Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[S.A.M.]

Do you know better? How do you know that?

 

[GeoffP]

Because I can see the bleeding horizon, why d'you think? It's curved. There's satellites in the sky. They're not flipping around the earth like a card trick. And we can fly all the way around it without falling off.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah. You do see, don't you?

 

[GeoffP]

I see all.

Anyway, should I deny my eyes or something?

 

[S.A.M.]

I've been trying to find a post by (Q) on the earth and general relativity, to ask you a doozy of a question he asked me. But I cannot recall exactly what he said, it was so unusual a concept. If I can find it, I'll ask you to explain it to me in light of what you see. I could not wrap my head around it.

 

[GeoffP]

Okie-dokie. I'd like to see something that beats ye olde Greek-curvature thingy tho.

 

[S.A.M.]

I have to get drunk and read up on relativity one of these days...

 

[Michael]

3000 years ago.

Caveman Michael: I do not think the world is flat.
Cavewoman SAM: I think the world is flat.

Caveman Michael: Do you agree that the possibility exists that the world is triangle, square, octagon or round?
Cavewoman SAM: More meaningless constructs, I believe the world is flat.

My post didn't have to do with perception. I mean, I can not directly perceive quarks or electrons etc.... It's about asking the Cavewoman SAM if she can agree on just one simple thing!

 

[S.A.M.]

Think != believe

 

[Michael]

Don't try to squirm I said think possible.

 

[S.A.M.]

think: reason
possible: capable of existing without disproving existing laws, facts or circumstances.

believe: accept as true

 

[S.A.M.]

I have to warn you, when I was seven, my dad bought two books from Readers Digest

The first was Use The Right Word, the second was Family Word Finder.

They were huge tomes and very clear and concise.

I'm very petty about definitions.

 

[audible]

I'm very petty about definitions.

lol and everything else it seems.

 

[S.A.M.]

 

[Bells]

My point being that in the existence of data contradicting fantasy, fantasy must be treated equally with reality? You're easily lost, then.

*Snort*

Don't theists also treat their belief in God's existence as being a reality even though there is no proof of God's existence?

So, irrespective of evidence, we can argue whatever we want with equal merit.

The dying gasp of logic.

Indeed. Atheists have been telling theists that for ages and they just don't seem to get it.

I'm beginning to see why there have been so many futile arguments

Heh..

Ah memories.

 

[Arsalan]

Sam, Im a bit tired and dont wanna go through the past pages again, could you summarize for me what this caveman bollocks is all about? Tnx

 

[iceaura]

My definition of fundamentalist differs from yours I think,

Not significatnly. I just think it applies to you.

Let’s retrace this dialogue to see who is saying what:

The next time we do that, let's not heavily edit just one side of the dialogue.

Check the first quote up top and see where you go wrong here.

Checked. Nowhere. Lots of atheists have attacked Islam without defending Christianity. Lots of the atheists who have defended Christianity from Islamic BS of your variety have also, elsewhere, defended Islam from Christian attacks by Christian fundies. This is true regardless of your original response reference - to the posters here on this forum - or your subsequent attempts to bring in the wide world of atheists everywhere, not previously part of the discussion.

The House of Saud are incredibly vile people and one of the main reasons for instability in that region. Their unIslamic dictatorship and the way they gained that power, accompanied by their disgusting habits makes them vile. Saddam Hussein was much better than them. Maybe you haven’t heard, but Iraq was a pretty safe place with him, very liberal too and terrorists didn’t dare to set foot in it. Ahmadinejad is an extremely misunderstood man in the West, mainly due to the on purpose and continued mistranslations attributed to him. He is way better than the House of Saud will ever be because he seems like a man who will not lie and stand by his word and his continued denouncement of any nuclear weapon as completely unIslamic is one of the most positive stances by a leader of any country regarding nuclear weapons or any WMDs.

I agree almost completely with that (I think you are a little too black and white in your praise of AJ and Saddam, and I don't think the personal vices of the Saudis have much to do with anything). I just wanted to post something by you I agreed with, to head off misunderstandings.
Such as this one:

I'm not sure what that repeated question is, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen anything resembling an answer.
”
That is not the way to go about an argument.

It was a response to one of your posts, deliberately copied after your style in that post.

Now, about the "fundie" label:

Furthermore the Quran carried these subjects to our time and beyond. And all these have so far proven to be correct.

There is nothing in the Quran that is both 1) verified physical fact or event and 2) unknowable by the people who wrote it.

The reading of "science" and factual prophetic visions into their particular religious texts is one of the defining characteristics of what is called - not just by me - a "fundamentalist" of that religion. It is also part of your definition. It leads you to make claims such as the literal truth of this:

This is an interesting event because when the Pharaoh was drowning, he said something along the lines “Now I believe in the God of Moses and Aaron” and God’s reply was along the lines of “Now? This is no time for saving your soul. So we will accept your prayer and since you are only interested in material wealth we will preserve your material body for future time to draw lessons from it.” The Quran mentions this. And in the time of the Prophet, there was absolutely no knowledge that the bodies of the Egyptians were being preserved and mummified and kept in the pyramids.

which are ridiculous.

The mummified pharoahs did not drown. There were no witnesses to their last words if they did. There is every reason to believe the practice of mummification was available in the parables and stories and legends common to the area for long after the collapse of the Egyptian empire - or even in continuing use. And so forth.

You can claim all you want that Christianity is for everyone who accepts Jesus as his or her saviour, but even that is denied by the Bible itself.
- - - -
Now let’s take a look at the concept of forgiveness you keep bringing up regarding Christianity. - - -
- - - - - -
Another flaw is the way Jesus behaved in the Bible prior to the crucifixion.
- - - -
Anyone who was crucified as Jesus was is according to the law he himself followed and taught a cursed one.
- - - -

So two things are visible: First, like every fundie, you ascribe fundamental importance to the textual details of some religious book. The Bible is not jsut a source of information and understanding about Christianity, but rather its text defines the religion, for you. Second, we see how you come by the impression that atheists who attack Islam defend Christianity - because speaking as an atheist who was raised and educated in the Christian faith, I can tell you that your Chrtistian theology and interpretation of Biblical texts is wrong. And by wrong I mean that is not how Christians interpret the book, or what they base their faith upon, and it's their book and their faith. In other words, this is silly:

It’s not me saying that, I’m merely pointing to what the books themselves are saying.

It's you. Like the Quran, the Bible says different things to different people. Christianity, all fifty dozen versions of it, is founded on what it says to various Christians.

and it marked the beginning of probably the most dynamic scientific movement in history, which has no equal in Christian history or Buddhist history for that matter.

The primary scientific value of that movement, which died out at home, came in its influence on the West - it founded the launching of the modern scientific age, which could easily have happened in the Islamic World, had things been different there. Such as a different religion.

btw:

Sam, Im a bit tired and dont wanna go through the past pages again, could you summarize for me what this caveman bollocks is all about?

No, she can't. Ask Geoff.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, Im a bit tired and dont wanna go through the past pages again, could you summarize for me what this caveman bollocks is all about? Tnx

One of Michaels theories on atheist cavemen who speculated the earth might be a polygon, while theists insisted it was flat.

Of course, the atheist caveman, with his vast store of prospective evidence, always knew the earth was round. Because when atheists say no, they mean, I don't know.

My own theory is that the atheist caveman would have laughed at the idea that he was on a ball suspended in space, an idea that would not be impossible to a theist.

iceaura:

I read the Bible some time back, but are there versions where Jesus is happily tripping to the crucifix, exalted at saving the world?

 

[iceaura]

My own theory is that the atheist caveman would have laughed at the idea that he was on a ball suspended in space, an idea that would not be impossible to a theist.

Well,if he laughed maybe he was an atheist. The Christian theists who were confronted with the notion (familiar from pagan and atheist antiquity, passed on through Islamic scholarship, and being proposed by people of dubious theistic faith) did not laugh.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well,if he laughed maybe he was an atheist. The Christian theists who were confronted with the notion (familiar from pagan and atheist antiquity, passed on through Islamic scholarship, and being proposed by people of dubious theistic faith) did not laugh.

Yes, all those silly theists, like Aryabhatta in the golden Gupta Age, Copernicus and Galileo. What were they thinking?