i mean Jews and Christians why don't they believe in him as a prophet?
-
Yes, he was. Didn't you know that?
ohh, then so i mean Jews and Christians why don't they believe in him as a prophet?
I think that depends on whom you are talking to...
-
Hi, i was watching this video on youtube the otherday, and it was quiet instresting, saying that Muhammed was mentioned in the bible and the torah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czwkw8cbjT0
Anyone care to discuss this...?
Lol at 8.06-10.00 and that music... :o
-
khaled yasin's short talk is the best in that clip, describes the character of the prophet
-
Yes, he was. Didn't you know that?
ohh, then so i mean Jews and Christians why don't they believe in him as a prophet?
Do you think the original books still exist?
-
Yes, he was. Didn't you know that?
ohh, then so i mean Jews and Christians why don't they believe in him as a prophet?
Do you think the original books still exist?
The original books, you mean the first torah and the first bible. probably not. But the first Quran still exists since and its exactly the same. The Quran doesn't have a split letter different to the original, its never been changed or anything.
Muslim's believe that the torah and the bible are not the original and have been changed.
Also if anyone can make this more clear to me... In christianity, Allah is god, and Jeasus is a prophet, or the son of God, and if he is the son, wouldn't it mean that Mary is his mother? Or is he not the son of God. Or is Jeasus God.
And in Judaism, its Allah is God, and Moses and Soleomon were prophets.?
^ Sorry just a little confused.
-
What I understand:
In Christianity:
-catholic: you believe in the trinity. So god is three: the holy spirit, the father & jesus
-orthodox: Jesus is the son of God
And you are right with Judaism, they just call Allah 'hashem' or something like that.
-
I have a question.
Why do Muslims believe in the second coming of Jesus?
I thought that Mohammed was the last prophet. If there was a second coming of Jesus, wouldn't this mean that Jesus is the last prophet for humanity and not Mohammed?
-
Jesus came before Muhammed.
What we mean by Muhammed being the 'last' prophet is that no other ( new) prophet will be coming. He is known to be the seal of the prophets.
Jesus will come towards end of the time, and this is one of the signs of hour. We believe he will come and fight the anti-christ and bring back justice on this earth.
-
He will come as a man, not as a Prophet
-
He will come as a man, not as a Prophet
Yes that's right, any other questions your unsure with? :)
In addition to what they said, also you need to remember that we believe that Jeasus did not die and was not crucified but another man was, and jeasus's sole was raised up by God. Hence he is not yet dead. .. Althou Muhammed passed away.
-
He will come as a man, not as a Prophet
I don't get it..what do you mean?
>1000's post<
-
He will come as a man, not as a Prophet
I don't get it..what do you mean?
>1000's post<
he means the jeasus(AS) will not come and say im the last prophet...
-
Yes that's right, any other questions your unsure with? :)
Yes I do.
Is it true that Muslims believe that of all the descendents of Adam who have ever lived and existed, 99 out of every 100 will go to Hell in the Afterlife?
And for the sake of argument hypothetically, let’s say that you’re right, that the one and only Abrahamic God (no trinity) somehow really does exist and that somehow Islam is the one true religion and that the Bible had originally been the word of God however that it got corrupted over time. If this is really the case why do you think He would let so many people go astray? How is this fair?
I know many good people on ATARnotes who donate to charity and live their life through helping people, why should they be denied the privilege of going to Heaven? And furthermore why is it so important to believe in the existence of God and the legitimacy of the prophet Mohammed? How do you know he wasn’t just a regular person and was just lying about all this stuff (no offence)?
-
Yes that's right, any other questions your unsure with? :)
Yes I do.
Is it true that Muslims believe that of all the descendents of Adam who have ever lived and existed, 99 out of every 100 will go to Hell in the Afterlife?
And for the sake of argument hypothetically, let’s say that you’re right, that the one and only Abrahamic God (no trinity) somehow really does exist and that somehow Islam is the one true religion and that the Bible had originally been the word of God however that it got corrupted over time. If this is really the case why do you think He would let so many people go astray? How is this fair?
I know many good people on ATARnotes who donate to charity and live their life through helping people, why should they be denied the privilege of going to Heaven? And furthermore why is it so important to believe in the existence of God and the legitimacy of the prophet Mohammed? How do you know he wasn’t just a regular person and was just lying about all this stuff (no offence)?
Good question :).
Well as a muslim i cant really judge who goes hell and who goes heaven. But if you deny the exsistance of the creator then I think you'd be going to hell. But I mean honestly, how can someone deny the exsistance of the creator, how'd we all come into exsistance ..say big bang for example.. then how was everything designed, who made the first particle..
so u agree theirs a creator. right.
Also u said about the people some being good people and going to hell ... well i can't really tell u, its unclear.. but some people are going to hell and others to heaven depending on their actions what they did, etc... btw i'm referring this in the sence that people believe in god, such as a relijion like judaism or christainity, and practice their relijion and pray and give charity etc... but people who deny the exsistance of god, its hard to say what happens to them, but i presume hell.
No one is denyied the prevalge of going to heaven, except the ignorant, i've told some aethist freinds of mine,.."dude believe in one god".. but they dont want to, they think they'll die and it all ends.. (ofcouse not..theirs something after death, then whats the point of this life?) .. muslims believe that this life is to worship god, and to be good to people etc.. (terrorism is nothing to do with islam... its just incorrect interpretation of verses of quotes from the prophet and the several quran verses)
And about ur last point that Muhammed was a regular person, well their were signs of prophethood in him.. the first of this was the book the quran, it was written in such a complex arabic scripture that everyone at the time knew it was not something a human could do. for more visit ; http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=61
^ he also had several miracles...
also i want to ask u som questions; tell me
if god doesnt exsist, how designed the universe, a plant, photothensis's, how our body works etc...
why are we living now?... for what purpose?
what happens when we die?
would someone who killed hundreds thousands if not millions like hitler or saddam, or osama, go to heaven (i'd say unfair)
i'm actually happy ur discussing this with me :) .. i like to see people interested more in the truth.
also, if theirs a relijion better than islam, please tell me, interested to check it out.
-
But I mean honestly, how can someone deny the exsistance of the creator, how'd we all come into exsistance ..say big bang for example.. then how was everything designed, who made the first particle..
so u agree theirs a creator. right.
If the Big Bang requires a designer, then by the same logic, the 'creator' must also come from somewhere/someone. Who created the creator?
And since you are going to respond with 'the creator doesn't need to be created', the big bang doesn't necessarily need to be created either. It is after all just another theory, a kind of 'scientific faith' if you must put a religious spin to it.
if god doesnt exsist, how designed the universe, a plant, photothensis's, how our body works etc...
Natural selection. Darwinism. Examples can be seen in everyday life. We used to throw sticks a few thousand years ago. These days we run around with billions of transistors in our pockets. Technology, like biological life, simply evolves.
why are we living now?... for what purpose?
Existence doesn't imply purpose. Our existence, just like that fly I squashed, may be equally purposeless. Why does it matter?
what happens when we die?
Our material body stops functioning, and chemistry signals stop in our brain. What happens when you turn off a computer? (it just stops, nothing special)
-
Yes that's right, any other questions your unsure with? :)
Yes I do.
Is it true that Muslims believe that of all the descendents of Adam who have ever lived and existed, 99 out of every 100 will go to Hell in the Afterlife?
And for the sake of argument hypothetically, let’s say that you’re right, that the one and only Abrahamic God (no trinity) somehow really does exist and that somehow Islam is the one true religion and that the Bible had originally been the word of God however that it got corrupted over time. If this is really the case why do you think He would let so many people go astray? How is this fair?
I know many good people on ATARnotes who donate to charity and live their life through helping people, why should they be denied the privilege of going to Heaven? And furthermore why is it so important to believe in the existence of God and the legitimacy of the prophet Mohammed? How do you know he wasn’t just a regular person and was just lying about all this stuff (no offence)?
Good question :).
Well as a muslim i cant really judge who goes hell and who goes heaven. But if you deny the exsistance of the creator then I think you'd be going to hell. But I mean honestly, how can someone deny the exsistance of the creator, how'd we all come into exsistance ..say big bang for example.. then how was everything designed, who made the first particle..
so u agree theirs a creator. right.
Also u said about the people some being good people and going to hell ... well i can't really tell u, its unclear.. but some people are going to hell and others to heaven depending on their actions what they did, etc... btw i'm referring this in the sence that people believe in god, such as a relijion like judaism or christainity, and practice their relijion and pray and give charity etc... but people who deny the exsistance of god, its hard to say what happens to them, but i presume hell.
No one is denyied the prevalge of going to heaven, except the ignorant, i've told some aethist freinds of mine,.."dude believe in one god".. but they dont want to, they think they'll die and it all ends.. (ofcouse not..theirs something after death, then whats the point of this life?) .. muslims believe that this life is to worship god, and to be good to people etc.. (terrorism is nothing to do with islam... its just incorrect interpretation of verses of quotes from the prophet and the several quran verses)
And about ur last point that Muhammed was a regular person, well their were signs of prophethood in him.. the first of this was the book the quran, it was written in such a complex arabic scripture that everyone at the time knew it was not something a human could do. for more visit ; http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=61
^ he also had several miracles...
also i want to ask u som questions; tell me
if god doesnt exsist, how designed the universe, a plant, photothensis's, how our body works etc...
why are we living now?... for what purpose?
what happens when we die?
would someone who killed hundreds thousands if not millions like hitler or saddam, or osama, go to heaven (i'd say unfair)
i'm actually happy ur discussing this with me :) .. i like to see people interested more in the truth.
also, if theirs a relijion better than islam, please tell me, interested to check it out.
I'm of the belief that God wouldn't care how much time you spend praying in "x" religion regardless of which form he manifests, because think about this realistically - the majority of people are born into a religion and only believe in it because of their upbringing. I could've been a devout Hindu had I been born into that family, so surely God wouldn't make such a heavy decision on whether or not a person will ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY based on something that is so much chance? If you're saying the ignorant go to hell, than you're saying a good person who has done good things all his or her life will go to hell just because they're an atheist, which I think is just plain wrong.
Therefore religion doesn't matter, whether or not you're atheist wouldn't matter, it all comes down to living a good life and being a good person. That's of course assuming there is a God in the way we believe he shows himself, which I don't even think is probable.
A religion better than Islam? Pretty ignorant question tbh. No religion is "better" than another, they're all ways for people to find meaning in their lives... I suppose the only "bad" examples of religion would be the fundamentalist strains, such as Extremist Islam and Evangelical Christians - but I'm still hesitant to use the term 'worse' as they're both really just examples of humanity's ability to become more and more retarded, regardless of religion or not.
If you really want an awesome religion though... http://www.venganza.org/
-
Yeah, they're all just fairytales, anyway. Stop worrying about god and go and enjoy your lives! You'll be all the better for it. :)
-
Yeah, they're all just fairytales, anyway. Stop worrying about god and go and enjoy your lives! You'll be all the better for it. :)
Hey, enwiabe, are you an atheist?
-
Yeah, they're all just fairytales, anyway. Stop worrying about god and go and enjoy your lives! You'll be all the better for it. :)
Hey, enwiabe, are you an atheist?
Yep, and proud of it :)
-
^ Thought you were an agnostic...
-
^ Thought you were an agnostic...
Agnostic is a very ambiguous term. I'd be more accurately described as an agnostic atheist. I certainly don't actively believe in any of the pitiful fairy stories of the theistic religions going around today, but I won't discount the possibility that there is -a- god because we haven't yet discovered the answer to our origins.
In the absence of a clear cut answer, however, I refuse to guess.
-
Hi, i was watching this video on youtube the otherday, and it was quiet instresting, saying that Muhammed was mentioned in the bible and the torah.
I'm not sure why this should matter all that much.
A large proportion of the world is neither Christian nor Jewish.
This kind of statement would mean nothing to the 1 billion Hindu's, the 500 million Buddhists, the 30 million sihks (which is roughly double the number of Jewish people in the world), ect.
how can someone deny the exsistance of the creator, how'd we all come into existence ..Say big bang for example.. then how was everything designed, who made the first particle..
There are other many reasonable laws to explain how we got here. Comparative religion and religion in general is one of my other interests so I’m well versed in many of the arguments from both sides and the theology of the major world religions. I'd just like to say if you follow that logic, that everything was designed and it must of been because it is so perfect, why do things exhibit poor design?
We have no major discovered need for our appendix and yet it is there. If god is all powerful (Omnipotent) surely he could of made our body function without an organ like this. Another example is the certain thing women go through every month, in many other animals this happens internally and causes much less problems. Why do some people have genetic diseases or poorer eyesight than others, surely these things could of been perfectly designed around by an omnipotent being.
I would also like to point out the fact that, yes, maybe someone did "need to make the first particle". However, it is just as logical to assume many gods (Pantheon) could of also done this, so this doesn't really serve as proof for any of the particular Abrahamic faiths of one god and one only (Monotheism).
No one is denyied the prevalge of going to heaven, except the ignorant, i've told some aethist freinds of mine,..
I think the Qur’an suggests only those who have heard about Islam and still rejected it go to hell (Jahannam). That said it is a little unfair, Islam has a conception of a particular sin called "Shirk" or worshiping many gods (eg. Being a polytheism, like most modern Hindus). As far as I am aware, while, if you are a bad Muslim it might be possible to get out of "hell" eventually, the polytheists are doomed to stay in hell forever. In some particular sources i have read it is said that this is the one sin that not even god can forgive. I think this is a product of the time when Islam was revealed. During the period when the Quran was "revealed" or some say just written by humans, Muhammad and his people were at war with the polytheists of the local area of Mecca. Read into it what you will..
-
Yeah, they're all just fairytales, anyway. Stop worrying about god and go and enjoy your lives! You'll be all the better for it. :)
Enwiabe, a very foolish comment to make considering you are held in high regards within the atar notes community.
-
If god is all powerful (Omnipotent) surely he could of made our body function without an organ like this.
Heys, We believe in a God that does as He pleases. Your questioning of "if" kind of implies that He is not able to do it, which is not true, God can create us utterly perfect or utterly deficient, such power is only to Him.
Another example is the certain thing women go through every month, in many other animals this happens internally and causes much less problems. Why do some people have genetic diseases or poorer eyesight than others, surely these things could of been perfectly designed around by an omnipotent being.
Of course these things could be designed by the Omnipotent Being! You are missing the point-all these things contain wisdoms in it which sometimes we humans will never understand or realise, or even concealed as it's a test/trial that humans can face-why is there suffering? why do innocent people die? How come I'm Asian, and he's European??
All these, and the questions you set, are all from the wisdom of God..it's up to you to accept it or not.
I would also like to point out the fact that, yes, maybe someone did "need to make the first particle". However, it is just as logical to assume many gods (Pantheon) could of also done this, so this doesn't really serve as proof for any of the particular Abrahamic faiths of one god and one only (Monotheism).
I have no idea of this "pantheon" but if he is an idol or a human then you know it wasn't him..( and I don't want to get into this debate about whether God is human or not)
[/quote]
I think the Qur’an suggests only those who have heard about Islam and still rejected it go to hell (Jahannam). That said it is a little unfair, Islam has a conception of a particular sin called "Shirk" or worshiping many gods (eg. Being a polytheism, like most modern Hindus). As far as I am aware, while, if you are a bad Muslim it might be possible to get out of "hell" eventually, the polytheists are doomed to stay in hell forever. In some particular sources i have read it is said that this is the one sin that not even god can forgive. I think this is a product of the time when Islam was revealed. During the period when the Quran was "revealed" or some say just written by humans, Muhammad and his people were at war with the polytheists of the local area of Mecca. Read into it what you will..
Wouldn't that signify weakness? Wouldn't that contradict What is Islam is teaching?
God can forgive, however chose not to forgive those who die on "Shirk"
Anyway, it's not really up to you or any other human to say what's fair or not, if the Verdict is from The Creator, for God is all Just and all Fair, and this in itself, is the teaching of the Quran.
I really don't know what's your belief and I know that you will disagree with me, but at the end of the day, I have my belief and you have yours.
-
But I mean honestly, how can someone deny the exsistance of the creator, how'd we all come into exsistance ..say big bang for example.. then how was everything designed, who made the first particle..
so u agree theirs a creator. right.
If the Big Bang requires a designer, then by the same logic, the 'creator' must also come from somewhere/someone. Who created the creator?
And since you are going to respond with 'the creator doesn't need to be created', the big bang doesn't necessarily need to be created either. It is after all just another theory, a kind of 'scientific faith' if you must put a religious spin to it.
if god doesnt exsist, how designed the universe, a plant, photothensis's, how our body works etc...
Natural selection. Darwinism. Examples can be seen in everyday life. We used to throw sticks a few thousand years ago. These days we run around with billions of transistors in our pockets. Technology, like biological life, simply evolves.
why are we living now?... for what purpose?
Existence doesn't imply purpose. Our existence, just like that fly I squashed, may be equally purposeless. Why does it matter?
what happens when we die?
Our material body stops functioning, and chemistry signals stop in our brain. What happens when you turn off a computer? (it just stops, nothing special)
Mao, a religious debate is no place for logical and reasonable arguments :P
-
Discussing religion with religious people is such a frustrating exercise, urgh. We really should try avoid these threads, it really never ends well.
-
Yeah, they're all just fairytales, anyway. Stop worrying about god and go and enjoy your lives! You'll be all the better for it. :)
Enwiabe, a very foolish comment to make considering you are held in high regards within the atar notes community.
It is precisely because I hold respect that I feel a moral imperative to try and shake as many students as possible from the poisonous brainwashing of religion.
-
rofl.
-
everything was designed and it must of been because it is so perfect, why do things exhibit poor design?
We have no major discovered need for our appendix and yet it is there. If god is all powerful (Omnipotent) surely he could of made our body function without an organ like this. Another example is the certain thing women go through every month, in many other animals this happens internally and causes much less problems. Why do some people have genetic diseases or poorer eyesight than others, surely these things could of been perfectly designed around by an omnipotent being.
I have a $20 watch. Someone else has a $20,000 Cartier. They both function and they were both designed, but neither is perfect or optimal. I'm not particularly religious but it seems perfectly feasible that god didn't create the perfect specimen.
And if we want to talk menstruation, it has protective benefits that offset the annoyance.
-
And if we want to talk menstruation, it has protective benefits that offset the annoyance.
Please expand on these benefits
*shakes fist at nature*
-
I have a $20 watch. Someone else has a $20,000 Cartier. They both function and they were both designed, but neither is perfect or optimal. I'm not particularly religious but it seems perfectly feasible that god didn't create the perfect specimen.
The cartier costs that much for other reasons, you're paying for the name and to be a wanker with an expensive watch :p
It isn't 20k more expensive because it is designed heaps better. All watches as far as im aware work on some basic principals with gears and things like that. I think the extra cost is probably because of the name and maybe its made out of 20k gold. All i'm arguing is you can't say everything is perfectly designed by god when it clearly isn't.
-
Heys, We believe in a God that does as He pleases. Your questioning of "if" kind of implies that He is not able to do it, which is not true, God can create us utterly perfect or utterly deficient, such power is only to Him.
Why did he leave useless things in there like the appendix then or male nipples? Surely an omnipotent being could of done a little better? I wasn't saying god couldn't design things, it was more aimed at respects comment that everything is perfectly designed. If you're saying god did/can create flawed things then i agree with you. Sort of like the Demiurge deity of the gnostics is an imperfect god created by another god.
Of course these things could be designed by the Omnipotent Being! You are missing the point-all these things contain wisdoms in it which sometimes we humans will never understand or realise, or even concealed as it's a test/trial that humans can face-why is there suffering? why do innocent people die? How come I'm Asian, and he's European??
I don't really understand what you're saying here, maybe you need to rephrase it. Are you saying sickness and suffering is a test from god? I doubt a 2 Year old with leukemia who dies at 2 and a half really needs their morals or ethics tested by God. You could say its to test the parents but how cruel is it to bring a life into the world and destroy it, to only test the parents, not really showing much regard for the suffering of the child.
Suffering is also a test from God? What about if a child was brutally raped and murdered? Surely God could of prevented that if he willed, So, Why wouldn't he? Things like this happen all the time and he doesn't stop them. The child who was murdered was too young to need to be tested, they can't even think coherently yet and wouldn't be considered an adult Islamically.
You could argue maybe its to test if the Rapist would do it on his on free will and send him to hell later for it. Murdering the child denies the child of its free will though, why would god allow the destruction of one persons free will and life to simply test another's? If god is omnipotent he would surely know what that rapist would of done before he even does it anyway. He would also know what he is thinking and will think, so there is no need to let this poor child to be abused in such a way so he can just 'test' someone.
I have no idea of this "pantheon" but if he is an idol or a human then you know it wasn't him..( and I don't want to get into this debate about whether God is human or not)
Pantheon is a greek word for a collection of many god acting together. It is just as logical to assume 5 gods created the universe working together or sharing the same will as one god created it. So, yes, while respect argues, there must be *a god* everything is so perfectly designed, 5 gods could of also easily done that. That isn't really an argument for monotheistic religions or an argument in favor of islam. It's an argument in favor of almost every religion out there...Including pagans and polytheists who worship multiple gods....
You don't need to get into a debate. I understand in Islamic theology that god is incorperal (lacking a body).
Wouldn't that signify weakness? Wouldn't that contradict What is Islam is teaching?
God can forgive, however chose not to forgive those who die on "Shirk"
It wouldn't signify weakness, it would signify mercy, compassion and forgiveness. Why is such a mystical and powerful being so arrogant in the fact that the amount of punishment or sin he hands out is based on how different the particular religion a person was born into happens to be from Islam? It's not the persons fault he was born as a Hindu and worshiped multiple gods and yet he punishes someone who believed in one god (Satan,Thor,Zeus,etc) less than them? How is this fair? This person was just unlucky enough to been born there.
I'm agnostic i guess you'd say.
-
And if we want to talk menstruation, it has protective benefits that offset the annoyance.
Please expand on these benefits
*shakes fist at nature*
The only two I know are that it helps to remove bacteria and the loss of iron in the blood delays the ageing process/other diseases.
Whether or not that's worth the annoyance is probably not up to me to say though :P
-
Why did he leave useless things in there like the appendix then or male nipples? Surely an omnipotent being could of done a little better? I wasn't saying god couldn't design things, it was more aimed at respects comment that everything is perfectly designed. If you're saying god did/can create flawed things then i agree with you. Sort of like the Demiurge deity of the gnostics is an imperfect god created by another god.
Nothing that God created is useless, that's just your personal opinion. He creates/designs things in a manner which He likes. And Yes, God does create things-biggest proof of that is the human being, the human is flawed, and is not perfect. Like I said before, God can create something flawed or something perfect, all is in His wisdom for doing it.
I don't really understand what you're saying here, maybe you need to rephrase it. Are you saying sickness and suffering is a test from god? I doubt a 2 Year old with leukemia who dies at 2 and a half really needs their morals or ethics tested by God. You could say its to test the parents but how cruel is it to bring a life into the world and destroy it, to only test the parents, not really showing much regard for the suffering of the child.
I don't need to rephrase it, you understood my point.
Do you know that God is the most loving and loves that dear child ( in your example) more than it's own parents? So you cannot say it's cruel. the child suffering from leukemia is sent by God with obvious wisdom behind it, of course, it could be a test from God towards the parents, their patience, maybe it was this very child's sickness that caused their parents to be brought back to together after constant arguments, maybe this child's sickness will inspire the doctors to find a cure and cure the many thousands that have the disease?
And anyway, this child will be raised in paradise for they are still innocent. And no, God doesn't need to test the ethics or a two year old child, such thing only happens in puberty-where they are sound and are able to make decisions by themselves.
Suffering is also a test from God? What about if a child was brutally raped and murdered? Surely God could of prevented that if he willed, So, Why wouldn't he? Things like this happen all the time and he doesn't stop them. The child who was murdered was too young to need to be tested, they can't even think coherently yet and wouldn't be considered an adult Islamically.
You could argue maybe its to test if the Rapist would do it on his on free will and send him to hell later for it. Murdering the child denies the child of its free will though, why would god allow the destruction of one persons free will and life to simply test another's? If god is omnipotent he would surely know what that rapist would of done before he even does it anyway. He would also know what he is thinking and will think, so there is no need to let this poor child to be abused in such a way so he can just 'test' someone.
Yes suffering is a test from God and is a expiation of sins. In some ways, it can be a mercy, but we may not know it.
This is why we have our Justice system ( talking about Islamically) to take care of the evils that is done to kids, whether it's rape, murder or theft.
Ofcourse God would know the rapist's intentions, God knows both the past and the present, both the future and our inner selves. What we think, how we think, what's going to happen tomorrow and so forth.
I don't really understand what your trying to say, are you saying that He shouldn't allow this child to be raped ( even though He knew he was going to be) just to 'test' him?
You do know that God has forbidden rape from the first place, and warns that if someone was to do such act he will have to suffer the consequences, this child is considered innocent. If someone was in that position ( not a child, but whoever) His/her test will be to keep patient and have their faith in Allah, for the humiliation they are in ( though they are innocent). And they are rewarded for that.
It wouldn't signify weakness, it would signify mercy, compassion and forgiveness. Why is such a mystical and powerful being so arrogant in the fact that the amount of punishment or sin he hands out is based on how different the particular religion a person was born into happens to be from Islam? It's not the persons fault he was born as a Hindu and worshiped multiple gods and yet he punishes someone who believed in one god (Satan,Thor,Zeus,etc) less than them? How is this fair? This person was just unlucky enough to been born there.
I'm agnostic i guess you'd say.
Signify Mercy, compassion and forgiveness for God choosing not to forgive those who die on shirk? No, that's justice. And everything what God lays out is Justice. They are attributing false Gods to Him, what can be more insulting than that?
God has all those attributes, Merciful, compassionate, forgiving, for He is known to be The Most Forgiving, the Most Merciful, the Most Kind, all these are part of His 99 names and attributes ( search more on them) and also one of His names is the All Just..
People have Intelligence. They have sound minds to clearly see the wrong and the right. Man-made religion cannot be sound, for it is made by someone who is flawed and bound to have flaws in the religion. But not divine law-because it comes from the Flawless.
That means people should question their faith. Everyone at some point in time has to make a conscience decision of what religion they choose to follow, not just because their forefathers followed a particular religion.
That is why there are many converts to Islam, from a wide spectrum of people. Those who Islam wasn't exposed to at all will be given a chance in the next life, and they will have to make a choice there. Know that your Lord is always Just.
-
Stupid question:
Assuming that God is all powerful and all loving and all that, why does he even care who worships him? Why is worship even necessary? Furthermore, are there any good reasons as to why people are punished for not believing?
Because at this present moment, the most plausible explanation I have found is that different religious leaders like playing monopoly with each other.
-
Because at this present moment, the most plausible explanation I have found is that different religious leaders like playing monopoly with each other.
Agree; I have no problem with religion but I have plenty of problems with organized religion.
-
Stupid question:
Assuming that God is all powerful and all loving and all that, why does he even care who worships him? Why is worship even necessary? Furthermore, are there any good reasons as to why people are punished for not believing?
Because at this present moment, the most plausible explanation I have found is that different religious leaders like playing monopoly with each other.
It's not a stupid question.
That's a good question, Does God care if we worship Him? I'll tell you what, I don't really know. I know that God does not need our worship, it won't lessen or increase His power, but worship is for our own good. We need Him, it is a way of communicating with God with your needs-and you are always needy.
Good reasons for being punished for not believing..you are, in a way, disbelieving in your Creator who has created you and gave you what you did not have and taught you what you did not know, And this very moment, you are alive, breathing and that is from His blessings upon you, and many more, so doesn't He deserve your obedience?
Anyway, God always gives a warning before He takes on punishment, because He would want the better for us.
I don't understand your last comment. Elaborate?
-
Good reasons for being punished for not believing..you are, in a way, disbelieving in your Creator who has created you and gave you what you did not have and taught you what you did not know, And this very moment, you are alive, breathing and that is from His blessings upon you, and many more, so doesn't He deserve your obedience?
Anyway, God always gives a warning before He takes on punishment, because He would want the better for us.
So God punishes disbelievers because he is vengeful and jealous? That doesn't sound right for an all powerful being.
What I mean by my last comment is that if God is all benevolent and all powerful as religion(s) claims, then the threat of punishment is nothing but fear-mongering to give religious leaders power over people. All brainwashing.
-
Random question; if Muslim men become suicide terrorists up for 72 virgins, what do some Muslim women become suicide terrorists for?
-
Random question; if Muslim men become suicide terrorists up for 72 virgins, what do some Muslim women become suicide terrorists for?
there is such a thing as male virgins :D
-
Random question; if Muslim men become suicide terrorists up for 72 virgins, what do some Muslim women become suicide terrorists for?
there is such a thing as male virgins :D
if they wanted male virgins they could have made a world of warcraft account instead :p
besides from being beheaded for showing a little skin to having your own virgins doesn't sound very reasonable.
-
Assuming that God is all powerful and all loving and all that, why does he even care who worships him? Why is worship even necessary? Furthermore, are there any good reasons as to why people are punished for not believing?
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
-
Agree; I have no problem with religion but I have plenty of problems with organized religion.
Deism might be your thing then.
-
Assuming that God is all powerful and all loving and all that, why does he even care who worships him? Why is worship even necessary? Furthermore, are there any good reasons as to why people are punished for not believing?
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
If God loved the world so much, why not give everyone eternal life?
-
There is a difference between eternal life and immortality.
Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected being. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, EVERYONE will receive this gift.
Eternal life is the phrase used in scripture to define the quality of life that our Eternal Father lives. Eternal life, or exaltation, is to live in God's presence and to continue as families. Like immortality, this gift is made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. However, to inherit eternal life requires our “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”
God never sends anyone to hell. People send themselves to hell if they do not believe the word of the Lord.
(I'm not trying to start a religious debate - I'm just answering some questions. I'm not the type of person who forces others to agree with me. I respect all beliefs).
-
God never sends anyone to hell. People send themselves to hell if they do not believe the word of the Lord.
That's a pretty thin argument for an omnipotent being.
Deism might be your thing then.
Yeah, Spiritual Deism. I flirted with Buddhism but it's not something I spend much time worrying about, so that was all.
-
As I've previously mentioned I don't want this turning into a "does God exist" debate. I can sit here for hours and preach the scripture but honestly I wouldn't expect anyone to change their mind.
I'm willing to discuss small things such as the OPs post though.
-
You might have misunderstood me, I wasn't attacking the existence of/the power of God. I was just saying that if he has the power to save people from hell, then he is sending them there by not doing so.
-
You might have misunderstood me, I wasn't attacking the existence of/the power of God. I was just saying that if he has the power to save people from hell, then he is sending them there by not doing so.
I see your argument and I understand the viewpoint. I guess it's kind of hard to explain without reading the scriptures. God is the creator of life and He has provided us with the opportunity to enter his kingdom. We were supposed to be a certain way, but then when The devil tempted adam and eve with the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he realized that we couldn't be the way he had intended for us because sin is our natural nature.
God saved us with the crucifiction of Christ. It's your choice on whether you believe in Jesus.
-
God saved us with the crucifiction of Christ. It's your choice on whether you believe in Jesus.
Would like to add something here on the people 'saved' during the crusades, but I won't
-
Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected being. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, EVERYONE will receive this gift.
Everyone??! I don't want it! :\ you'd get sooooo bored living forever
-
Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected being. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, EVERYONE will receive this gift.
Everyone??! I don't want it! :\ you'd get sooooo bored living forever
But but, ENDLESS scientific knowledge!
Oh wait, wrong thread.
-
MJRomeo, you could preach scripture at us all day. But at the end of the day, it's just endless white noise and fairy stories. Show proof for such an absurd claim.
You've been brainwashed into believing your fairy stories by either your parents or your school or your pastor or perhaps all three. I feel for the damage that has been done to your critical thought processes (abandoning the need for evidence of such a ridiculous claim, you wouldn't believe anyone who told you that balancing a spoon on your nose for 2 hours a day would improve your eyesight unless they could show proof), but I invite you to investigate the utterly stunning improbability that a book written 2000 years ago when humanity was still breaking out from the savagery which encapsulated it for 100,000 years is the word of 'God', much less that 'God' exists. A book which condones slavery, says explicitly that women are not allowed to teach or hold authority over men, condones stoning homosexuals to death.
The list goes on. It's disgusting and abhorrent.
-
MJRomeo, how do you deal with all the contradictions in the Bible?
Have you looked at any of them?
Also, what makes you so sure that someone didn't just write the Bible and make the whole thing up?
How do you know that someone didn't? What makes you so sure and confident?
-
Have you looked at any of them?
Have you read the Bible? Or are you going off atheist fan pages who take things out of context?
Also, what makes you so sure that someone didn't just write the Bible and make the whole thing up?
How do you know that someone didn't? What makes you so sure and confident?
Once again, if you've actually read the Bible you would understand. Would you bad-mouth a text you have never read? Try reading it and you will find answers.
it's just endless white noise and fairy stories.
I thought Admins had more respect than that. Your statement is offensive and I doubt I'm not the only person offended when I read this. I don't go typing stuff like "you better believe son or i'll condemn you to hell!!!". Once again, I clearly said this is not the place to discuss the existence of God. So I am going to decline your invitation since your post is nothing more than an attempt to get me banned (I know you want me to go on a rant). Your mods probably had a cry in the carbon tax thread.
You've been brainwashed into believing your fairy stories by either your parents...
Highly offensive material. You must feel like a big man sitting behind the PC calling out my family like that...
you wouldn't believe anyone who told you that balancing a spoon on your nose for 2 hours a day would improve your eyesight unless they could show proof)
Poor analogy. You're a bright one aren't you. Keep embarrassing yourself. Moving along...
but I invite you to investigate the utterly stunning improbability
And evolution isn't an utterly stunning probability?
What's disgusting and abhorrent Daniel is your pathetic attempt to get me banned. I specifically stated I wasn't on ATAR Notes to discuss the existence of God and then I see you insulting my views and challenging me to a debate.
I couldn't give a damn if you have no faith. We all know how religious debates end. No one changes their mind and the guy with less power gets banned. Well I'm not gonna turn it into that.
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence. AN takes a zero-tolerance policy to such bigotry.
You dun' goofed.
-
Once again, if you've actually read the Bible you would understand. Would you bad-mouth a text you have never read? Try reading it and you will find answers.
Reading the bible is what turned me atheist. I would most definitely bad-mouth a text which tells me I'm inferior because I have a vagina, promotes incest, rape, murder, extreme bigotry and slavery, and expects people to mindlessly worship a vengeful, violent, jealous and heartless god.
Nobody is going to ban you for having an opinion. If you don't want to debate, then don't, but don't go making up excuses for it.
-
...but don't go making up excuses for it.
What excuses? Do you really think I can persuade you otherwise, and vice versa? That's what I'm saying. It's hardly an excuse. Fucking hilarious. Strong fail is fail.
Further reading: http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/does-the-bible-hate-women/
-
Look at the second google link: http://minglecity.com/profiles/blogs/does-the-bible-hate-women
-
You have to remember that in the New Testament (when Jesus was on Earth) things were different. Jesus came to make the world a better place. This is why we have an old and new testament. Back then the Bible reflected how women lived (men did EVERYTHING). Remember that the Bible was written by man. Jesus did treat women with equality and did many things that the men in his day would never have done.
Whether or not you believe in the Bible is one thing. Whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ is another. There are millions of people who couldn't care about the Bible. This comes down to you specifically believe.
So ninwa if reading the Bible turned you atheist (from that it sounds like you were previously religious/neutral), what are your opinions on religion besides the Bible (or besides the old testament)?
-
MJRomeo, you could preach scripture at us all day. But at the end of the day, it's just endless white noise and fairy stories. Show proof for such an absurd claim.
I'm not really trying to argue against you (kind of agnostic myself) but you can argue just as much that there is no "proof" for either side. You can't prove that God exists, yet you can't prove that he doesn't. I think in our scientific world we tend to only believe things that are based on logic and fact, which causes the "you must prove there is a God or it doesn't exist" mentality. Someone can interpret "proof" any way they like. Kind of relates to the court system of "innocent until proven guilty" way of thinking, where people must have no reasonable doubt of their guilt whatsoever to charge someone guilty. Doesn't mean they're not guilty.
I think a lot of people have that mentality, that God "doesn't exist until proven that he does" which means that for a person to believe they must have no doubt in their mind that he does exist. Which, in the world of spirituality, is pretty much impossible. Nearly all the religious people I know have some doubts or have had them.
Again, I'm not trying to start a war or anything, I just don't believe you can be as sure as you sound. Just saying.
Out of curiosity, what makes you so antagonistic towards religion?
-
Have you looked at any of them?
Have you read the Bible? Or are you going off atheist fan pages who take things out of context?
Also, what makes you so sure that someone didn't just write the Bible and make the whole thing up?
How do you know that someone didn't? What makes you so sure and confident?
Once again, if you've actually read the Bible you would understand. Would you bad-mouth a text you have never read? Try reading it and you will find answers.
it's just endless white noise and fairy stories.
I thought Admins had more respect than that. Your statement is offensive and I doubt I'm not the only person offended when I read this. I don't go typing stuff like "you better believe son or i'll condemn you to hell!!!". Once again, I clearly said this is not the place to discuss the existence of God. So I am going to decline your invitation since your post is nothing more than an attempt to get me banned (I know you want me to go on a rant). Your mods probably had a cry in the carbon tax thread.
You've been brainwashed into believing your fairy stories by either your parents...
Highly offensive material. You must feel like a big man sitting behind the PC calling out my family like that...
you wouldn't believe anyone who told you that balancing a spoon on your nose for 2 hours a day would improve your eyesight unless they could show proof)
Poor analogy. You're a bright one aren't you. Keep embarrassing yourself. Moving along...
but I invite you to investigate the utterly stunning improbability
And evolution isn't an utterly stunning probability?
What's disgusting and abhorrent Daniel is your pathetic attempt to get me banned. I specifically stated I wasn't on ATAR Notes to discuss the existence of God and then I see you insulting my views and challenging me to a debate.
I couldn't give a damn if you have no faith. We all know how religious debates end. No one changes their mind and the guy with less power gets banned. Well I'm not gonna turn it into that.
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence. AN takes a zero-tolerance policy to such bigotry.
You dun' goofed.
This post.
Don't mind me, just having a chuckle over 'ere.
(@Romeo, I suggest you google 'ad hominem' and 'straw-man', just quietly)
-
Again, I'm not trying to start a war or anything, I just don't believe you can be as sure as you sound. Just saying.
Been there, done that. enwiabe's faith in atheism is as strong as the next religious zealot. :P
-
Again, I'm not trying to start a war or anything, I just don't believe you can be as sure as you sound. Just saying.
Been there, done that. enwiabe's faith in atheism is as strong as the next religious zealot. :P
:o Enwiabe, please don't shoot me...
-
...but don't go making up excuses for it.
What excuses? Do you really think I can persuade you otherwise, and vice versa? That's what I'm saying. It's hardly an excuse. Fucking hilarious. Strong fail is fail.
Further reading: http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/does-the-bible-hate-women/
Speaking of fail, you completely missed my point. I was talking about how you were using "but you'll ban me!!!" as an excuse to dodge all the questions that were directed at you.
Also, if you want to throw links around, BOOM http://www.evilbible.com/
So ninwa if reading the Bible turned you atheist (from that it sounds like you were previously religious/neutral), what are your opinions on religion besides the Bible (or besides the old testament)?
I was strongly religious (my family isn't and never was, I had no idea of all the different denominations of Christianity, so for simplicity's sake I'll just say Christian). Enjoyed going to church, prayed every night, read the bible through several times, etc.
I think religion is a cancer which has only hindered scientific development, encouraged the inequality of gender/race/sexuality and the oppression of minorities, and propagated bigotry. I think it brings out the worst in people. There is no altruism under religion, because religious people do good deeds in the hope of it gaining them a ticket into heaven / gaining god's "love" and "forgiveness", rather than because it's a fucking good thing to do. I think the fact that I can do all the good in the world but because I haven't "accepted jesus", this cold-hearted "god" still sees fit to throw me into "hell" is a shit thing.
I don't know why you said "besides the old testament"?
I'm not really trying to argue against you (kind of agnostic myself) but you can argue just as much that there is no "proof" for either side. You can't prove that God exists, yet you can't prove that he doesn't. I think in our scientific world we tend to only believe things that are based on logic and fact, which causes the "you must prove there is a God or it doesn't exist" mentality. Someone can interpret "proof" any way they like. Kind of relates to the court system of "innocent until proven guilty" way of thinking, where people must have no reasonable doubt of their guilt whatsoever to charge someone guilty. Doesn't mean they're not guilty.
Sorry, but if you're going to bring up legal analogies then I have to mention this: the onus of proof is person who makes the positive assertion. Religious people say that god exists; the burden is upon them to prove them. Otherwise, I can assert anything - e.g. I believe there is a ball of talking yarn floating around 1,000,000 light years away in a pool of aeroplane jelly who controls everything we do, you can't prove me wrong therefore it exists and you're all wrong about this god man in the sky.
-
I'm not really trying to argue against you (kind of agnostic myself) but you can argue just as much that there is no "proof" for either side. You can't prove that God exists, yet you can't prove that he doesn't. I think in our scientific world we tend to only believe things that are based on logic and fact, which causes the "you must prove there is a God or it doesn't exist" mentality. Someone can interpret "proof" any way they like. Kind of relates to the court system of "innocent until proven guilty" way of thinking, where people must have no reasonable doubt of their guilt whatsoever to charge someone guilty. Doesn't mean they're not guilty.
Sorry, but if you're going to bring up legal analogies then I have to mention this: the onus of proof is person who makes the positive assertion. Religious people say that god exists; the burden is upon them to prove them. Otherwise, I can assert anything - e.g. I believe there is a ball of talking yarn floating around 1,000,000 light years away in a pool of aeroplane jelly who controls everything we do, you can't prove me wrong therefore it exists and you're all wrong about this god man in the sky.
If by a ball of talking yarn floating around 1,000,000 light years away in a pool of aeroplane jelly, you mean a teapot floating in solar orbit somewhere in between Earth and Mars, then yes, I agree :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
-
Well I didn't wanna rip him off :P also, aeroplane jelly is cooler.
Also religion debates are a waste of time so this will be my last post on this topic
-
Again, I'm not trying to start a war or anything, I just don't believe you can be as sure as you sound. Just saying.
Been there, done that. enwiabe's faith in atheism is as strong as the next religious zealot. :P
Atheism does not require faith. It is a rejection of faith. I do not believe nor disbelieve in god. I wait for the correct answer. I don't make some haphazard, uneducated guess, like religious people do. I search for the truth, and until that day comes, I will not commit to a side one way or the other.
I will, however, maintain a very firm skepticism of books written thousands of years ago by primitive humans purporting to be god.
-
it's just endless white noise and fairy stories.
I thought Admins had more respect than that. Your statement is offensive and I doubt I'm not the only person offended when I read this. I don't go typing stuff like "you better believe son or i'll condemn you to hell!!!". Once again, I clearly said this is not the place to discuss the existence of God. So I am going to decline your invitation since your post is nothing more than an attempt to get me banned (I know you want me to go on a rant). Your mods probably had a cry in the carbon tax thread.
I would never ban anybody for voicing an opinion. Hiding behind a straw man argument like "if I argue then you'll ban me" is just silly, and if I were to properly impugn your motives, a bit cowardly.
You've been brainwashed into believing your fairy stories by either your parents...
Highly offensive material. You must feel like a big man sitting behind the PC calling out my family like that...
I'd certainly say that to your face (unless you made it obvious that you were unable to handle such a criticism and were to physically retaliate). But that's not very Christian, now is it. You also haven't addressed what I meant by that statement, did you? Since before you could think for yourself, all your parents have told you is God this, God that. In your formative years, when you were so reliant on your parents you'd actually believe anything they told you. This has a very profound impact on your worldview, and unfortunately it was cruelly misshapen by your parents who cared nought for your intellectual upbringing and only for perpetuating their silly, wholly unsubstantiated beliefs.
you wouldn't believe anyone who told you that balancing a spoon on your nose for 2 hours a day would improve your eyesight unless they could show proof)
Poor analogy. You're a bright one aren't you. Keep embarrassing yourself. Moving along...
How is it a poor analogy? Merely stating "poor analogy" doesn't make your argument. Would you care to specify how it is a poor analogy?
but I invite you to investigate the utterly stunning improbability
And evolution isn't an utterly stunning probability?
No, it isn't. It is a scientific fact, accepted by everybody who knows how to think for themselves.
What's disgusting and abhorrent Daniel is your pathetic attempt to get me banned. I specifically stated I wasn't on ATAR Notes to discuss the existence of God and then I see you insulting my views and challenging me to a debate.
I couldn't give a damn if you have no faith. We all know how religious debates end. No one changes their mind and the guy with less power gets banned. Well I'm not gonna turn it into that.
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence. AN takes a zero-tolerance policy to such bigotry.
You dun' goofed.
When you come into a public forum, and start spouting your god bullshit, I will call you on it. I don't care if you say "OH I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS THAT AND THE OTHER ARGUMENT". You came into a thread debating religion and offered your $0.02. You don't get to dictate the terms by which I reply. If you want no part of this, then don't view the thread and certainly don't reply. I'm sick of religious people trying to dictate what people can and cannot say about their ridiculous beliefs, lest the poor dears be offended (these same types of people who for millennia, and continuing today, kill people for not believing what they believe unflinchingly and without proof).
Yes, I call religion bullshit. Oops don't like that? Then show some proof. A central tenet of education (which is what this community promotes) is critical thought. Faith and religion violate critical thought processes and corrupt them in a most foul manner. I won't stand for that, and I will call bullshit when I see it. And if you take my calling of your ridiculous religion personally then that's your problem, not mine. I guess when somebody actually shows up how your religion is just utterly absurd and totally unbelievable, that puts you on the back foot. But make no mistake, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the suspension of critical thought and reason.
-
MJRomeo, you could preach scripture at us all day. But at the end of the day, it's just endless white noise and fairy stories. Show proof for such an absurd claim.
I'm not really trying to argue against you (kind of agnostic myself) but you can argue just as much that there is no "proof" for either side. You can't prove that God exists, yet you can't prove that he doesn't. I think in our scientific world we tend to only believe things that are based on logic and fact, which causes the "you must prove there is a God or it doesn't exist" mentality. Someone can interpret "proof" any way they like. Kind of relates to the court system of "innocent until proven guilty" way of thinking, where people must have no reasonable doubt of their guilt whatsoever to charge someone guilty. Doesn't mean they're not guilty.
I think a lot of people have that mentality, that God "doesn't exist until proven that he does" which means that for a person to believe they must have no doubt in their mind that he does exist. Which, in the world of spirituality, is pretty much impossible. Nearly all the religious people I know have some doubts or have had them.
Again, I'm not trying to start a war or anything, I just don't believe you can be as sure as you sound. Just saying.
Out of curiosity, what makes you so antagonistic towards religion?
But the problem is that religion is so certain that it's true. It's not marketed as a possibility that it is or is not true. The religious leaders all say (and try to brainwash their congregants) that they know the word of god. Bollocks.
I'm so antagonistic towards religion because I see the damage that it does in the world. The suffering that it causes, and the hardships it inflicts on its adherents. It is very obvious that a suspension of analysis and reason is a big problem in society and ought to be rectified hastily. Pressing forward in a rapidly changing world, we must remain skeptical of bold claims and require proof before believing them.
Atheists don't make bold claims. They simply reject bold claims that have no proof.
-
Well I didn't wanna rip him off :P also, aeroplane jelly is cooler.
Also religion debates are a waste of time so this will be my last post on this topic
aww c'mon. We say that every time. :P
-
enwiabe + ninwa, I disagree with you two on this (it's a first LOL).
The way you both go on about religion really shows a lack of tolerance for people of other faiths. The problem isn't religion, or people's religious beliefs, rather the problem is humanity itself. Organized religion is pretty much flawed to no end, but our society was built upon the morality which was instilled by religion, also not everything which has come out of christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hindus, sikhs etc has been bad, a lot of progress in humanity only occurred because of religion, if we hadn't come up with religions we'd probably still be living in caves tbh... people also need to realize both the old and new testaments are products of the time they're written in. I don't think anyone can claim that they're anything close to perfect, but they were written by men 2000 years ago in an age where (for example) slavery WAS common and accepted... you should honestly be able to pick and choose what you believe in the bible.
We can talk about the messed up shit people did fighting over religions, like the crusades, ethnic cleansing, etc... But you can also just as easily list wars that occurred because of land, kings, money, love... religion isn't what caused humanity to go into all these wars, hell we'll keep on killing each other irrespective of any religion or any other bullshit like that. So i'm skeptical when you imply that religion is the downfall of humanity or something to that effect, really we're our own worst enemies =P.
religion is a way for people to find meaning in their lives, a way for them to have some sort of moral compass, and hey, I'm glad that you two don't need that because you're smart people who obviously have no need to live your lives that way, but hell, doesn't the existance of humanity violate critical thought processes? how can something simply appear out of nothing? pretty sure that violates my critical thought process right there. we can do a full loop as well - how can an omnipotent being simply exist out of nothing and make something, but my point is there is no true answer, nobody knows and nobody ever will know, so there's no point in you saying all religions are fairy tales because isn't the probability of a religion being correct close to the probability of there being no god at all - BOTH cases, at least in my opinion, don't make much sense because the concept of us existing doesn't make any sense either way.
also, a bit off topic, but i don't see why religion has to always be so against evolution. I mean seriously, just say god created the first cell, or the matter which initiated the big bang, LOL.
-
Did somebody say religious debate?
This is the VN we all know, love and remember. :)
-
Well it would have been had I been around to participate :)
Nothing like opening a fresh can of worms :)
-
I'm not really trying to argue against you (kind of agnostic myself) but you can argue just as much that there is no "proof" for either side. You can't prove that God exists, yet you can't prove that he doesn't. I think in our scientific world we tend to only believe things that are based on logic and fact, which causes the "you must prove there is a God or it doesn't exist" mentality. Someone can interpret "proof" any way they like. Kind of relates to the court system of "innocent until proven guilty" way of thinking, where people must have no reasonable doubt of their guilt whatsoever to charge someone guilty. Doesn't mean they're not guilty.
Sorry, but if you're going to bring up legal analogies then I have to mention this: the onus of proof is person who makes the positive assertion. Religious people say that god exists; the burden is upon them to prove them. Otherwise, I can assert anything - e.g. I believe there is a ball of talking yarn floating around 1,000,000 light years away in a pool of aeroplane jelly who controls everything we do, you can't prove me wrong therefore it exists and you're all wrong about this god man in the sky.
No, I wasn't trying to say that god exists - I was just saying athiests can't prove god doesn't exist just as religious people can't prove he does exist. Athiests say god doesn't exist - so they should be able to prove it just as much as religious people should be able to prove god does exist.
Point is, you can't prove either side - which I think everyone knows.
'Tis amusing watching people try though (reading the rest of the thread haha). :P
-
No jane1234, you exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding about atheism which I explained at length to you in my reply which you have clearly failed to read.
Atheists simply reject a belief in god. Atheism literally means "without belief". Just because we don't believe in a god doesn't mean we say that there is definitely no god. That would be unscientific. My problem with religion is that it allows people to be certain about something which they cannot be certain about. That leads to grave injustices and abuses as we see in the world.
-
but hell, doesn't the existance of humanity violate critical thought processes? how can something simply appear out of nothing?
I would like to refer you to the anthropic principle. The physical conditions required for life is a very delicate balance, but the fact that we are alive to observe it means the conditions must be just right. It is all coincidences, but because we are here to observe it, it puts us right in the middle of the coincidences.
[EDIT: nevermind, enwiabe took care of it]
-
Just because we don't believe in a god doesn't mean we say that there is definitely no god. That would be unscientific.
So your viewpoint is there may be a God, but you don't believe in any god(s) described in religious texts?
That will make you an agnostic.
-
enwiabe + ninwa, I disagree with you two on this (it's a first LOL).
The way you both go on about religion really shows a lack of tolerance for people of other faiths. The problem isn't religion, or people's religious beliefs, rather the problem is humanity itself. Organized religion is pretty much flawed to no end, but our society was built upon the morality which was instilled by religion, also not everything which has come out of christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hindus, sikhs etc has been bad, a lot of progress in humanity only occurred because of religion, if we hadn't come up with religions we'd probably still be living in caves tbh... people also need to realize both the old and new testaments are products of the time they're written in. I don't think anyone can claim that they're anything close to perfect, but they were written by men 2000 years ago in an age where (for example) slavery WAS common and accepted... you should honestly be able to pick and choose what you believe in the bible.
We can talk about the messed up shit people did fighting over religions, like the crusades, ethnic cleansing, etc... But you can also just as easily list wars that occurred because of land, kings, money, love... religion isn't what caused humanity to go into all these wars, hell we'll keep on killing each other irrespective of any religion or any other bullshit like that. So i'm skeptical when you imply that religion is the downfall of humanity or something to that effect, really we're our own worst enemies =P.
religion is a way for people to find meaning in their lives, a way for them to have some sort of moral compass, and hey, I'm glad that you two don't need that because you're smart people who obviously have no need to live your lives that way, but hell, doesn't the existance of humanity violate critical thought processes? how can something simply appear out of nothing? pretty sure that violates my critical thought process right there. we can do a full loop as well - how can an omnipotent being simply exist out of nothing and make something, but my point is there is no true answer, nobody knows and nobody ever will know, so there's no point in you saying all religions are fairy tales because isn't the probability of a religion being correct close to the probability of there being no god at all - BOTH cases, at least in my opinion, don't make much sense because the concept of us existing doesn't make any sense either way.
also, a bit off topic, but i don't see why religion has to always be so against evolution. I mean seriously, just say god created the first cell, or the matter which initiated the big bang, LOL.
Teewreck, you're missing the point. Religion and faith require the suspension of logic. It requires people to stop thinking and take the most important answer to the most important question simply on faith.
You're rational and sane and so you know the bible was written by men 2000 years ago. But lots of people take it as the word of god. There is nobody more dangerous than the person who thinks he knows the word of god and will act on that belief till the bitter end because he thinks he will be rewarded in the afterlife.
That is how you get suicide bombers. Religion is absolutely dangerous.
And I disagree that people -need- religion. That has certainly been the status quo for the weak-minded of humanity until now, but I see no reason for that to continue. People simply need to be shown that life has the meaning that we make of it.
Teewreck you really hit the nail on the head but just fail to go that one step closer when you say "BOTH cases, at least in my opinion, don't make much sense because the concept of us existing doesn't make any sense either way."
I NEVER made any claims to know how we came into being. I couldn't. That would be impossible at this point. Only religion is so arrogant as to claim to know. Science does NOT claim to know everything about how we came to be here. Two important mysteries to solve are abiogenesis and what caused the big bang (if it was even a causal event at all). Just because you don't understand how we came to be here doesn't mean it violates your critical thought processes, it is simply a knowledge gap that all of humanity has.
Only religion takes that wild stab in the dark and goes "ERM DERP GOD". And that sortof certainty in something so powerful deludes people into doing evil things in the name of religion.
Also, on your point about humanity doing evil shit on account of other stuff. Those are also major concerns to worry about, but religion is something that can be snuffed out the easiest. All it takes is to enlighten and educate people from brainwashing. Land, sex, money etc. are all base instincts that we'll have a much harder time of ridding the world. Those require moral teachings the value of which you cannot communicate in a few internet postings. That sort of learning is a lifelong process.
-
Just because we don't believe in a god doesn't mean we say that there is definitely no god. That would be unscientific.
So your viewpoint is there may be a God, but you don't believe in any god(s) described in religious texts?
That will make you an agnostic.
Wrong. That makes me an agnostic atheist. Get your definitions straight.
"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.[1] Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists.[1][2] The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have absolute knowledge of such.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist
-
Well it would have been had I been around to participate :)
Nothing like opening a fresh can of worms :)
Why not dive in now? :)
-
Just because we don't believe in a god doesn't mean we say that there is definitely no god. That would be unscientific.
So your viewpoint is there may be a God, but you don't believe in any god(s) described in religious texts?
That will make you an agnostic.
Wrong. That makes me an agnostic atheist. Get your definitions straight.
"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.[1] Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists.[1][2] The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have absolute knowledge of such.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist
Agnosticism is a metaphysical position that 'God/s is not knowable' (strong) or 'God/s may not be knowable' (weak).
Atheism is a theological position that 'God does not exists' (strong) or 'I don't believe in God' (weak).
A combination of these two makes something along the lines of 'I don't believe in god, but I do not assert god/s do not exist. However proof for such a position may never be found.'
Which, to me, is no different to 'I don't believe in religion, but I cannot be certain whether or not there is a god. In fact, we may never be able to answer that question'. (this is pure weak agnoticism)
-
So you're being hipster mao where widely accepted definitions don't matter to you unless they fit your specific take on the situation? You're just being deliberately flippant, here.
EDIT: I also like to call my brand of atheism by its parent - rationalism. You happy with my simply calling it rationalism? :)
-
but I invite you to investigate the utterly stunning improbability
And evolution isn't an utterly stunning probability?
No, it isn't. It is a scientific fact, accepted by everybody who knows how to think for themselves.
Evolution is a scientific FACT? The ignorance stinks. So much for your wonderful critical thinking abilities.
You came into a thread debating religion and offered your $0.02. You don't get to dictate the terms by which I reply.
Go and read my first two posts in this thread on page 4 I believe it is. I didn't come in debating religion. In fact, you're the one who came in stuck your noise into this thread (on page 2). Do you see what this topic is called? Why click on the thread if you don't believe? And don't give me the "oh i have to convince people otherwise because I have LOGICAL REASONING GUYS!". If you don't like the thread stay out of it. You're the one who turned this into a religious debate. My post with John 3:16 attempted to answer a question relating to why should we believe. In my next post I made it clearly evident I was happy to answer similar questions, but not the typical 'religion is bullshit" claim. Yes that's right it's a claim, because you can't prove it.
If you want no part of this, then don't view the thread and certainly don't reply. I'm sick of religious people trying to dictate what people can and cannot say about their ridiculous beliefs, lest the poor dears be offended (these same types of people who for millennia, and continuing today, kill people for not believing what they believe unflinchingly and without proof).
I love your view of "all religious people KILL others who don't believe". BTW why do you feel like you have some special obligation to destroy people's beliefs? Man, your argument applies to yourself. If you don't like discussing religion in this thread, GTFO!
Yes, I call religion bullshit. Oops don't like that? Then show some proof. A central tenet of education (which is what this community promotes) is critical thought. Faith and religion violate critical thought processes and corrupt them in a most foul manner. I won't stand for that, and I will call bullshit when I see it. And if you take my calling of your ridiculous religion personally then that's your problem, not mine. I guess when somebody actually shows up how your religion is just utterly absurd and totally unbelievable, that puts you on the back foot. But make no mistake, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the suspension of critical thought and reason.
Nice try in dodging your own forum rules. Let me spell it out for you one more time:
Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence. AN takes a zero-tolerance policy to such bigotry.
Your generalisations such as religion is no good for society and religious people kill others are infringing the very rules your team came up with. Once again, you dun goofed.
And no, you haven't proved religion to be utterly absurd and totally unbelievable. You've successfully demonstrated your lack of knowledge by making claims such as "evolution is a scientific fact and everyone who is super smart says so HERPA DERP!!!". Please. Go and do some research.
What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.
-
enwiabe + ninwa, I disagree with you two on this (it's a first LOL).
The way you both go on about religion really shows a lack of tolerance for people of other faiths. The problem isn't religion, or people's religious beliefs, rather the problem is humanity itself. Organized religion is pretty much flawed to no end, but our society was built upon the morality which was instilled by religion, also not everything which has come out of christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hindus, sikhs etc has been bad, a lot of progress in humanity only occurred because of religion, if we hadn't come up with religions we'd probably still be living in caves tbh... people also need to realize both the old and new testaments are products of the time they're written in. I don't think anyone can claim that they're anything close to perfect, but they were written by men 2000 years ago in an age where (for example) slavery WAS common and accepted... you should honestly be able to pick and choose what you believe in the bible.
We can talk about the messed up shit people did fighting over religions, like the crusades, ethnic cleansing, etc... But you can also just as easily list wars that occurred because of land, kings, money, love... religion isn't what caused humanity to go into all these wars, hell we'll keep on killing each other irrespective of any religion or any other bullshit like that. So i'm skeptical when you imply that religion is the downfall of humanity or something to that effect, really we're our own worst enemies =P.
religion is a way for people to find meaning in their lives, a way for them to have some sort of moral compass, and hey, I'm glad that you two don't need that because you're smart people who obviously have no need to live your lives that way, but hell, doesn't the existance of humanity violate critical thought processes? how can something simply appear out of nothing? pretty sure that violates my critical thought process right there. we can do a full loop as well - how can an omnipotent being simply exist out of nothing and make something, but my point is there is no true answer, nobody knows and nobody ever will know, so there's no point in you saying all religions are fairy tales because isn't the probability of a religion being correct close to the probability of there being no god at all - BOTH cases, at least in my opinion, don't make much sense because the concept of us existing doesn't make any sense either way.
also, a bit off topic, but i don't see why religion has to always be so against evolution. I mean seriously, just say god created the first cell, or the matter which initiated the big bang, LOL.
Teewreck, you're missing the point. Religion and faith require the suspension of logic. It requires people to stop thinking and take the most important answer to the most important question simply on faith.
You're rational and sane and so you know the bible was written by men 2000 years ago. But lots of people take it as the word of god. There is nobody more dangerous than the person who thinks he knows the word of god and will act on that belief till the bitter end because he thinks he will be rewarded in the afterlife.
That is how you get suicide bombers. Religion is absolutely dangerous.
And I disagree that people -need- religion. That has certainly been the status quo for the weak-minded of humanity until now, but I see no reason for that to continue. People simply need to be shown that life has the meaning that we make of it.
Teewreck you really hit the nail on the head but just fail to go that one step closer when you say "BOTH cases, at least in my opinion, don't make much sense because the concept of us existing doesn't make any sense either way."
I NEVER made any claims to know how we came into being. I couldn't. That would be impossible at this point. Only religion is so arrogant as to claim to know. Science does NOT claim to know everything about how we came to be here. Two important mysteries to solve are abiogenesis and what caused the big bang (if it was even a causal event at all). Just because you don't understand how we came to be here doesn't mean it violates your critical thought processes, it is simply a knowledge gap that all of humanity has.
Only religion takes that wild stab in the dark and goes "ERM DERP GOD". And that sortof certainty in something so powerful deludes people into doing evil things in the name of religion.
Also, on your point about humanity doing evil shit on account of other stuff. Those are also major concerns to worry about, but religion is something that can be snuffed out the easiest. All it takes is to enlighten and educate people from brainwashing. Land, sex, money etc. are all base instincts that we'll have a much harder time of ridding the world. Those require moral teachings the value of which you cannot communicate in a few internet postings. That sort of learning is a lifelong process.
Yeah, but the problem is a lot of people feel like they need an answer, and religion provides it for them. You can hate that thought as much as you want, but there are people in the world who will believe because they need to believe in order to sustain their lives. That's why every culture has come up with some form of higher being. Personally, I hope that as the future goes on religion plays a smaller and smaller role in our society because I also think it has outlived it's usefulness. But one more thing; not all religions have caused evil and killing and a lot of progress in the world only occurred because of religion.
@MJR, Evolution is really, really, REALLY well justified. You should do some research on it instead of posting quotes that are really misleading and don't even make sense when you understand how the theory works.
-
@MJR, Evolution is really, really, REALLY well justified. You should do some research on it instead of posting quotes that are really misleading and don't even make sense when you understand how the theory works.
I never said the whole concept of evolution is false. That would be absurd. We can see evolution in our everyday life. However, to accept evolution as an undeniable scientific fact (in the sense that humans evolved from the apes irrefutably) is wrong. This is my point.
-
@MJR, Evolution is really, really, REALLY well justified. You should do some research on it instead of posting quotes that are really misleading and don't even make sense when you understand how the theory works.
I never said the whole concept of evolution is false. That would be absurd. We can see evolution in our everyday life. However, to accept evolution as an undeniable scientific fact (in the sense that humans evolved from the apes irrefutably) is wrong. This is my point.
Yeah but do you have an alternative that is supported by just as much evidence as evolution is?
-
On current discussion, thought this might be a bit fitting:
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs14/i/2007/112/7/6/Jesus_Evolution_by_L2Mc.jpg)
I'm totally for evolution btw, far more substantiated, as teewreck was alluding to
-
No jane1234, you exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding about atheism which I explained at length to you in my reply which you have clearly failed to read.
Atheists simply reject a belief in god. Atheism literally means "without belief". Just because we don't believe in a god doesn't mean we say that there is definitely no god. That would be unscientific. My problem with religion is that it allows people to be certain about something which they cannot be certain about. That leads to grave injustices and abuses as we see in the world.
I wasn't actually referring to your post, just most atheists in general. You can argue about the definitions of atheism all day and "what kind" you are.
Also, a lot of religious people aren't certain about the existence of god. They just chose to believe despite their doubts, acknowledging that non-spiritual beings cannot possibly understand everything about spiritual beings.
I agree with Mao though:
Agnosticism is a metaphysical position that 'God/s is not knowable' (strong) or 'God/s may not be knowable' (weak).
Atheism is a theological position that 'God does not exists' (strong) or 'I don't believe in God' (weak).
A combination of these two makes something along the lines of 'I don't believe in god, but I do not assert god/s do not exist. However proof for such a position may never be found.'
Which, to me, is no different to 'I don't believe in religion, but I cannot be certain whether or not there is a god. In fact, we may never be able to answer that question'. (this is pure weak agnoticism)
Anyway, as fun as this is, there's really no point in discussing it :P
-
I refuse to get drawn into religous debates but I will clarify evolution: it cannot be proved scientifically (or otherwise) for various reasons that are irrelevant. But all the evidence gathered so far (and there's a lot of it) supports the theory and none refutes it. Furthermore, we did not evolve from the apes that we see in the world today - they are not our ancestors, they're our cousins.
The simplest way of thinking about it is: if you tossed a coin and it came up heads ten thousand consecutive times, what would you bet on the next toss being?
-
The problem is the idea of the coin being heads 10,000 times straight. I mean for evolution to occur the way it did - some remarkable 'luck' indeed.
This also makes for some interesting reading.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/humans-evolve-apelike-creatures#fnMark_1_4_1
-
@MJR, Evolution is really, really, REALLY well justified. You should do some research on it instead of posting quotes that are really misleading and don't even make sense when you understand how the theory works.
I never said the whole concept of evolution is false. That would be absurd. We can see evolution in our everyday life. However, to accept evolution as an undeniable scientific fact (in the sense that humans evolved from the apes irrefutably) is wrong. This is my point.
If you think evolution says that humans evolved from apes, then you clearly never bothered to learn the theory.
You obviously don't understand evolution, so how can you comment on its veracity? You just accept your bible stories as fact out of hand and don't bother to do any scientific investigation of the actual truth which is evolution.
Evolution is a theory that is as factual as the theory of gravity in the Scientific community. For you to dismiss it shows your absurd, utterly ridiculous ignorance.
-
MJRomeo, are you aware that the driving force of evolution is not luck, but natural selection? Mutations are the luck factor, but then the survival of the fittest selects those mutations which advantage a species and those mutations are kept, forming a new species. So, no, humanity did not evolve by chance. It evolved by billions of years of trial and error before converging on a species that would master every other. That doesn't make us perfect, or 'special', simply more dominant than the species which preceded us.
-
You came into a thread debating religion and offered your $0.02. You don't get to dictate the terms by which I reply.
Go and read my first two posts in this thread on page 4 I believe it is. I didn't come in debating religion. In fact, you're the one who came in stuck your noise into this thread (on page 2). Do you see what this topic is called? Why click on the thread if you don't believe? And don't give me the "oh i have to convince people otherwise because I have LOGICAL REASONING GUYS!". If you don't like the thread stay out of it. You're the one who turned this into a religious debate. My post with John 3:16 attempted to answer a question relating to why should we believe. In my next post I made it clearly evident I was happy to answer similar questions, but not the typical 'religion is bullshit" claim. Yes that's right it's a claim, because you can't prove it.
Yes, I see this topic is talking about matters of religion, and when people are taking these fairy stories seriously I am compelled to set the record straight. You gave a bible quote on why we should believe, and I rebutted why that was false. It's called a debate, and if you're so afraid of having one, perhaps you're not so confident in your beliefs? That is a promising sign. I can quite confidently say that your religion is bullshit. There are no credible historical records indicating that Jesus ever existed. Many forgeries attempted by the churches themselves, but there isn't a shred of credible historical evidence for Jesus. That's a pretty convincing argument against your religion.
If you want no part of this, then don't view the thread and certainly don't reply. I'm sick of religious people trying to dictate what people can and cannot say about their ridiculous beliefs, lest the poor dears be offended (these same types of people who for millennia, and continuing today, kill people for not believing what they believe unflinchingly and without proof).
I love your view of "all religious people KILL others who don't believe". BTW why do you feel like you have some special obligation to destroy people's beliefs? Man, your argument applies to yourself. If you don't like discussing religion in this thread, GTFO!
I never said that. It is simply a fact that religion will allow good people to do evil things. If you allow someone to believe, on faith, that they are acting on behalf of an all powerful god who will reward them in the afterlife, then you can get them to commit unconscionable acts without thinking. Because they aren't thinking! They're giving that up in favour of "my god said it's true". That's how you get the horrific abuses of religion. I love discussing religion and how the world would be better off without it. You're the one who is so eager to prevent me from trying to argue. Trying to either get me to do it by saying I'm contravening my own forum's rules (I'm not, and I'll get to that next), and then saying "OH I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE" and then subsequently doing nothing but arguing. If you really didn't want to debate this, you'd have left my reply alone, but you seemingly do want to, you just want to try and score some arbitrary points on me by trying to make me look like a bully. I'm simply trying to get you to THINK for yourself.
Yes, I call religion bullshit. Oops don't like that? Then show some proof. A central tenet of education (which is what this community promotes) is critical thought. Faith and religion violate critical thought processes and corrupt them in a most foul manner. I won't stand for that, and I will call bullshit when I see it. And if you take my calling of your ridiculous religion personally then that's your problem, not mine. I guess when somebody actually shows up how your religion is just utterly absurd and totally unbelievable, that puts you on the back foot. But make no mistake, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the suspension of critical thought and reason.
Nice try in dodging your own forum rules. Let me spell it out for you one more time:
Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence. AN takes a zero-tolerance policy to such bigotry.
Your generalisations such as religion is no good for society and religious people kill others are infringing the very rules your team came up with. Once again, you dun goofed.
And no, you haven't proved religion to be utterly absurd and totally unbelievable. You've successfully demonstrated your lack of knowledge by making claims such as "evolution is a scientific fact and everyone who is super smart says so HERPA DERP!!!". Please. Go and do some research.
It is not a generalisation or any falsehood at all to call religion bullshit. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that any religion that we have is true. Show me ONE piece of objective evidence that points to it. If the only thing you can point to as evidence is that which is contained in your holy book, then I'll simply declare Harry Potter to be my holy book and say that because it's written in that book that magic exists, then therefore magic exists and it would have EXACTLY the same credibility as your pitiful argument. As it stands there is NOTHING, not one SHRED of evidence which support any religions.
What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.
There are millions of articles of evidence. You very obviously do not understand evolution. But we have observed transitional forms. They are all in the fossil record and there are thousands of them. Just go to any natural history museum to observe them. Also, as it turns out, our DNA code is a perfect family tree and we can see just how much we're related to each other species on the planet. I am no Biology teacher, and I can't teach you evolution over a forum post, but you should really do yourself a favour and bone up on it because you clearly know nothing about evolution as evidenced by the fact that you have made numerous mistakes in detailing both what the theory is and the evidence which supports it.
-
No jane1234, you exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding about atheism which I explained at length to you in my reply which you have clearly failed to read.
Atheists simply reject a belief in god. Atheism literally means "without belief". Just because we don't believe in a god doesn't mean we say that there is definitely no god. That would be unscientific. My problem with religion is that it allows people to be certain about something which they cannot be certain about. That leads to grave injustices and abuses as we see in the world.
I wasn't actually referring to your post, just most atheists in general. You can argue about the definitions of atheism all day and "what kind" you are.
Also, a lot of religious people aren't certain about the existence of god. They just chose to believe despite their doubts, acknowledging that non-spiritual beings cannot possibly understand everything about spiritual beings.
I agree with Mao though:
Agnosticism is a metaphysical position that 'God/s is not knowable' (strong) or 'God/s may not be knowable' (weak).
Atheism is a theological position that 'God does not exists' (strong) or 'I don't believe in God' (weak).
A combination of these two makes something along the lines of 'I don't believe in god, but I do not assert god/s do not exist. However proof for such a position may never be found.'
Which, to me, is no different to 'I don't believe in religion, but I cannot be certain whether or not there is a god. In fact, we may never be able to answer that question'. (this is pure weak agnoticism)
Anyway, as fun as this is, there's really no point in discussing it :P
There is a point to this, because you also exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding about most atheists. I'm actually yet to meet an atheist who flat out says "there isn't, never has been, and never will be a god". I know they exist, I've read the works of a few such people, but they are actually a minority in the atheist community. Most atheists are weak atheists, like me, who simply want to seek out the truth, and not guess at it haphazardly.
-
This also makes for some interesting reading.
I almost stopped reading when I saw you'd linked an article from (pretty much) the Bible Belt on "evilution" but; the title is sensationalist because all the scientist is saying is that evolution is an extremely fluid and complicated process (read the direct quotes, not the author paraphrasing).
I don't have time to read the second one right now, because it's bloody long.
-
If you think evolution says that humans evolved from apes, then you clearly never bothered to learn the theory.
Point conceded. I know it's because of the common ancestor blah blah but for some reason I said apes.
You obviously don't understand evolution, so how can you comment on its veracity? You just accept your bible stories as fact out of hand and don't bother to do any scientific investigation of the actual truth which is evolution.
I've looked at both sides. Sure, there are some big questions about religion, but scientists have made a lot of assumptions in relation to evolution. Primordial soup for example. It sounds like these scientists are talking out there ass because they're that desperate to find these so called answers. Scientists have yet to produce anything in a test tube that would shake a Fundamentalist's faith. . . . Indeed, the more scientists learn about it, the more extraordinary life seems. The so-called fossil record is found only in textbooks also. If one tries to assemble the fossils into an evolutionary sequence, there are monstrous gaps between families of organisms. There is a large branch of evolutionary teaching that acknowledges that there is no fossil evidence for evolution. Once again, more assumptions are made. This isn't scientific proof.
What's next? Are you going to say the big bang is irrefutable scientific evidence?
It evolved by billions of years of trial and error before converging on a species that would master every other. That doesn't make us perfect, or 'special', simply more dominant than the species which preceded us.
"Billions of years of trial and error". This is the part I'm talking about. I find it hard to believe, just like you find Jesus Christ hard to believe. I'm aware of natural selection and how that works.
Most atheists are weak atheists, like me, who simply want to seek out the truth, and not guess at it haphazardly.
But the problem is you seem like you've made up your mind already. You call religion bullshit. You seem fairly confident that Jesus Christ is a fairy tale. You have claimed evolution to be an irrefutable fact. You refuse to look at evidence that isn't compatible with scientific understanding. You remind me of those atheists who say "well when the Second Coming happens, I guess I'll believe then". I understand the notion of not jumping on one side due to lack of evidence, but the problem is you already sound so damn sure.
Yes, I see this topic is talking about matters of religion, and when people are taking these fairy stories seriously I am compelled to set the record straight.
You don't know the truth. No one does. So how can you set anything straight?
It is not a generalisation or any falsehood at all to call religion bullshit.
It was not the generalisation of calling religion bullshit (this is your belief and you are entitled to it). It's insinuating "if you believe God to be true, then one WILL commit evil acts because the Bible says so/ the world is better off without religion". Furthermore, attacking the critical thought processes of believers is a generalisation since from the sounds of things, you regard them to be intellectual idiots who don't respect the laws of science (but instead believe fairy tales their parents told them at a young age). No I am not putting words in your mouth. You seem to think it's ok because you feel an obligation to 'set the record straight', when in fact no one knows.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend in my previous posts I said the world would be better off without homosexuality because of {list reasons here}. If I went on to say I find homosexuality disgusting and everyone who supports it is morally wrong, that would be generalising. I know that is some-what an informal fallacy, but do you understand my point? If you despise religion that much, remove it from your rules so you can talk shit all you want. Until then, you have effectively infringed one of your own rules, that is, to not make broad generalisations in relation to religion. Don't even bother trying to debate this point. I know you're the CEO and you aren't gonna warn yourself, but you broke the rules here. So yes, you dun goofed. The more you try to deny it, the greater the embarrassment you become in front of your users. Some might be scared to say it, but there are some people on this site who are LOL'ing at you right now for trying to deny this point. So my recommendation is to go and edit the rules. Then, I have no problem with you making such comments.
Harry Potter to be my holy book and say that because it's written in that book that magic exists, then therefore magic exists and it would have EXACTLY the same credibility as your pitiful argument.
Harry Potter? Really? Hmm...thanks for the comedy I guess this thread needs it. You obviously know nothing about the Bible if you want to make hilarious analogies like that. As for Jesus not existing, people can question Jesus' Divinity, but not the HISTORICAL FACT that He existed. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie. Literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ.
-
But we have observed transitional forms.
What about right now? Transitional species must be all over the place, after all, with all the millions of creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving right now!
Interestingly enough, that is a dead end as well. All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms. There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere in reality.
If evolution were true, we’d be finding creatures that were:
3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...
and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists. Everything would be a transitional species, and we’d find abundant evidence for it. In reality, there is nothing anywhere close to that scenario. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for such transitional species is illustrated by the articles published in 1999 by National Geographic, about the “missing link” fossil that was finally discovered that proved dinosaurs (lizards) evolved into birds. It was shaped like a lizard, but it had wings like a bird. They published a huge article with photos and great fanfare, and newspapers reported it with excitement across the country. Months later, it was revealed that someone just glued parts of different animals together in China and passed it off as a real fossil. Why would evolutionists be so excited over a single, glued-together, fake fossil? It almost seems as if they are completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever.
Essentially, evolution is a religion. It was concocted over 150 years ago, and they're still searching for that first shred of evidence. At this point, they seem to have given up on evidence, and instead just combine wild, unprovable theories with excuses. The closer you research evolution and the big bang, the more you realise it's all faith based like religion. You just have to 'believe' it happened. Science my ass.
-
Here are some additional facts to consider.
1) In the history of scientific research, living organisms have never formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists hold the unscientific belief that this is possible as the first phase of evolution, but they cannot explain, replicate, or prove it can happen.
2) Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than itself. This is just assumed by evolutionists to be possible. Never before has information been added to the genome of a species.
3) No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism. Evolutionists firmly believe this can happen as the second phase of evolution, despite the fact that it has never been observed in the history of scientific research.
4) No creature has ever given birth to something that was a different kind of organism than itself. This is again just believed by evolutionists to be possible, although it has never happened in recorded history. Evolutionists believe that over time, lizards change into birds and fish turn into mammals. Yet, of all the billions of lizards on Earth, not a single one is in turning into a bird. Of all the billions of fish on Earth, not a single one is in the process of becoming a mammal.
5) Never in the history of science has any mutation benefitted an animal's species long term, or made it more genetically complex. Evolution would require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed. All mutations ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative to the mutated animal.
6) Transitional species required for the theory of evolution to be true are called “missing links,” instead of “links,” because they do not exist.
7) It is impossible for a cold blooded animal to give birth to a warm blooded animal; and yet this is believed by evolutionists in the fish to mammal and lizard to bird theories.
8) Plants have been around since the beginning of life, and despite all the supposed evolution that should've taken place, they have not evolved intelligence.
9) There are no instances of plants morphing into animals.
10) Virtually every species of animal has two genders required for reproduction. How this system could have randomly changed from cell division, when it started, and how it manages to be so consistent is inexplicable by evolutionists. I wonder how any species survived before it gained the instinct and ability to reproduce.
11) Nature is full of "irreducible complexities," or things that could not function if a single part is removed. Since evolution is a gradual and slow process, things like the human knee joint could not have evolved, because they would not function until they were fully formed. If one part/aspect were missing, they would serve no purpose. This is inexplicable by evolutionists.
12) No creature has ever evolved or "adapted" a new body-part to suit it's environment, despite evolutionist belief, and they do not have the capability to do so. Among the ridiculous claims of evolutionists, one would be the land mammal that evolved into a whale. I'd like to see the transition where the nostrils supposedly change into the blowhole and move to the top of the head, and learn how the hind legs could magically morph into a tail flipper, all while continuing to function for millions of years.
13) DNA has to already be present in order to create protein, and protein has to be present in order to create DNA. Both are required as building blocks of a living organism. Which formed first, randomly, from the primordial soup that may or may not have existed, and how is that possible?
What DOES occur is variation of EXISTING traits. Dogs can create a variety of dogs over thousands of years, and this is a provable fact. Breed a beagle with a boxer and you have a new kind of dog, but guess what... it's still a dog, and the size, hair color, and shape (existing traits) vary, but all fall within the limits of the existing dog gene pool. The confusion comes when people assume that variation of EXISTING traits means that somehow completely new genetic information can be added, thus allowing a cactus to evolve into a porcupine. To the contrary, organisms can only sample from an existing gene pool.
The gene pool for humans contains the ability to have a variety of skin types, hair colors, eye colors, body shapes and sizes, but never will any human form functioning gills and be able to breathe under water, because that genetic information is not in our gene pool. A red haired woman and a black haired man can have a blonde child, but don’t freak out - that blonde child isn’t evolving into a new species. It’s just exhibiting a variance of an existing trait in available human genes.
Another way to imagine the impossibilities of evolution is to think about what evolutionists claim.... that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment, through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added traits. Let’s take a man and his wife, and say they live by the ocean. They swim in the ocean all the time, and hold their breath and swim underwater every day. Then they have kids, which also swim all the time, and hold their breath to swim underwater, because they are all pearl divers. Generation after generation of this family stays by the ocean, each son and daughter marry other people who live by the ocean and swim all the time. How long will it take before one of the children has the ability to breath underwater? The correct answer is never, but evolutionists believe that in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills, and will be able to breath underwater. A logical person would realize this is impossible; a human would never develop gills, because the capability to breath underwater is not in the human genome. Evolutionists pretend that fish grew legs and lungs because for some reason “it was beneficial for them to leave water.”
Again, it needs to be reiterated that not a single aspect of evolution has ever been observed, and yet such impossible ideas are presented as a fact to children in public schools. Disturbing indeed.
-
Transitional species: (from here)
If we define transitional species as those that have given rise to new species, then the following extant species are transitional:
- Brown bears (gave rise to polar bears)
- Grey wolves (gave rise to dogs (including dingos), Indian wolves, and Himalayan wolves)
- Coyote (The coyote or something very like it gave rise to eastern wolves 150 to 300 thousand years ago, and also to gray wolves 1 to 2 million years ago).
- Grey fox (The grey fox or something quite like it was the first canid)
- Plains zebra (gave rise to the quagga)
- Chiltepine chili pepper (gave rise to jalapeno, poblano and bell peppers)
- Eastern tiger salamander (gave rise to the California tiger salamander)
- Two species of Sierra butterflies (hybridized and gave rise to a third species)
I know its not the most reputable source, but it does show that many transitional species DO exist atm. For past transitional species (found through transitional fossils): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils (plenty!)
btw, as per evolution, every species you see is technically transitional
-
If you think evolution says that humans evolved from apes, then you clearly never bothered to learn the theory.
Point conceded. I know it's because of the common ancestor blah blah but for some reason I said apes.
Sounds like someone actually went and did some independent research! A great first step :)
You obviously don't understand evolution, so how can you comment on its veracity? You just accept your bible stories as fact out of hand and don't bother to do any scientific investigation of the actual truth which is evolution.
I've looked at both sides. Sure, there are some big questions about religion, but scientists have made a lot of assumptions in relation to evolution. Primordial soup for example. It sounds like these scientists are talking out there ass because they're that desperate to find these so called answers. Scientists have yet to produce anything in a test tube that would shake a Fundamentalist's faith. . . . Indeed, the more scientists learn about it, the more extraordinary life seems. The so-called fossil record is found only in textbooks also. If one tries to assemble the fossils into an evolutionary sequence, there are monstrous gaps between families of organisms. There is a large branch of evolutionary teaching that acknowledges that there is no fossil evidence for evolution. Once again, more assumptions are made. This isn't scientific proof.
What's next? Are you going to say the big bang is irrefutable scientific evidence?
I'm quite certain you'd never given evolution anything more than a cursory glance before today. You conflated our cousins with our common ancestors and are now conflating abiogenesis with evolution. Abiogenesis is what gave rise to the first living organism, evolution is everything that came after it. Evolution is scientific fact, abiogenesis is hotly disputed in the biological sciences, and the scientific community readily admits that this is a knowledge gap :)
As for your blatant lies about the fossil record. There are thousands of fossils in natural history museums all over the world. Just because you've never bothered to visit them doesn't mean they don't exist. See pi's post and the wiki link for PLENTY of actual fossils.
Secondly, your "gaps" argument has been dealt with most soundly by many evolutionists. I don't think you realise how rare fossils are. Not every organism gets fossilised. In fact it's a tiny percentage. You need JUST the right kinds of pressure and temperature and other conditions for it to work. So it's actually amazing that we have any fossils at all.
But the real evidence supporting evolution isn't in the fossil record, and if you'd done your research properly, you'd see that it is the DNA code which shows all of the transitional changes throughout each species that we observe today that shows evolution to be true.
It evolved by billions of years of trial and error before converging on a species that would master every other. That doesn't make us perfect, or 'special', simply more dominant than the species which preceded us.
"Billions of years of trial and error". This is the part I'm talking about. I find it hard to believe, just like you find Jesus Christ hard to believe. I'm aware of natural selection and how that works.
I know you find it hard to believe. You've been subjected to mirthless brainwashing your entire life. But it's not hard to believe at all. We see the mutations occurring every day, and we see the genomes of different species and the fossil record and it all makes sense if you actually bother to learn it. But you haven't. You really haven't. All of your basic errors reflect an absurd ignorance to what evolution actually says.
Most atheists are weak atheists, like me, who simply want to seek out the truth, and not guess at it haphazardly.
But the problem is you seem like you've made up your mind already. You call religion bullshit. You seem fairly confident that Jesus Christ is a fairy tale. You have claimed evolution to be an irrefutable fact. You refuse to look at evidence that isn't compatible with scientific understanding. You remind me of those atheists who say "well when the Second Coming happens, I guess I'll believe then". I understand the notion of not jumping on one side due to lack of evidence, but the problem is you already sound so damn sure.
Yes, like any rationalist I require evidence. Anything that can be claimedw ithout evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's not credible for in the slightest for me to say taht there is a small chinese teapot floating in orbit around the sun, is there? But according to you, unless someone DISPROVES me, then there is a good probability that it actually exists. That's fucking bullshit and you know it. The same applies to you. You are not able to offer up a single piece of evidence, whatsoever, that your religion is true. When you combine that with the fact that there are numerous historical contradictions and a complete lack of evidence for your religion, then yes, I can dismiss it out of hand.
JUST LIKE you dismiss Zeus, and Wotan, and Thor, and Ganesh, and Vishnu, and Buddha. Why do you dismiss those gods? Why do you dismiss Ra? Why do you dismiss Ba'al?
They're all gods from mythology. Why the Judeo-Christian god? Because that's what you were brought up with. You're an atheist to all those other gods. I go one god further, because like all of those 'gods', there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them.
Yes, I see this topic is talking about matters of religion, and when people are taking these fairy stories seriously I am compelled to set the record straight.
You don't know the truth. No one does. So how can you set anything straight?
But I don't CLAIM to know the truth. YOU DO. You believe in god. You think you know where we came from, why we're here and what happened to take us here. Who's the arrogant one now? Oh and just for laughs you can't prove any of it! But we're supposed to take your word for it, right? ;)
It is not a generalisation or any falsehood at all to call religion bullshit.
It was not the generalisation of calling religion bullshit (this is your belief and you are entitled to it). It's insinuating "if you believe God to be true, then one WILL commit evil acts because the Bible says so/ the world is better off without religion". Furthermore, attacking the critical thought processes of believers is a generalisation since from the sounds of things, you regard them to be intellectual idiots who don't respect the laws of science (but instead believe fairy tales their parents told them at a young age). No I am not putting words in your mouth. You seem to think it's ok because you feel an obligation to 'set the record straight', when in fact no one knows.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend in my previous posts I said the world would be better off without homosexuality because of {list reasons here}. If I went on to say I find homosexuality disgusting and everyone who supports it is morally wrong, that would be generalising. I know that is some-what an informal fallacy, but do you understand my point? If you despise religion that much, remove it from your rules so you can talk shit all you want. Until then, you have effectively infringed one of your own rules, that is, to not make broad generalisations in relation to religion. Don't even bother trying to debate this point. I know you're the CEO and you aren't gonna warn yourself, but you broke the rules here. So yes, you dun goofed. The more you try to deny it, the greater the embarrassment you become in front of your users. Some might be scared to say it, but there are some people on this site who are LOL'ing at you right now for trying to deny this point. So my recommendation is to go and edit the rules. Then, I have no problem with you making such comments.
You are borderline illiterate if you think I said that religion causes all religious people to do bad things. Show me where I said that. Give me the exact quote. You're the one who looks foolish here, man. I know you think you're humiliating me but everyone looks at the guy who deludes himself with the idea that he knows everything and knows things that cannot yet be known and tries to argue by thinking he's smart enough, as a <18 year old child, to discredit a scientific theory accepted by the entire intellectual community. You are ignorant, and you are proud of it, and it is quite embarrassing for you, not for me.
Harry Potter to be my holy book and say that because it's written in that book that magic exists, then therefore magic exists and it would have EXACTLY the same credibility as your pitiful argument.
Harry Potter? Really? Hmm...thanks for the comedy I guess this thread needs it. You obviously know nothing about the Bible if you want to make hilarious analogies like that. As for Jesus not existing, people can question Jesus' Divinity, but not the HISTORICAL FACT that He existed. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie. Literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ.
Hahaha all of those 'records' are either proven fakeries or majorly disputed :')
Like I said, not a single CREDIBLE historical account of jesus.
Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience
-
MJRomeo, are you a young earth creationist as well?
-
Well it would have been had I been around to participate :)
Nothing like opening a fresh can of worms :)
Why not dive in now? :)
I haven't the time or the required internet capability
I'm coming back to Melbourne later this week though, maybe then I'll share my thoughts on the subject (and watch all hell break loose lol)
-
Well it would have been had I been around to participate :)
Nothing like opening a fresh can of worms :)
Why not dive in now? :)
I haven't the time or the required internet capability
I'm coming back to Melbourne later this week though, maybe then I'll share my thoughts on the subject (and watch all hell break loose lol)
I wasn't aware hell was a tenet of Judaism? :P Your time in Israel has not tempered your religious dogma? That is a shame...
-
If you've just joined us and don't want to read the whole topic:
Atheists: Evolution suggests that we share a common ancestor with apes and we weren't jus 'created' as the Bible/Quran/etc says.
Creationists: THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION
Athiests: There's no evidence for a God
Creationists: But...but...the Bible says!
-
Well it would have been had I been around to participate :)
Nothing like opening a fresh can of worms :)
Why not dive in now? :)
I haven't the time or the required internet capability
I'm coming back to Melbourne later this week though, maybe then I'll share my thoughts on the subject (and watch all hell break loose lol)
I wasn't aware hell was a tenet of Judaism? :P Your time in Israel has not tempered your religious dogma? That is a shame...
Of course hell is a tenet of Judaism. Check Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.
As for Israel 'tempering my religious dogma', I'm not here on holiday, I'm here to learn. I sit and learn Talmud for 10-12 hours every day over here, and you think this will temper my beliefs? Ha, good luck with that
-
Well it would have been had I been around to participate :)
Nothing like opening a fresh can of worms :)
Why not dive in now? :)
I haven't the time or the required internet capability
I'm coming back to Melbourne later this week though, maybe then I'll share my thoughts on the subject (and watch all hell break loose lol)
I wasn't aware hell was a tenet of Judaism? :P Your time in Israel has not tempered your religious dogma? That is a shame...
Of course hell is a tenet of Judaism. Check Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.
As for Israel 'tempering my religious dogma', I'm not here on holiday, I'm here to learn. I sit and learn Talmud for 10-12 hours every day over here, and you think this will temper my beliefs? Ha, good luck with that
Was your time in London spent in...Stamford Hill, by any chance?
-
Saying religions are made-up without actually looking into religions is ignorance..
-
Saying religions are made-up without actually looking into religions is ignorance..
Anything that can be claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof.
-
Well it would have been had I been around to participate :)
Nothing like opening a fresh can of worms :)
Why not dive in now? :)
I haven't the time or the required internet capability
I'm coming back to Melbourne later this week though, maybe then I'll share my thoughts on the subject (and watch all hell break loose lol)
I wasn't aware hell was a tenet of Judaism? :P Your time in Israel has not tempered your religious dogma? That is a shame...
Of course hell is a tenet of Judaism. Check Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.
As for Israel 'tempering my religious dogma', I'm not here on holiday, I'm here to learn. I sit and learn Talmud for 10-12 hours every day over here, and you think this will temper my beliefs? Ha, good luck with that
Such a shame. I thought you were enlisting in the IDF with Chavi. I guess your indoctrination is so well completed by your family and community that you'll more than willingly subject yourself to more of it in absurdly high doses. How disappointing.
-
Oh oh, I've got a good question now mainly for Christians.
So the 'virgin' Mary gives birth to a baby and tells you she's a virgin. Now if someone you knew gave birth to a child and told you she was a virgin would you believe her?
-
Was your time in London spent in...Stamford Hill, by any chance?
Lol no, Golders Green. Stamford Hill is not really my kind of my place, even now
Such a shame. I thought you were enlisting in the IDF with Chavi. I guess your indoctrination is so well completed by your family and community that you'll more than willingly subject yourself to more of it in absurdly high doses. How disappointing.
Not into the IDF idea right now. Various reasons.
As for 10 hours a day of learning being an 'absurdly' high dosage, clearly you haven't heard of Rav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv who learns Torah for 20+ hours a day at the age of 101..
We can but aspire
-
Religion/contention aside (I personally do not think much of what this thread as become)
As for 10 hours a day of *insert any activity here* being an 'absurdly' high dosage, clearly you haven't heard of *insert name* who *insert any activity here* for 20+ hours a day.
We can but aspire
That specific argument may not hold
-
Religion/contention aside (I personally do not think much of what this thread as become)
As for 10 hours a day of *insert any activity here* being an 'absurdly' high dosage, clearly you haven't heard of *insert name* who *insert any activity here* for 20+ hours a day.
We can but aspire
That specific argument may not hold
I'm not making an argument of any sort. I'm simply pointing out that my 'dosage' however high it may be, could be and should be so much higher.
-
Religion/contention aside (I personally do not think much of what this thread as become)
As for 10 hours a day of *insert any activity here* being an 'absurdly' high dosage, clearly you haven't heard of *insert name* who *insert any activity here* for 20+ hours a day.
We can but aspire
That specific argument may not hold
I'm not making an argument of any sort. I'm simply pointing out that my 'dosage' however high it may be, could be and should be so much higher.
Should be?
You want to learn Torah for 20+ hours a day? ......
-
Like I said, it's something to aspire to. Learning Torah is the greatest of all G-d's commandments, and is the primary purpose of a Jew in this world. That being the case, the more the better, even beyond 20 hours a day if possible.
-
That makes no sense. God's commandments are to tell you what to do in life right? So you spend 20+ hours a day learning these commandments and the rest sleeping and eating....
OR
You could cut back to 20 minutes and live some kind of life.
-
Oh oh, I've got a good question now mainly for Christians.
So the 'virgin' Mary gives birth to a baby and tells you she's a virgin. Now if someone you knew gave birth to a child and told you she was a virgin would you believe her?
Just on this, me and a christian friend had a really funny argument on how 'jesus was [allegedly] the world's first surrogate baby'
*continue discussion*
-
Oh oh, I've got a good question now mainly for Christians.
So the 'virgin' Mary gives birth to a baby and tells you she's a virgin. Now if someone you knew gave birth to a child and told you she was a virgin would you believe her?
Just on this, me and a christian friend had a really funny argument on how 'jesus was [allegedly] the world's first surrogate baby'
*continue discussion*
The better joke is that the virgin mary is the best lie a woman has ever told.
"oh fuck. I cheated and now I'm pregnant and we've never had sex so he'll KNOW."
*2 hours of scheming later*
"... erm, honey, GOD GAVE ME A BABY!"
And so christianity was born :P
Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience
-
Like I said, it's something to aspire to. Learning Torah is the greatest of all G-d's commandments, and is the primary purpose of a Jew in this world. That being the case, the more the better, even beyond 20 hours a day if possible.
Yeah, how's that working out for Israel? Was it god's intention to drive Israel's economy into the dirt by the epic economic deadweight that is all the chareidim in their pathetic one dimensionality spending all day reading a fairytale at the expense of actual hardworking Israelis?
-
You'll both know more about it than me, but I'd think that more important than dropping religious education is that fact that Israel's economy could benefit from not refusing to deal with the surrounding nations.
Oh oh, I've got a good question now mainly for Christians.
So the 'virgin' Mary gives birth to a baby and tells you she's a virgin. Now if someone you knew gave birth to a child and told you she was a virgin would you believe her?
Well the standard of proof is a lot higher now than 2000 years ago.
The better joke is that the virgin mary is the best lie a woman has ever told.
Reminds me of this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/m8/the_amazing_virgin_pregnancy/
-
You'll both know more about it than me, but I'd think that more important than dropping religious education is that fact that Israel's economy could benefit from not refusing to deal with the surrounding nations.
Oh oh, I've got a good question now mainly for Christians.
So the 'virgin' Mary gives birth to a baby and tells you she's a virgin. Now if someone you knew gave birth to a child and told you she was a virgin would you believe her?
Well the standard of proof is a lot higher now than 2000 years ago.
The better joke is that the virgin mary is the best lie a woman has ever told.
Reminds me of this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/m8/the_amazing_virgin_pregnancy/
You'd find it's more an issue of the surrounding nations refusing to deal with Israel. On the other hand, as enwiabe said those charedim are the fastest growing demographic in the country and in an economic sense the biggest problem - if they don't start working and get off welfare it's only going to fuel more tension and bring the economy down.
-
Like I said, it's something to aspire to. Learning Torah is the greatest of all G-d's commandments, and is the primary purpose of a Jew in this world. That being the case, the more the better, even beyond 20 hours a day if possible.
Yeah, how's that working out for Israel? Was it god's intention to drive Israel's economy into the dirt by the epic economic deadweight
that is all the chareidim in their pathetic one dimensionality spending all day reading a fairytale at the expense of actual hardworking Israelis?
The charedim sitting and learning all day are what makes the world continue to exist. אם אין תורה אין קמח, as they say.
-
Getting back on topic, muhammud is mentioned in the Torah.
Deuteronomy chapter 13, look it up.
-
Muhammed (Pbuh) is mentioned in the Torah, but Jesus, Moses and all other prophets are also mentioned in the Qur'an.
-
So... what this means.... is that somewhere along the way both religions were the "same" and then they verged off at different points to follow different prophets?
-
Like I said, it's something to aspire to. Learning Torah is the greatest of all G-d's commandments, and is the primary purpose of a Jew in this world. That being the case, the more the better, even beyond 20 hours a day if possible.
Yeah, how's that working out for Israel? Was it god's intention to drive Israel's economy into the dirt by the epic economic deadweight
that is all the chareidim in their pathetic one dimensionality spending all day reading a fairytale at the expense of actual hardworking Israelis?
The charedim sitting and learning all day are what makes the world continue to exist. אם אין תורה אין קמח, as they say.
Tell me any tangible way in which they do anything to help the world. At all.
-
Oh oh, I've got a good question now mainly for Christians.
So the 'virgin' Mary gives birth to a baby and tells you she's a virgin. Now if someone you knew gave birth to a child and told you she was a virgin would you believe her?
Just on this, me and a christian friend had a really funny argument on how 'jesus was [allegedly] the world's first surrogate baby'
*continue discussion*
The better joke is that the virgin mary is the best lie a woman has ever told.
"oh fuck. I cheated and now I'm pregnant and we've never had sex so he'll KNOW."
*2 hours of scheming later*
"... erm, honey, GOD GAVE ME A BABY!"
And so christianity was born :P
hahaha this is actually true though.. i don't understand why so many people are able to believe such an extreme event simply by word of mouth.
Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience
-
learn torah 20hours a day, its a exaguration obviously, it means u study the book in detail.
-
Incorrect. There genuinely are people alive today who study 20 hours a day. Rav Elyashiv goes to sleep at 10.30 and wakes at 2 am, and doesn't stop learning in his waking hours.
-
Incorrect. There genuinely are people alive today who study 20 hours a day. Rav Elyashiv goes to sleep at 10.30 and wakes at 2 am, and doesn't stop learning in his waking hours.
And they're all a useless burden on Israel.
Seriously, how selfish is it to sit and read a book all day and expect other people to subsidise your ridiculous lifestyle?
What a scourge on society.
-
hmm intresting Yitzi, do jews pray 5 times a day or something like muslims... ? like is their daily prayers or something?
-
No, Jews pray 3 times per day.
-
Incorrect. There genuinely are people alive today who study 20 hours a day. Rav Elyashiv goes to sleep at 10.30 and wakes at 2 am, and doesn't stop learning in his waking hours.
And they're all a useless burden on Israel.
Seriously, how selfish is it to sit and read a book all day and
expect other people to subsidise your ridiculous lifestyle?
What a scourge on society.
Lol useless burden. The world couldn't exist without them.
hmm intresting Yitzi, do jews pray 5 times a day or something like muslims... ? like is their daily prayers or something?
Jews pray three times a day, morning prayers take 45 mins - an hour, afternoon and evening prayers take 10-15 minutes each.
-
Lol useless burden. The world couldn't exist without them.
Explain that, using logic. You know the world (planet earth) existed for BILLIONS of years before "god" "appeared" to that savage tribe four thousand years ago, yeah?
Or are you a young earth creationist? If so, LOL
-
Incorrect. There genuinely are people alive today who study 20 hours a day. Rav Elyashiv goes to sleep at 10.30 and wakes at 2 am, and doesn't stop learning in his waking hours.
And they're all a useless burden on Israel.
Seriously, how selfish is it to sit and read a book all day and
expect other people to subsidise your ridiculous lifestyle?
What a scourge on society.
Lol useless burden. The world couldn't exist without them.
So how many people need to be studying the Torah and for how long, exactly, if the world is to continue to exist?
Edit: Ha! Dennis Prager, (as well as making a good case against the continued indulgence of the Charedim) draws a parallel between Yeshiva scholars and Liberal Arts academics. Nice one!
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/ultra-orthodox_yeshivas_and_secular_universities_20101201/
-
Lol useless burden. The world couldn't exist without them.
Explain that, using logic. You know the world (planet earth) existed for BILLIONS of years before "god" "appeared" to that savage tribe four thousand years ago, yeah?
Or are you a young earth creationist? If so, LOL
I believe that 5771 years ago, G-d created a billion-year-old earth.
Incorrect. There genuinely are people alive today who study 20 hours a day. Rav Elyashiv goes to sleep at 10.30 and wakes at 2 am, and doesn't stop learning in his waking hours.
And they're all a useless burden on Israel.
Seriously, how selfish is it to sit and read a book all day and
expect other people to subsidise your ridiculous lifestyle?
What a scourge on society.
Lol useless burden. The world couldn't exist without them.
So how many people need to be studying the Torah and for how long, exactly, if the world is to continue to exist?
Edit: Ha! Dennis Prager, (as well as making a good case against the continued indulgence of the Charedim) draws a parallel between Yeshiva scholars and Liberal Arts academics. Nice one!
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/ultra-orthodox_yeshivas_and_secular_universities_20101201/
The world was created for the purpose of Torah study, so without it, the world would cease to exist. As long as at all times one person, somewhere in the world, is learning Torah, the world can exist; otherwise, not.
In fact there were yeshivot in Europe before the war which deliberately had learning sessions by different groups of students round the clock just because of this.
Re your article, it's interesting to note that the Israeli economy came through the GFC better than just about every other western economy out there, despite, (or some might say because of) the charedi issue. Also I notice it's ignored that a very high percentage of charedi women work, and thus the sector is contributing to the economy.
-
Wow, you are truly a deluded person. You have no evidence for any of this, and yet you believe it as if it were fact.
The damage that has been done to your mind... it is sickening.
I said use logic, and facts. Not hearsay and your ridiculous beliefs. Come on boy, play by the rules of proper debate.
-
Re: Charedi women, nice try but the work is minimal and considering that they're also forced to be the keepers of the houshold by their sexist religion, it only makes up a TINY portion of the massive hole blown in the budget by those ultra-orthodox leeches.
And furthermore, Israel came through the GFC because of its booming technology sector, don't kid yourself on that fact, and the Charedi have been riding the hard work of others for too long.
-
That's enough of the patronisation, thank you. You are free to consider me to be retarded but let's try keep personal views out of this discussion.
I never said I was using logic or facts, these are just my beliefs. So it probably won't make for a very good debate, but oh well, never mind, you'll just have to pour out your vitriol on some other poor person.
-
Oh, and sexist religion? Do continue...
-
That's enough of the patronisation, thank you. You are free to consider me to be retarded but let's try keep personal views out of this discussion.
I never said I was using logic or facts, these are just my beliefs. So it probably won't make for a very good debate, but oh well, never mind, you'll just have to pour out your vitriol on some other poor person.
I never said you were retarded, nor would I say that. I said you are deluded, and it's not patronisation, it's exasperation - that you won't see or cannot see or have been prevented from seeing how this religion has poisoned your mind.
It's extremely saddening for me to see someone as intelligent as you, who scored a 99.60 in his VCE, obviously displaying highly above average intellectual competence, fall prey to such a primitive belief system because that's what you were indoctrinated with before you could walk.
Ignoring logic or facts is not virtuous. That is how all our wars happen. When people don't stop, and think, and think carefully.
-
Oh, and sexist religion? Do continue...
Tell me how many orthodox rabbis are women. You're laughing if you don't think it's sexist.
See also how ONLY the husband can authorise a divorce.
-
You seem to be implying that the only way an intelligent person could believe is through indoctrination from youth. How then do you explain the phenomenon of highly intelligent people with no religious upbringing later in life finding belief?
-
You seem to be implying that the only way an intelligent person could believe is through indoctrination from youth. How then do you explain the phenomenon of highly intelligent people with no religious upbringing later in life finding belief?
They are few and far between, and with the exponential spread of knowledge, this phenomenon is becoming fewer and farther between. And they are deluded and susceptible to such beliefs for other reasons. Usually due to emotional vulnerabilities, fear of death, guilt of past wrongs etc.
-
Oh, and sexist religion? Do continue...
Tell me how many orthodox rabbis are women. You're laughing if you don't think it's sexist.
See also how ONLY the husband can authorise a divorce.
Judaism doesn't hold that men are better than women. Judaism holds that men are different to women. Men and women are different physically, chemically, emotionally and spiritually, and therefore have different roles to play. The women raise the children, and the men teach the children. Different roles, neither more or less worthwhile that the other.
Edit: Also, on the divorce issue: Research the 'Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershon'. I might ask that in future you research your points before raising them with factual incorrections. Also, as I'm sure your aware, a Beth Din these days does not have the power of corporal punishment, that is, except for one case alone: When a husband refuses to issue his wife a divorce, the Beth Din may beat him until he consents.
-
Oh, and sexist religion? Do continue...
Tell me how many orthodox rabbis are women. You're laughing if you don't think it's sexist.
See also how ONLY the husband can authorise a divorce.
Judaism doesn't hold that men are better than women. Judaism holds that men are different to women. Men and women are different physically, chemically, emotionally and spiritually, and therefore have different roles to play. The women raise the children, and the men teach the children. Different roles, neither more or less worthwhile that the other.
It's still sexism. Sexism is defined as discrimination based on gender. Women aren't allowed to teach because they are women. That is the DEFINITION of sexism, it doesn't matter -what- euphemisms you dress it up in.
That also doesn't explain why only MEN can authorise a divorce. How do you explain -that- one?
-
See above, I added it in after.
-
See above, I added it in after.
Hahaha you're very good at avoiding the issue. You still won't admit that they need the husband's consent and the husband's consent ONLY to allow a divorce?
Why? Blatant sexism. And you can't escape that fact :)
-
No, you need the consent of both of them. Did you or did you not look it up? It's quite explicit.
-
No, you need the consent of both of them. Did you or did you not look it up? It's quite explicit.
You don't need the woman's consent. The husband can override it if he wants to.
-
You know that a husband can just ask a rabbi for a divorce document and he gets one. If a woman wants one she has to sue in a rabbinical court. How is that not sexism?
-
This thread has gone so far off topic the forum rules are crying.
-
Edit: Ha! Dennis Prager, (as well as making a good case against the continued indulgence of the Charedim) draws a parallel between Yeshiva scholars and Liberal Arts academics. Nice one!
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/ultra-orthodox_yeshivas_and_secular_universities_20101201/
As a liberal arts student I am highly insulted >=[
-
This thread has gone so far off topic the forum rules are crying.
I tried to split it but it had already gone off-topic in the first page
-
You know that a husband can just ask a rabbi for a divorce document and he gets one. If a woman wants one she has to sue in a rabbinical court. How is that not sexism?
No, incorrect. As I keep telling you, google the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom. You've repeated this point 4 times now, every single time completely ignoring the point I've raised that what you're saying is completely and utterly halachically inaccurate. You of all people should know that repeating a point many times doesn't make it true.
-
So, Yitzi, just one active Torah scholar is needed to save the world? Obviously he'll need several understudies in case something unforeseen happens to him. And you could form part of a sort of militia, (just as with the IDF), of auxiliary scholars, prepared for an emergency. But...you can't really make a case for hundreds of thousands to be similarly subsidised; it would rather contravene something I know from my very cursory knowledge of the Torah about not stealing.
Edit: Ha! Dennis Prager, (as well as making a good case against the continued indulgence of the Charedim) draws a parallel between Yeshiva scholars and Liberal Arts academics. Nice one!
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/ultra-orthodox_yeshivas_and_secular_universities_20101201/
As a liberal arts student I am highly insulted >=[
I don't think he's 'anti-arts' (to use *that* phrase again); he objects to govt funded arts faculties being allowed to coexist in a left-wing echo chamber.
-
You know that a husband can just ask a rabbi for a divorce document and he gets one. If a woman wants one she has to sue in a rabbinical court. How is that not sexism?
No, incorrect. As I keep telling you, google the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom. You've repeated this point 4 times now, every single time completely ignoring the point I've raised that what you're saying is completely and utterly halachically inaccurate. You of all people should know that repeating a point many times doesn't make it true.
From wiki, and this article is WELL sourced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_%28divorce_document%29):
"Refusal to provide a get
The laws of gittin only provide for a divorce initiated by the husband. However, the wife has the right to sue for divorce in a rabbinical court."
:) Sexism.
-
WELL sourced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_%28divorce_document%29):
If by well sourced, you mean it references five documents, three of which are news articles; and the line you quote does not have a citation, then yes. I can see how it is 'well' sourced.
-
WELL sourced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_%28divorce_document%29):
If by well sourced, you mean it references five documents, three of which are news articles; and the line you quote does not have a citation, then yes. I can see how it is 'well' sourced.
It sources the relevant Judaic text.
-
No it doesn't. I see no mention of any of the relevant texts anywhere in the article. (I also find it hard to believe you would know what the relevant texts are.)
But even if we are to assume that what's written there is correct, it's at most a legal technicality which is essentially meaningless.
At the end of the day:
A man cannot give a get without the consent of his wife.
A woman cannot give a get without the consent of her husband.
A man can start divorce proceedings against his wife.
A woman can start divorce proceedings against her husband.
I dunno, to me that seems fairly equal, but if you want to get your knickers in a twist over some exaggerated perceived sexism, go with it.
-
No it doesn't. I see no mention of any of the relevant texts anywhere in the article. (I also find it hard to believe you would know what the relevant texts are.)
But even if we are to assume that what's written there is correct, it's at most a legal technicality which is essentially meaningless.
At the end of the day:
A man cannot give a get without the consent of his wife.
A woman cannot give a get without the consent of her husband.
A man can start divorce proceedings against his wife.
A woman can start divorce proceedings against her husband.
I dunno, to me that seems fairly equal, but if you want to get your knickers in a twist over some exaggerated perceived sexism, go with it.
Nah, I'm not letting you weasel out of this one :) It's interesting that you didn't rebut my point that Jewish men can just ASK for the document, but the woman must go through the degrading process of legal action in a court. Tell me how this isn't sexist? And finally, if it isn't sexist, tell me how this situation comes to pass:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/religious-courts-society-must-shun-divorce-deniers-1.255283
Where even the religious community is SHUNNING taht man because he won't grant his wife a divorce, yet they can't act to grant the divorce themselves? Seems like your religion has sexism ingrained within it...
Also you're such a fucking weasel. All that is required in Jewish law for a woman's "consent" is that the man hand the document to his wife. He can do that for any reason. Once the document has been handed to her, the divorce is finalised. She doesn't need to sign for it, or "consent" to him. He just needs to physically press the document into her hand.
And you knew that, and like the wormy weasel that you are you tried to play it down. How disgraceful.
-
Both men and women can initiate divorce proceedings, just through different ways. Like I said before, we consider men and women to be different. That does not mean either are better than the other. Neither one has their rights impeded, they just use a different process.
Again, and again, and again, I tell you that you a factually incorrect in your claim that the consent of the wife is not necessary in a divorce, as per the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom. This may interest you: There are actually more Israeli men being refused divorces by their wives than women by their husbands.
Now based on the above link, which absolutely disproves everything you've been claiming about how women can be forced into divorce, I expect an apology for your abusive comments. I've stated many times that you are basing your claims on complete falsities, and you've consistently ignored this and continued to post your incorrect statements time and time again. Consent does NOT mean pressing the get into the hand of the women; if it did, how could men possibly be denied a divorce, as are those mentioned in the link above?
Again, if you actually did real research and didn't just post the same nonsense over and over, you wouldn't end up abusing me using vulgar language (quite possibly breaking a couple of forum rules in the process, Mr Admin), because you'd see that in this case at least, I am right and you are categorically wrong.
To sum up: Both men and women need to give actual genuine consent to their spouse in order for a divorce to take effect. This is unarguable Jewish law, despite your claims to the opposite. And that to me sounds a lot like equality.
-
Both men and women can initiate divorce proceedings, just through different ways. Like I said before, we consider men and women to be different. That does not mean either are better than the other. Neither one has their rights impeded, they just use a different process.
Again, and again, and again, I tell you that you a factually incorrect in your claim that the consent of the wife is not necessary in a divorce, as per the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom. This may interest you: There are actually more Israeli men being refused divorces by their wives than women by their husbands.
Now based on the above link, which absolutely disproves everything you've been claiming about how women can be forced into divorce, I expect an apology for your abusive comments. I've stated many times that you are basing your claims on complete falsities, and you've consistently ignored this and continued to post your incorrect statements time and time again. Consent does NOT mean pressing the get into the hand of the women; if it did, how could men possibly be denied a divorce, as are those mentioned in the link above?
Again, if you actually did real research and didn't just post the same nonsense over and over, you wouldn't end up abusing me using vulgar language (quite possibly breaking a couple of forum rules in the process, Mr Admin), because you'd see that in this case at least, I am right and you are categorically wrong.
To sum up: Both men and women need to give actual genuine consent to their spouse in order for a divorce to take effect. This is unarguable Jewish law, despite your claims to the opposite. And that to me sounds a lot like equality.
However, you're still glossing over the fact that it is far easier for the man to get a divorce than the woman. Whereas the man can just ask for the document, a woman has to sue for it. That is not equitable, that is extremely sexist.
I was also calling the religion sexist, not its practitioners (although a great deal many are by their refusal to allow women to teach men). See, it's actually neither here nor there that the Cherem of Gershom makes the whole process more fair. I'll more than happily cede to you that the process is exactly what you say it is now (except for your glossing over of men having it easier than women to do it).
I was moreso arguing what was written down in the torah, which is supposedly the word of god, is that women are not important in divorce proceedings. That is sexist, and that makes the religion itself sexist because very clearly, god is sexist.
It was only when the orthodox realised this was untenable, and they were facing a revolt, that they had to actually edit the word of "god" in order to make it more palatable to the masses. My exercise here was to make you see how sexist your religion truly is. It is extremely flawed :)
EDIT: It's interesting, when I showed you how the refusal to allow women to be rabbis was the definition of sexism that you shut up on that point. You didn't even try to rebut it... :)
-
G-d is not sexist, G-d allocates different roles in life for men and women. That is His decision and not for us to argue with.
I didn't argue your point, not because I agree with it, but because I had already stated my opinion in the previous post. What you call sexism, I call allocation of different roles to different genders. Men and women are different, and it makes perfect sense that they should play different roles, neither of which is less worthwhile than the other. If men and women were intended to play identical roles, they'd have been created identical.
I'm still yet to hear an apology for your vulgar personal abuse, despite you now admitting that I was right all along.
-
I never admitted you were right all along. I ceded part of your argument you were banging on about relentlessly so you'd see the bigger picture that it's still sexist. And you might be happy not to use your brain, and not to think things through, but gender roles are the definition of sexism, and so you cannot argue that Judaism is not sexist if you already agree that there are religiously defined gender roles. That is sexism by definition! You're admitting it without admitting it. How frustrating.
-
I'm still yet to hear an apology for your vulgar personal abuse, despite you now admitting that I was right all along.
You won't get one off this guy mate. Take a look at the previous pages of this thread and you'll see it's in his nature to start with the verbal abuse. Once again, I refer to the forum rules:
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence. AN takes a zero-tolerance policy to such bigotry.
I'll reiterate that the admin was the first person in the topic to start the verbal abuse. If you don't like the thread, as I've said countless times, GTFO. No one is forcing you to read religious discussion.
You dun' goofed. brb waiting for 'i have an obligation to help society'. brb waiting for 'i didn't infringe the rules because I'll manipulate things the way I like.'
enwiabe no one expects you to convert to Judaism/Catholicism. Yitzi probably doesn't mind having a debate. But what's with the name calling brah? You mad?
-
If you don't like the thread, as I've said countless times, GTFO.
Take your own advice :) I see you're still mad about the carbon tax thread, eh?
-
I see you're still mad about the carbon tax thread, eh?
LOL why would I be mad about a stupid tax? Religion means a lot to me, unlike a tax that hardly affects me personally. I was merely debating and pointing out some problems. Once I felt my point had been made (whether it was accepted or not), I stated that I wouldn't be posting in the thread any more.
Let's not get off topic here.
-
Let's not get off topic here.
ROFLMAO
-
Well, it looks like Yitzi doesn't want to make any further reply. So, I'm going to lock this thread now, because it's been off-topic since the first page and religion threads are never going to get anywhere.