The Qur'an

[Bizza]

In my translation, he spends a good third of the book bragging and boasting and praising himself.

In your "translations"? Please show me even one verse where Allah "praises" Himself? Your interpretation in "bragging" and "boasting" are down to mere semantics. If you consider an Omnipotent God Whom says He is verily all powerfull, this is NOT bragging or boasting. It is an attribute describing Himself.

Nothing "rightful" about it. I should worship somebody's ideas, or suffer punishments ? - besides, people putting threats in the mouth of their deity, and believing them to be his will, are dangerous.

What's so hard in following rules? You follow rules and have ethical standards set by your 'secular god's', don't you? And what happens when you don't abide by your god's rules Iceaura? You get punished. So are you going to disagree and go against the laws of your secular god's now?

And I refuted your argument, by demonstrating its absurdity.

Where exactly did you "demonstrate" them again?

Sorry about misleading with my comment. I was asserting, not deriving, the plural "we".

Rrrrriiiiggght!:bugeye:

And yes, those angels and djinns and such inhabit the supernatural realm, carry messages from the head God, and so forth - if you were an anthropologist, you might call them minor deities or subgods and no one would complain.

Angels carry messages, not Jinns! And no, even anthropologists would agree with my view in favour of yours any day. That's so obsurd!

 

[Bizza]

Are you unable to access a dictionary or other reference materials that would explain a cult? You may call Islam a religion, but it most certainly is well within the boundaries of a cult.

There are extremists in all religions, which are considered "cults" as it goes against the standard mainstream or orthodox view. Having a mainstream of people believing in, or having faith in, a particular method of thought, rite or ritual, is not considered a "cult", otherwise you may as well consider everyone and everything on Earth a "cult".

I'm well aware of what the cult of Islam has to offer. It is easily one of most dangerous cults ever to plague mankind.

Much like your "hate-filled-emo-like-wrist cutting-secular cult" perhaps? How depressing! Islam is dangerous... for people that try to fight it and then wrongly criticize it. Yes... fear it!

It's always entertaining to see newbie cult members like yourself raving about the same thing every other cult member claims when they sign on here. "If you actually read the book"

Duh.

And it's even more entertaining to see people that continue to make the same mistakes without learning from the past. Like fellow Human's such as yourself that are adamant in destroying other peoples beliefs and views. "Let's burn the witches hey?" Nothing new matey... you're just another wolf in different clothing. Believe me... your depressing "cult of hate" is the real danger to this world. And you have clearly demonstrated this vehemently.

 

[Michael]

I'm not here to humor you mate. You seem to be doing just fine in that area. I've been pissing myself for the last few days reading your "cult driven views of hate" in your posts. Like I said... go get that help you so desperately need.

Oh poor little Bizza. What? Mommy told you to sit at the little table again?

:roflmao:

Look Bizza, it's not your fault you were brainwashed as a child. And, pretty much like your mother tongue, your stuck with it. Changing your programing is about about as easy as changing your language.

For the record Xenu and Allah have the same amount of good evidence for their existences. Which is exactly none.

Ever wonder what date the Qur'an was finished? Yeah, that's right, you never thought to wonder that. You also never wondered who were the people that wrote which parts. Gee, seems like this would almost be a holiday - but, no one knows. Funny that.

Ever wondered if you could do something that your "All Powerful" Allah could not do? Oh, I'm, sure you can think of something. Or maybe not. Anyway, it's your life, have fun wasting it praying Allah to All Knowing AND All Powerful" pfffff.....


Like I said, tell Xenu/Allah/Santa we said hello,
(that's a royal we .. pffffff LOL)


Cheers,
Michael

Oh, and I don't hate your cult, luckily I was never raised it in myself. I do pity the people brainwashed into it. What I don't want is intolerance racist ideology memeing their way around. It appears society happens to be on my side - which is a good thing

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, and I don't hate your cult, luckily I was never raised it in myself. I do pity the people brainwashed into it. What I don't want is intolerance racist ideology memeing their way around. It appears society happens to be on my side - which is a good thing

Which society would that be? Society for Preservation and Proliferation of War Crimes, Unlimited?

 

[Bizza]

Hey Michael... there's a nice little white padded room with your name on it. Do take that visit to your psychiatrist like I suggested? You so dearly need it you poor poor lost child. You've gone deleriously mad with all that hate you've built up from obvious years of conditioning. Boohoo:bawl:

 

[Bizza]

Which society would that be? Society for Preservation and Proliferation of War Crimes, Unlimited?

LOL!:roflmao: well said Sam

 

[(Q)]

There are extremists in all religions, which are considered "cults" as it goes against the standard mainstream or orthodox view.

Sorry, but that isn't the definition of a cult. Try again.

Much like your "hate-filled-emo-like-wrist cutting-secular cult" perhaps?

What cult? Or, are you just blowing hot air?

How depressing! Islam is dangerous... for people that try to fight it and then wrongly criticize it. Yes... fear it!

You admit to wanting people to fear Islam? You are a dangerous person due to your cult. Thanks for making my point.

And it's even more entertaining to see people that continue to make the same mistakes without learning from the past. Like fellow Human's such as yourself that are adamant in destroying other peoples beliefs and views.

They aren't YOUR beliefs and views, they are the myths and superstitions of centuries ago when people like yourself DID burn witches as a result of their beliefs and views.

"Let's burn the witches hey?" Nothing new matey... you're just another wolf in different clothing.

As the good theists like yourself would stand in the crowd lighting the fire.

Believe me... your depressing "cult of hate" is the real danger to this world. And you have clearly demonstrated this vehemently.

Blowing more hot air? What cult? What have I demonstrated?

 

[(Q)]

Angels carry messages, not Jinns! And no, even anthropologists would agree with my view in favour of yours any day. That's so obsurd!

Do anthropologists believe in angels? Or, is that just a fairy tale in which you've yet to grow up?

 

[Bizza]

Sorry, but that isn't the definition of a cult. Try again.

Mate, the term "cult" is so out of whack these days that people from your "cult"ure seem to have hijacked it (as 'popular culture') and wrongly accused other religious beliefs as such. This is dangerous in more ways than one and I would highly suggest you stop using such a derogetory word to amuse yourselves and to upset others, which is clearly what your intent is. You show no sign of respect to a religion that has been in existence for over 1400yrs and is the most practiced religion on Earth.

Show some respect please?

What cult? Or, are you just blowing hot air?

'Pop "cult"ture advocates' such as yourself who just ride the next wave of hate. That's what!

You admit to wanting people to fear Islam?

Only its enemies. Wouldn't you want your enemies to fear your nation's military might for example?

They aren't YOUR beliefs and views, they are the myths and superstitions of centuries ago when people like yourself DID burn witches as a result of their beliefs and views.

It wasn't from a result of their religion whatsoever. Where in the Bible does it order people to burn witches? Show me? It's because of misinterpretation, self-deluded views and pure hate that drove such people to act in that way.

As the good theists like yourself would stand in the crowd lighting the fire.

No, that would be you with your pointy white hat.

Blowing more hot air? What cult? What have I demonstrated?

Everything that goes against respect and propper dialogue. You and your cronies here spew hatred all over the forum. It's obvious!

Do anthropologists believe in angels? Or, is that just a fairy tale in which you've yet to grow up?

Do anthropologist's claim there aren't any angel's? The absence of something is not proof of its absence.

 

[Repo Man]

Mate, the term "cult" is so out of whack these days that people from your "cult"ure seem to have hijacked it (as 'popular culture') and wrongly accused other religious beliefs as such. This is dangerous in more ways than one and I would highly suggest you stop using such a derogetory word to amuse yourselves and to upset others, which is clearly what your intent is. You show no sign of respect to a religion that has been in existence for over 1400yrs and is the most practiced religion on Earth.

Show some respect please?

Why? If people believe in nonsense, the best way to deal with it is to expose it for what it is. Insulting the nonsense a person believes in is not the same as insulting that person. This was best stated by H.L. Mencken -

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

You suggest it is dangerous. In what way? We are safely in the west, where we have the freedom to say Islam is stupid if we choose.

 

[Repo Man]

Also:

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/22.html

Have to love that old testament goodness.

 

[Bizza]

Why? If people believe in nonsense, the best way to deal with it is to expose it for what it is. Insulting the nonsense a person believes in is not the same as insulting that person. This was best stated by H.L. Mencken -

That's the problem. No one here has exposed anything but their own self-deluded ideas and have shown no sign of respectful dialogue to actually discuss your qualms.

You suggest it is dangerous. In what way? We are safely in the west, where we have the freedom to say Islam is stupid if we choose.

Sure you do. And we have freedoms to safely say atheists and secularists alike are blind to their own views; that this universe was created by mute, dumb, sensless and lifeless particles. But the difference is we have respect and you don't!

Also:

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/22.html

Have to love that old testament goodness.

What? In this version I have here it says;
18 Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live. source: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo022.htm
Now that's a bit different to your version isn't it? It can be interpreted to mean "Wizards shall not suffer". But then again, I'm not a Christian.

 

[Repo Man]

That's the problem. No one here has exposed anything but their own self-deluded ideas and have shown no sign of respectful dialogue to actually discuss your qualms.

In a science forum, it should come as no surprise that you find people expressing frustration with the idea of ancient superstitions being taken on face value. When you realize how ludicrous it is that a substantial number of people on this Earth still seem to be able to buy the idea that everything that exists was created for the benefit of humans, you realize where George Carlin was coming from when he said “Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!”

Sure you do. And we have freedoms to safely say atheists and secularists alike are blind to their own views; that this universe was created by mute, dumb, sensless and lifeless particles. But the difference is we have respect and you don't!

Who's we? This guy is certainly respectful of opinions differing from his own.

What? In this version I have here it says;
18 Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live. source: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo022.htm
Now that's a bit different to your version isn't it? It can be interpreted to mean "Wizards shall not suffer". But then again, I'm not a Christian.

The translation that counted was the one believed by those in power at the time. This led to countless women being condemned, tortured, and killed in the most horrible ways imaginable. Just as at this time, the important translation of your holy books is the one that is believed by the sort of people who would fly aircraft into buildings.

 

[Bizza]

In a science forum, it should come as no surprise that you find people expressing frustration with the idea of ancient superstitions being taken on face value. When you realize how ludicrous it is that a substantial number of people on this Earth still seem to be able to buy the idea that everything that exists was created for the benefit of humans, you realize where George Carlin was coming from when he said “Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!”

Right. And as an example of 'public stupidity' (including scientific knowledge) Galileo is regarded as one of the greatest scientific thinkers of the Renaissance. His questioning of Aristotelian and Ptolemaic concepts of physics and astronomy, his studies of motion, his refinement of the telescope, and his subsequent discoveries about the universe were to have far-reaching, influential effects on the way people think about the earth and the heavens today, whereas in his time the scientists seemed to find his views as "stupid". Yeah.. people then "knew" the world was flat!

Then there's;
1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
4.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
5.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
6.Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
7.Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
8.Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
9.William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
10.Max Planck (1858-1947)
11.Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Who's we? This guy is certainly respectful of opinions differing from his own.

You? Respectful? I recall you calling our beloved Prophet a "retard" in another thread. How is that respectful? It's down-right hypocritical of you to say that.

The translation that counted was the one believed by those in power at the time. This led to countless women being condemned, tortured, and killed in the most horrible ways imaginable. Just as at this time, the important translation of your holy books is the one that is believed by the sort of people who would fly aircraft into buildings.

The same way your Western idealogists and leaders sought the use of nuclear bombs to kill innocents in Japan? Or even carpet bombing perhaps? Let's even throw a bit of phosphorous in there hey? How ironic!

 

[Repo Man]

Right. And as an example of 'public stupidity' (including scientific knowledge) Galileo is regarded as one of the greatest scientific thinkers of the Renaissance. His questioning of Aristotelian and Ptolemaic concepts of physics and astronomy, his studies of motion, his refinement of the telescope, and his subsequent discoveries about the universe were to have far-reaching, influential effects on the way people think about the earth and the heavens today, whereas in his time the scientists seemed to find his views as "stupid". Yeah.. people then "knew" the world was flat!

Then there's;
1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
4.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
5.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
6.Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
7.Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
8.Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
9.William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
10.Max Planck (1858-1947)
11.Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

That has nothing to do with believing that humans are the sole focus of a creator of some sort. To have an idea of the size and age of the cosmos, and yet still believe that it has all been for our benefit is fantastically egocentric. Nothing science has discovered has supported the idea that humans are important.

You? Respectful? I recall you calling our beloved Prophet a "retard" in another thread. How is that respectful? It's down-right hypocritical of you to say that.

I'm not particularly respectful, but you're confusing me with someone else. It would help you understand the point of my post if you had bothered to click on the link.

The same way your Western idealogists and leaders sought the use of nuclear bombs to kill innocents in Japan? Or even carpet bombing perhaps? Let's even throw a bit of phosphorous in there hey? How ironic!

A mixture of tu quoque and red herring fallacies here. This thread isn't about whether or not the use of the fission bomb on Japan was justified, or the foreign policies of the United States; it's about a book of mythology, and the unjustified reverence some people have for it.

 

[Bizza]

That has nothing to do with believing that humans are the sole focus of a creator of some sort. To have an idea of the size and age of the cosmos, and yet still believe that it has all been for our benefit is fantastically egocentric. Nothing science has discovered has supported the idea that humans are important.

You were the one that said "If people believe in nonsense, the best way to deal with it is to expose it for what it is."

And that's exactly what I did, to show you just how ludicrous atheistic beliefs can be in the face of scepticism. These are some of the greatest thinkers of Human history, and none of them were atheists. How ironic hey?

Also, science never "supports" nor "denies" the importance of Humans. That is not its job, rather, it is the "fantastically egocentric" view of the atheist that thinks this way.

I'm not particularly respectful, but you're confusing me with someone else. It would help you understand the point of my post if you had bothered to click on the link.

My appolagies Repo Man. It wasn't you that said that. However, giving me a link like that doesn't mean that all atheists are like that. I could provide you with many more links that are contrary to your views about atheistic intent and approach. I think his thread is a testimony to that.

A mixture of tu quoque and red herring fallacies here. This thread isn't about whether or not the use of the fission bomb on Japan was justified, or the foreign policies of the United States; it's about a book of mythology, and the unjustified reverence some people have for it.

Okay, then what "mythologies" do you want to dissect scientifically exactly?

 

[786]

Also, science never "supports" nor "denies" the importance of Humans. That is not its job, rather, it is the "fantastically egocentric" view of the atheist that thinks this way.

Good Point. Atheists have a tendency to use science to make it as some type of philosophy.

Peace be unto you

 

[Repo Man]

You were the one that said "If people believe in nonsense, the best way to deal with it is to expose it for what it is."

And that's exactly what I did, to show you just how ludicrous atheistic beliefs can be in the face of scepticism. These are some of the greatest thinkers of Human history, and none of them were atheists. How ironic hey?

What atheistic beliefs? What those men believed was irrelevant. Galileo was condemned for proposing the heliocentric solar system, and narrowly escaped death for it. Do you think he would have made any doubts he had about Christianity public?

Also, science never "supports" nor "denies" the importance of Humans. That is not its job, rather, it is the "fantastically egocentric" view of the atheist that thinks this way.

Science has never proposed that humans are important, or that the cosmos was created for their benefit, but it has been a central belief of Abrahamic religions. Science has discovered many facts about the size and the age of the universe that makes it nearly impossible for an educated individual to swallow such a whopper. Countless stars, solar systems, galaxies, but it was all created for the benefit of one species on one planet?

My appolagies Repo Man. It wasn't you that said that. However, giving me a link like that doesn't mean that all atheists are like that. I could provide you with many more links that are contrary to your views about atheistic intent and approach. I think his thread is a testimony to that.


Okay, then what "mythologies" do you want to dissect scientifically exactly?

Rather than trying to debunk religious claims, I just want empirical evidence for them. The burden of proof is on those making a claim.

 

[786]

Science has never proposed that humans are important, or that the cosmos was created for their benefit, but it has been a central belief of Abrahamic religions.

Science has never proposed that humans are "unimportant" either.

Science has discovered many facts about the size and the age of the universe that makes it nearly impossible for an educated individual to swallow such a whopper. Countless stars, solar systems, galaxies, but it was all created for the benefit of one species on one planet?

The fact all these galaxies and planets exist is discovered by science. But Science doesn't make the claim that these were not created for the benefit of one species on one planet. An educated person will realize what science has shown and not extrapolate their own belief based upon it, as that would only be an assertion unsupported by scientific knowledge.

The fact religions may claim this is one issue, but the fact that you deny them based upon science is in fact a religion all of its own which also makes claims contrary to religion is another issue. The burden of proof lies on both. If you make a claim using science then that claim is independent of a claim made by religions (even if it is a direct response) and thus you equally have the burden of proof. The smart thing to do would be to not make a contrary claim as science doesn't make these claims

Peace be unto you

 

[Repo Man]

Science has never proposed that humans are "unimportant" either.

None need bother. The facts make the claim by theists that they (humans) are important very dubious, and aren't supported by any facts that I'm aware of.

The fact all these galaxies and planets exist is discovered by science. But Science doesn't make the claim that these were not created for the benefit of one species on one planet. An educated person will realize what science has shown and not extrapolate their own belief based upon it, as that would only be an assertion unsupported by scientific knowledge.

The fact religions may claim this is one issue, but the fact that you deny them based upon science is in fact a religion all of its own which also makes claims contrary to religion is another issue. The burden of proof lies on both. The smart thing to do would be to not make a contrary claim

Peace be unto you

You make a claim based on dogmatic texts that maintain that the universe was created by an anthropomorphic deity, for the benefit of humans. I point out facts that make this claim seem downright silly. It might have been more easily believed in a more ignorant age, but today we know that the planet has only had humans for a very brief portion of it's existence. I have made no claim, I've merely pointed out that your claim has no support in cosmology.