The Qur'an

Let me know how it goes.

Hahahahahhahahahhahaha....... holy smokes...... hahahhahahahhah.... This is seriously hilarious :roflmao:

Too good :roflmao:

Dang this is just absolutely the funniest comment I've ever read. Today was a good funny day. Thanks S.A.M.

Peace be unto you :roflmao:
 
This statement is unprovable if you are referring to the "evidence".
The statement is provable. There is as much scientific evidence for the existence of Allah as there is for the existence of Xenu. Which is to say there is none.

In regards to scientific evidence Allah = Xenu.

Simple really,
Michael
 
Hahahahahhahahahhahaha....... holy smokes...... hahahhahahahhah.... This is seriously hilarious :roflmao:

Too good :roflmao:

Dang this is just absolutely the funniest comment I've ever read. Today was a good funny day. Thanks S.A.M.

Peace be unto you :roflmao:

Polite rebuttal doesn't take you very far with some people. Especially the kind who think comparing a greeting to an obvious insult is somehow an intellectual exercise in rationality. Or that making a statue is the height of civilisation [even if you're shagging little boys in brothels]
 
Last edited:
I take it your family lives unclothed, you go unclothed to work, and if you saw an unclothed chap holding your naked kid on his lap you'd appreciate the beautiful picture they made. I suppose if your wife was flashed by some guy, she's tell you how much she appreciated the beauty of the moment.

I recommend you strip during class and let everyone appreciate the beauty of the human body. You might even pick out a couple of specimens of beauty among y9our students and ask them to strip instead, since the nude figure is so paramount to civilisation.

Let me know how it goes.

I see. Your response to a reasonable defense of nude sculpture is to demand that I personally go naked. I see. Because flashing someone, entirely without their consent, is the same as nude art in a public place that no one is obligated to go.

I'm not sure what's more stupid: your argument, or 786's bleating applause.

Let me know which one you think.

On a side note: reasoned discussion doesn't take you far with some people. Especially with those who think I'm Q, or don't appreciate art outside the confines of their ridiculously narrow acquired world-view. That would be astoundingly dumb.
 
I take it your family lives unclothed, you go unclothed to work, and if you saw an unclothed chap holding your naked kid on his lap you'd appreciate the beautiful picture they made. I suppose if your wife was flashed by some guy, she's tell you how much she appreciated the beauty of the moment.

I recommend you strip during class and let everyone appreciate the beauty of the human body. You might even pick out a couple of specimens of beauty among y9our students and ask them to strip instead, since the nude figure is so paramount to civilisation.

Let me know how it goes.
Its sad you see the human form so degrading. Even surprising considering the long history of representing the human form in India. Is this another example self-culture degradation?

maybe the Greeks should have put one big burka over the entire carving??

sculpture.jpg



Anyway, Bizza, still waiting for some sculptures from "Islamic" Golden Age.
 
The Greeks are obviously backward as a civilisation. They didn't use complicated math for their tiling. Anyone can carve a statue. Even neanderthals knew how to use a tool
 
Really.... so when you touch a nude statue you feel the natural expression
Would you call this the start of pornography- helped the world greatly

Peace be unto you ;)

Please tell me you did not just refer to classical sculptures of the human form as "pornography"..

Sam said:
The Greeks are obviously backward as a civilisation. They didn't use complicated math for their tiling. Anyone can carve a statue. Even neanderthals knew how to use a tool
Indeed. If "anyone" can carve a statue, there should not be all this boohoo about Michael's request.:)
 
I couldn't carve a statue, could you?

Sure why not? I could even generate plaster casts and make them by the dozens. All it would take is a class in sculpture. Its manual labour.

The Taj Mahal was built by uneducated artisans.

We have roadside stalls with such figurines

Stall.JPG


But devise complicated mathematical algorithms? Nope. I'll pass.

Greeks made calculators...

Thats probably why they had no zeros/
 
Please tell me you did not just refer to classical sculptures of the human form as "pornography"..

Have you been to Khajuraho?:p


Indeed. If "anyone" can carve a statue, there should not be all this boohoo about Michael's request.:)

There isn't. Statues are littered all over the world from the earliest human civilisations to the latest. There is no argument that anyone can carve a statue. If any society chooses to do something unique instead by taking focus off the human body [a much commercialised product, especially that of women] and use a different method of self expression, one which requires greater attention to details and advances knowledge at the same time, this is hardly classified as being a deficiency.

Can you honestly look at something like this and say, there is something lacking in the arts of this civilisation?

vi_islamicarchitecture1.jpg
 
Can you honestly look at something like this and say, there is something lacking in the arts of this civilisation?
Of course not.

But I also would not criticise other civilisations and cultures their artistic expressions and saying 'well anyone can do that..', as though their achievements are somehow not quite worthy of notice.

Demeaning their achievements because their main study or focus was the human form is naive. Not everyone can carve statues. You might think it is easy to just throw some stuff into a mold and voila, statue. I could demean the magnificent architecture and tiling by saying 'yeah, anyone can do that.. my cousin does heaps of mosiacs and feature walls for people's backyards in mosiacs'..:rolleyes:
 
Yeah, I noticed how many times the mods have jumped in when Michael does his "show me the statues" routine. As compared to my FIRST post challenging his nonsense. Thanks for nothing. I feel considerably better knowing how active the mods are in protecting the right side of the pond.
 
If this is what you call "moderation" by these so-called "moderators", then I want no part in any discussions in any section of this site.

For you to post those rules and to allow this ridiculous fool (yes that's you Michael!) to post threads like this (and all his other obvious hate-filled threads) that have NO intellectual content whatsoever, is an absolute discrace to this site, it's owners, it's moderators and mostly its members.

And for you guys to jump in now when it suits you all, is evidence that this site is nothing more than a joke, with jesters like Michael and the puppeteers that moderate the site (or lack thereof). Therefore, I will no longer take part in this facade. You are all a disgrace!

As my final parting words to you all, I will say this:

When you realise your mental deficiencies, due to your lack of knowledge and willingness to learn, you will soon understand that your minds have been diseased and stuck in the anals of those that dwindled before you in the past.

You want logic? You want to know just how stupidly illogical your minds are? Well I will show you!

Michael? (And any other idiot that shares the same values, thoughts and mentallity as him)... I have a syllogism for you all that is pretty much irrefutable evidence of just how stupid you all are. Oh Michael? By the way... look that up will you? That's "S Y L L O G I S M"! Something you lacked in this entire thread to prove your insanely stupid point.

I will begin by asking you all one simple question. Let's see if you can answer it and then appreciate the simplicity in the logic, so as to understand the immense fallacies you possess, and thus, your mental deficiencies I mentioned above.

The question is this:
If by the very definition and understanding of Eternity means the "unbound" and "uncreated" (therefore, uncaused) and you as an Atheist have no qualms an 'Eternal Universe' exists, then how can you have reason to believe in an "infinite chain of causes"?

Why am I asking this question? Because it drills to the very heart of what an Atheist HAS to believe in. Reason being is very simple. Let me elaborate.

I will begin with one simple premise:
Premise :: Something cannot come from nothing.
- This is accepted as verbatum in the scientific world of academia. It is what many axioms and laws are derived from. From this one very simple premise, one can conclude and derive many things. None moreso than this:

If something cannot come from nothing, then something must have created the Big Bang epoch yes? Otherwise, you believe in nothing before it, which will violate the agreed premise. Now you don't want to go against science do you? Okay. Now we have others;

1. Something cannot come from nothing,
2. Nothing is eternal or uncreated in this universe.
3. This universe then must have been created (caused).

[1] Justified and agreed by the scientific world.
[2] 100% justifiable, since every observed existent to date has been empirically measured scientifically to exist temporally. Everything in this universe is created, then destroyed.
[3] Since [1] is justified and [2] shows no sign of anything being uncaused, then the universe is not uncaused nor eternal. The Universe even has an age.

Are you paying attention Michael? This is going to hurt you or, enlighten that soiled mind of yours. Either way, I don't care!

Since something exists now, then there must have always been other "somethings" in the past for all eternity, to validate the Atheist's claim of an Eternal Universe theory.

Since something must always have existed for all eternity, then "nothingness" is illogical and therefore, unacceptable, let alone fathomable.

Now since something must have existed before the Big Bang, what was it? Well, this is where we say goodbye to science and must use Philosophical and theoretical logic and theories as such, to deduce a plausable solution to this problem. But they must be both logical, and feasible according to the scientific knowledge we have now.

There seems to only be 2 possible solutions to this problem. Therefore, the contention here is that, there either exists:
1. An eternal and uncreated (uncaused) Universe, or
2. There exists an eternal and uncreated God.


Both are scientically unverifiable. The Big Bang is all we have to go back to. But we do know that there MUST have been something before it, since this universe is temporal in every way.

Since we exist this means we are ‘something’ that exists with other ‘something’s’ and perceive some sort of reality (we call the ‘universe’).

We have accepted that we exist and are ‘existents’ as such. We also observe that other existents change relative to us in motion, as well as we do.

Nothing seems static and everything (all existents) seems dynamic.

Everything (all existents) seems to cause and affect something else and we observe this process as causation.

Every existent seems to exhibit a temporal existence and nothing seems to exist for too long at all, relative to the age of our known universe. Therefore, everything is temporal.

If causation is described as the process of cause and effect, where the observed event is one temporal period or moment (t1-t2), then it requires a temporal frame of reference to make sense of it. That is, we require knowing what is being caused (affected) and what caused it (created it) in the first place. It is therefore, a process of change and transition from one state to another over some period.

As such, we go back (in time) to the ‘chain of events (causes)’ and see that science observes/measures/calculates a moment called the ‘Big Bang’. This is the furthest moment we can go back to. The rest is up for hypothesis and deductive reasoning.

Now let's see if (1) or (2) is more feasible and thus, more believable (since knowledge entails belief - see levels of Epistemology).

[1]. This is an eternal and uncreated (uncaused) Universe.
This proposition relies on the belief that there is an "eternal chain of causes" and one theory to postulate is the Multi-verse theory. Unfortunately for those that do believe in this theory, you must overcome a few things.

a) The 3 Laws of Thermodynamics.
b) The logical fallacies that this theory causes.

[a]. If there was another Universe that created this one, then that too must have been caused by another and another and so forth, yes? This is illogical as I will elaborate in . The other theory could be that the Universe goes through an eternal cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. This is also known as an Oscillating Universe. Unfortunately, this theory violates every law in Thermodynamics, so it cannot be oscillating nor circular. Thus, the Multiverse theory is illogical as it stands, according to the knowledge we have of science today. Try to refute it? I dare you!

. There are many logical fallacies that this theory causes. One is the 'fallacy of composition' where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. "From Each to All". In other words, it's based on the conclusion of an "infinite chain of causes" (the 'whole') on observations of causes and effects (some 'part') and is glarigly obvious that it is indeed doing just that... committing a fallacy of false composition.

The next one is the 'continuim fallacy', or the 'fallacy of the beard' where two states or conditions can not be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.

So our conversation would then go something like this in our case:
Q: Does one event form an infinite quantity?
A: No.
Q: If we add another event to say one hundred events, does that form an infinite quantity?
A: No.
Q: If we add another 10 billion events to 100 billion events, does that make it infinite?
A: Hell No!
Q: When will it ever be infinite then?
A: Never! Infinites are never added to quantifiably as they are completely unbound and absolute already. No matter how many events we add or look back to, it will never be infinite because infinites are unquantifiable (immesurable and innumerable)!

Infinity + 1 = Infinity.
Infinity - 1 = Infinity.
(uncaused & unaffected - ie. causation cannot be infinite, nor make an infinite).

Then there is the 'Fallacy of False Cause' or "Non Sequitur" (Latin for "it does not follow")--incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another.

And finally, the biggest of them all... The 'Circular Logical Fallacy' ('Begging The Question'). Which is 'circular logic'. This is what the infinite chain of causes does exactly. It constantly "begs the question" as to what caused this and then that and then that etc etc. It's totally silly!

...
So... we are now left with one solution to this problem. The solution for it to be eternal lies in the existence of a truly uncaused and eternal existent. What you call this existent is totally up to you. You can call it Thor, Xenu, or whatever you like really. But the solution is that this eternal and uncaused existent is the ONLY plausable solution. Of course, this existent must also logically be conscious and alive to have been able to cause the rest of the chains of causation to begin with and all its laws (programming).

And if you're going to ask what caused this existent? The answer is blindingly obvious. The existent is eternal and uncreated.
...

Michael? Say hello to your, lifeless, dumb, mute and unconscious existents which you believe created all this hey? Oh and say hello to your naked statues!:rolleyes:

Selaam!
 
Last edited:
Firstly, as I understand, particles pop into and out of existence all the time.

Secondly, lets suppose that something, we'll say Allah created the Universe - that does not mean this thing or things are still here. They/It could have created the universe and then ceased to exist as a conscious entity. But, as there is no evidence of consciousness outside of this planet then we should not postulate anything more than the universe itself - IMO.

Thirdly, many Xians felt the pinch as their religion was superseded over a hundred years ago by the modern State. It has proved to be a bumpy road but one humanity is going to travel down - regardless what I or you have to say about it.

Oh, and the fact still stands that the Qur'an, outside of the study of superstitions, simply isn't considered a useful document. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Europeans, the Russians, Americans, Brazilians, Canadians, etc... no one uses it other than to study comparative superstitions/religions - so as to see where it is similar to worship Allah and Mohammad the "Last" Prophet and Mormonism with Joseph Smith (another "Last" Prophet) and Scientology and Ron Hubbard (another "Last" Prophet). Now, this is a fact and has nothing to do with me. I'm just pointing it out. I personally, if I were a believer, would find this quite amazing that "GOD" your know the WORDS of A GOD ... just ARE NOT all that worthwhile to read by most of humanity (well all outside of the cult). Isn't that fascinating to you - even a little? Surely you can see the connection here?

Lastly, the cosmological argument is interesting but it isn't proof of the existence Gods and Goddesses.
 
Firstly, as I understand, particles pop into and out of existence all the time.

Oh so you know.... When you are popping out of existence? :D

Lastly, the cosmological argument is interesting but it isn't proof of the existence Gods and Goddesses.

Great, and and "scientific" evidence is no disproof for God's existence.

Now I would like to correct you, as you almost always are wrong- Joseph Smith is NOT a "Last" Prophet- Mormons have a living prophet all the time- right now its is Thomas S. Monson. Its kind of like a corporation, whoever is the head of it (President) is the current prophet. You should really study the facts before saying things about religions (in this case Mormonism) that are utterly incorrect.

But who cares- you don't need to know facts for an intelligent debate now do ya :p

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Sure why not? I could even generate plaster casts and make them by the dozens. All it would take is a class in sculpture. Its manual labour.

There isn't. Statues are littered all over the world from the earliest human civilisations to the latest. There is no argument that anyone can carve a statue.

There is indeed no argument: you, and I, and the vast bulk of humanity are unable to carve a statue, or at least one that doesn't look like shit.

Can you honestly look at something like this and say, there is something lacking in the arts of this civilisation?

Well, if you're calling sculpture - and, presumably, painting, writing and drama - simple "manual labour", then what's to prevent me passing off the 'art' below as nothing more complex in basis than this?:

md572.jpg


Now, although I didn't read through the entire thread, I suspect that you're merely responding to Michael: if so, then never mind my point.

Please tell me you did not just refer to classical sculptures of the human form as "pornography"..

He did, but it might have been a return shot.
 
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.

Islam is a cult, as defined. I show no sign of respect for any cults, they are the most dangerous ideology to ever plague mankind, Islam being one of the worst. Cult indoctrination is why it's been in existence, no other reason is valid.

Show some respect please?

Absolutely not.

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

It's quite clear that you're twisted cult exhibits fear to it's enemies, which are non-Muslims. Sorry, I'm not interested in fear or division of mankind, which your fanatical cult demands.

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.

Yes, the same hatred that drives Islam and the people to act the way they do.

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

No one has to show respect for ideologies, especially very bad ideologies.

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

That is fallacy. And, after reading some of your other posts, it's clear you're dropping all the old tired fallacious arguments every other theist has flogged here.

Do anthropologists claim there aren't any Leprechauns or Unicorns? :rolleyes:
 
Ignorance is not a point of view. To exemplify this, I skipped reading the rest of your post.

Yet, you offer your point of view on many occasions when you haven't read anything at all, like Dawkins, for example.

Too obvious a kettle/pot here, Sam.
 
Yet, you offer your point of view on many occasions when you haven't read anything at all, like Dawkins, for example.

Too obvious a kettle/pot here, Sam.

Not at all. I usually address the opinions he expresses and explain why I do not consider it worth my time to read him, any more than I would Hitler or Hitchens or Wilders.
 
Back
Top