the miracles of Prophets peace be upon them

eninn

The holy prophet --peace be upon him and his household-- when he came back from Kheybar to Medinah and he had won the war in the will of Allah, came in a Jewish woman and pretended like stated that she has converted to Islam, and with her was a poisonous sheep that put it in front of him. The holy prophet asked: what's this? She answered: my father and mother be sacrificed for you o apostle of Allah, your exist toward Kheybar worried me as I knew them as being strong,

and this sheep I grew it up like my kids, and I found out that the best meal that you like is sheep, so I vowed for the sake of Allah that if Allah will keep you safe I will slaughter this and cook it for you and now I have done it. And were there with the holy prophet --peace be upon him and his household-- Al-Baraa' ibn ma3rur and Ali ibn Abi-talib --peace be upon him--, thus the apostle of Allah --peace be upon him-- said: bring to us bread, so bread was brought, then Baraa' ibn Ma3rur extended his hand and took from it a morsel. So Ali ibn Abi-talib --peace be upon him--

said to him: O Baraa' do not begin before the apostle of Allah --peace be upon him and his household. So said Baraa': O Ali it seems that you think the apostle of Allah is a miser!? So answered Ali --peace be upon him: I don't think him be miser, but know him as great and respect him, neither me nor you nor any creature of Allah should begin before him in speech and deed and eating and drinking. So stated Baraa': I do not think the apostle of Allah --peace be upon him and his household-- be miser. So stated Ali --peace be upon him: I din't say what I said in that regard, but this sheep has been brought by this woman who has been a Jew and we do not know her how she is.

So if you eat after he allows you he guarantees for you your health and if you eat without his permission you eat with your own guarantee. Ali --peace be upon him-- was saying this and Baraa' was chewing the morsel in his mouth that suddenly Allah made the sheep talk and it said: O apostle of Allah do not eat me as I have been poisonous, and Baraa' fell into the stupor of death, and he was dead when was lifted. Then said the apostle of Allah --peace be upon him and his household: bring her to me.

So they brought her to him. He asked her: why did you do that? She said: you oppressed me a huge oppression, you killed my father and my uncle and my brother and my husband and my son so I did such and said to myself if he is a king this way I will take revenge from him and if he is a prophet as he claims, then he has been given good tidings about the conquest of Mecca and victory so that Allah will prevent him from the meal and will protect him against it and he will not be injured.

So stated the apostle of Allah --peace be upon him: O woman you told the truth, then he added that the death of Baraa' is not upto you, it is truth and noway false that Allah examined him about surpassing the apostle of Allah and if he was to eat by the command of the apostle of Allah certainly Allah was protecting him from the meal and its poison. Then said the apostle of Allah --peace be upon him and his household-- that call toward him some of his best companions among whom were Salmaan and Meqdaad and Amaar and Sohayb and Abudhar and Bilal and a group of other companions altogether they were 10 and Ali --peace be upon him-- was among them.

So he said --peace be upon him and his household: Sit down around this meal. Then he put down his hand over the poisonous sheep and blew over it and said: "In the name of Allah the most Gracious the most Merciful, in the name of Allah the Healer, in the name of Allah the Sufficient, in the name of Allah the Pardoner, in the name of Allah with whose name nothing does hurt and no disease in Earth nor in heaven, and He is the Hearer the Knower". Then after he said --peace be upon him and his household: eat in the name of Allah, and the apostle of Allah --peace be upon him and his household-- ate and they all ate until they were filled, then drank water on it, then ordered the woman to be imprisoned. The next day she was brought to him that he said --peace be upon him and his household: didn't these people eat poison in your presence?

So how did you find that Allah protected His prophet and his companions? She said: O apostle of Allah till now I was in doubt about your prophecy and now I have made sure that it is true and noway false that you are the true apostle of Allah, thus I confess that no god exist with Allah, He is unique and has no partner, and that is true and noway false that you are His servant and apostle rightly, and her Islam became good.

This story states that the meal was indeed poisoned and that the holy prophet --peace be upon him and his household-- ate from that poisonous meal together with some best of his companions (note that none of them scared even slightly after they assure the meal is certainly poisonous and the poison is strong enough to kill the person very shortly, and they just obeyed the apostle of Allah, and quite clear from the Hadeeth that they were selectively chosen among all the companions of the holy prophet) but they were all in the protection of Allah.

The story of the Jewish woman providing a poisonous meal is thus very similar to the story of Belqays from Yemen sending a precious gift to Solomon --peace be upon him-- to check if he is merely a ruler or a prophet of God, and if he was a king they had plan to attack them and kill him! You can find this in .

That the holy prophet --peace be upon him-- introduced the death of Baraa' a will of Allah due to him surpassing the apostle of Allah --peace be upon him--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WBYwy72rrI

Omega Vision

I think--peace be upon me--that you--peace be upon you--need a hobby.

lil bitchiness

Stop using taqiyyah eninn!

Muhammad never had any miracles and it took him 23 years to convince a small band of thieves, robbers and petty criminals to join him (hence your heaven).

Muhammad never convinced Meccans he was a prophet - he exterminated them when he became powerful enough in Medina.

Stop talking nonsense.

Omega Vision

You're back, Lil B? How did you ever escape Robtard's dungeon?

lil bitchiness

Oh God, it was a struggle. I tricked him once, kicked him in the nuts and ran...was a good day! ^_^

Omega Vision

Was that before or after he took your honor?

I don't know, Lil B, you'd better follow Muslim customs and let Eninn kill you.

Oliver North

Sharia only require she be stoned, which I think can be interpreted in a much more progressive way

lil bitchiness

I can see that happening. Him chasing me with a Qur'an and a machete screaming ''LOVE THE PROPHET!! LOVE THE DEEN*!!''

*deen = religion.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Oliver North
Sharia only require she be stoned, which I think can be interpreted in a much more progressive way

Peace be upon you...by smoking a bowl or 2.

eninn

Islamic law
From God to the people
A curriculum and the Constitution of the life of this world and the Hereafter
Straightening the life of a Muslim
Islam is innocent of the actions of governments
The application of Islamic law
Will provide safety and protection and happiness
Muslim and non-Muslim
Like
Amr ibn al-Aas in the conquest of Egypt

There is no such thing as a modern mechanism of Sharia, since its source is the infallible inspiration (revelation). Thus, this Sharia, in fact, is applicable in all times and places and comprehensive to each and every situation and occasion. Thereupon, our scholars have named the following primary sources of Sharia:
1. The Qur'an and Sunnah 2. Ijma' (consensus of Muslim scholars).
There are other sources of Sharia. Among these are:
1. Qiyas (Analogy) 2. Istislah (Consideration of the public interest)
3. Istihsan (Application of discretion in a judicial decision and approval)
4. Sharia of previous religions which does not contradict the Sharia of Islam.
5. Al-Istishab (Approvals of the past which apply in the present, and future). 6. The Prophet's Companion's opinion.
There is no agreement among scholar about the last six sources of Sharia. However applying the ruling of Qiyas (Analogy) is agreed by all Muslim scholars except Ahl-al-Zaher and their disagreement in this matter does not have any weight.

The Muslim ruler must apply the Sharia Hudud ruling (Islamic law). He should not be lax in applying them regardless of the possible consequences. Indeed it is Allah who has prescribed these rules on His slaves and He knows what is good for them. Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): {Should not He Who has created know? And He is the Most Kind and Courteous (to His slaves) All-Aware (of everything).}.
Allah is The Most Gracious, The Most Compassionate, So He does not order people to do what is bad for them or what can lead to perversion and depravation. Is there any act worse than killing people, oppressing them, stealing them, misrespecting their dignity, spoiling their transactions? No doubt, that disrupting the application of Sharia law increases the percentage of crimes and make the latter common normal things as seen in the world today, which has replaced Sharia by man-made law. This derived law is not based on any basis of truth or justice.
On the other hand if Islamic law, namely, Hudud is applied in a given country, it is applied on the Muslim citizens only. If a Muslim and a non-Muslim bring an affair in front of a judge, he should study it and give a fair decision allotting each one of them his full rights. Whenever non-Muslims have lived in a Muslim country but they have always been treated according to some special criteria. There are books of Fiqh that determine the Zimmi's (non-Muslim living in a Muslim country) rights in a Sharia applying state.

There is always hope in reform and a return to Islamic law
The application of Islamic law
Will provide safety and protection and happiness

Infidel can become a good Muslim
For one reason
Do not confuse culture, customs and traditions
And between
The correct Islamic approach

This is something a treasure for the unbeliever
His life changed for the better

Can not abandon it
20000 Americans convert to islam every year youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlELJIo5E5E
If you want to know Islam properly

And not through acts of random people

eninn

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 777:

Narrated by Al-Bara:

We were one-thousand-and-four-hundred (1400) persons on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty). (At) Al-Hudaibiya, (there) was a well. We drew out its water, not leaving even a single drop. The Prophet sat at the edge of the well and asked for some water, with which he rinsed his mouth. Then he threw it out into the well. We stayed for a short while. Then, we drew water from the well and quenched our thirst. Even our riding animals drank water to their satisfaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoA57QQFfnM

Archaeopteryx

Maybe you should get a dog eninn, they are really interactive and fun. Oh...sorry, I forgot, muslims consider them "unclean".

eninn

Supplication for Rain

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 115:

Narrated by Anas bin Malik:

A man came to the Prophet on a Friday, while he (the Prophet) was delivering a sermon in Medina, and said, "There is lack of rain, so please invoke your Lord to bless us with rain." The Prophet looked at the sky when no cloud could be detected. Then, he invoked Allah for rain. Clouds started gathering together and it rained till the Medina valleys started flowing with water. It continued raining till the next Friday. Then, that man (or some other man) stood up while the Prophet was delivering the Friday sermon, and said, "We are drowned; Please invoke your Lord to withhold it (rain) from us." The Prophet smiled and said twice or thrice, "O Allah! Please let it rain around us and not upon us." The clouds started dispersing over Medina to the right and to the left, and it rained around Medina and not upon Medina. Allah showed them (the people) the miracle of His Prophet and His response to his invocation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHMIDfo76oY

Bardock42

Originally posted by eninn
Supplication for Rain

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 115:

Narrated by Anas bin Malik:

A man came to the Prophet on a Friday, while he (the Prophet) was delivering a sermon in Medina, and said, "There is lack of rain, so please invoke your Lord to bless us with rain." The Prophet looked at the sky when no cloud could be detected. Then, he invoked Allah for rain. Clouds started gathering together and it rained till the Medina valleys started flowing with water. It continued raining till the next Friday. Then, that man (or some other man) stood up while the Prophet was delivering the Friday sermon, and said, "We are drowned; Please invoke your Lord to withhold it (rain) from us." The Prophet smiled and said twice or thrice, "O Allah! Please let it rain around us and not upon us." The clouds started dispersing over Medina to the right and to the left, and it rained around Medina and not upon Medina. Allah showed them (the people) the miracle of His Prophet and His response to his invocation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHMIDfo76oY

That is pretty fancy, but Superman once heated the whole earth, sort of like a sun, and there's even photgraphic evidence:

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9435/suniz1.jpg

Definiteily a magnitude of power above Allah. Allah's fine too, though.

KharmaDog

just by the evidence presented...superman for the win.

TheGodKiller

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is pretty fancy, but Superman once heated the whole earth, sort of like a sun, and there's even photgraphic evidence:

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9435/suniz1.jpg

Definiteily a magnitude of power above Allah. Allah's fine too, though.
The Silver Surfer's feats still trump that.

eninn

. Crying of the Trunk of the Date Palm Tree

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 783:

Narrated by Ibn Umar:

The Prophet used to deliver his sermons while standing beside (or leaning on) a trunk of a Date Palm tree. When he had the pulpit made, he used it (the pulpit) instead (of the Date Palm tree). The trunk (of the tree) started crying/weeping (grieving out of love for the prophet) and the Prophet approached it, rubbing his hand over it (to sooth it and stop its crying/weeping).

Comment: This story indicates that people actually heard the truck of the tree crying/weeping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6bmPuwBjHo

eninn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiWBQa8qOhY

eninn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqPNK701aT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSZcf5e_uj0

Shakyamunison

So, eninn, sense no one ever views any of you links, and cannot understand most of your posts, why are you here?

eninn

I'm doing it to communicate and address all questions and minds

thank you

---

. The Quran: Prophet Mohammad's Greatest Miracle

Muslims consider the Quran to be the greatest miracle of prophet Mohammad, even though, the Quran is authored by Allah, not prophet Mohammad.

The Qur'an is miraculous in a number of aspects: (a) its linguistic perfection and inimitability, (b) its validation by recent historical, archaeological, and scientific discoveries, (c) its prophecies and so on, and (d) unlike the miracles of other prophets before him, the miracle of the Qur'an is eternal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2NgpD7RKc

Shakyamunison

eninn, just relax and be one of use. If you connect with us on some level, we will more apt to listen. We may not always agree, but we can be friends.

eninn

thank you

The Quran started to be revealed by God to Prophet Mohammad through arch-angel Gabriel, when he was 40 years old, around year 610 AD. It was revealed gradually, few verses at a time, over a period of about 23 years. The Quran is a very unique book that differs from the Bible in many ways. Unlike the Bible which supposedly contains the sayings of Jesus and other writings which Christians believe were inspired by God, the Quran is the "literal" word of God. We mean that the words in the Quran are the exact words of God. Therefore, the author of the Quran is God himself. Furthermore, also unlike the Bible, the Quran does not contain the sayings of Prophet Mohammad, nor does it contain an account of Prophet Mohammad's life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uivLQeJ8_eU

eninn

allah in the Quran promises clearly to protect the Quran from corruption. Indeed, God has protected the Quran. The Quran has remained the same. All the verses that were revealed to prophet Mohammad by angel Gabriel are included in the Quran that is available today. The Quran was revealed in Arabic language and Muslims consider only the Arabic Quran to be the Word of God and any translation of the Quran to other languages are mere translations of the Quran to people who do not understand Arabic language because translations are authored by ordinary human beings whereas the Arabic Quran is authored by God. Therefore, those translations are not considered by Muslim as a Word of God or holy scriptures. The 5 daily prayers of Muslims are in Arabic (most of what is said by Muslims during a prayer consist of reciting verses from the Quran). However, Muslims are not required to be able to speak Arabic, other than learning to utter few sentences in Arabic that are part of regular prayers.

The Quran states that the Quran, in by itself, is the most important miracle that Prophet Mohammad has brought to humanity. Since Prophet Mohammad was intended to be the last prophet and the Quran was the last message, God decided to give people a unique miracle that can be examined and experienced by not only people who lived at the time of the prophet, but for the hundreds of years to come. So, it was natural for God to choose Quran to be such a miracle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKpCQ7d9Oe0

Shakyamunison

@eninn

Is allah not able to protect the Quran if it is translated? If so, then allah has limits.

MooCowofJustice

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@eninn

Is allah not able to protect the Quran if it is translated? If so, then allah has limits.

This looks just antagonistic in nature to me. I'm sure you don't mean it to be, but it sort of looks like it is, to me. Allah is not capitalized, which is not only something a lot of people see as a condition of respect, it's also a good way to differentiate between greek gods and the Christian (and Islamic) God.

As far as your question, it is not a matter of if he has limits, it is a matter of just doing it. Muslims don't believe in translating the Qur'an because of their belief that it is the uncorrupted word of God. And with that belief, translating it into another language forces some meaning to be lost, that happens when anything is translated. Essentially, the translation removes the word's purity. To suggest that Allah is limited because he cannot protect this purity is not only capable of being viewed as insulting, it insinuates that God would bend over backwards for a human, essentially placing something of a servant ideology on His purpose. Why would you just expect God to just translate it for you when you can just learn Arabic and read it for yourself?

Shakyamunison

Why would God Speak? This makes no sense to me.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
It is not a book written by God. It is the spoken words of God. Unheard by any human ear, they were implanted into Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel, and recited by Muhammad. This is crazily important to understanding Islamic ideas.

Crazily being the operative word. Gabriel's words were heard by an older Muhammad as he was having dehydration issues in that cave and later the Jews routinely corrected his religious inaccuracies and lack of knowledge, much to his ire.

The premise of Islam is "Allah is God, and Muhammad is his prophet." If you actually question either premise, the entire thing falls apart. And that's pretty much the only thing you really need concern yourself with when examining it, since the rest is built on that foundation. It's not more valid or unique because it's supported by a large quarter of the world than say "Zeus is God and Hercules is his son" or "Odin is God, and Thor is still more impressive". And because of this, it's no more in need of respect than the latter.

So here's the real question; do you respect a religion because it is valid and sound or do you respect it because it is a held dear and pure by a large group of people?

Trick question: religion by definition is faith-supported and thus unable to be considered valid and sound together. So clearly the only reason you would say it needs "respect" is because you fear the religious majority or you are overly sensitive to the needs of people with socially acceptable invisible friends. No one White Knights the following regularly: Norse pagans, Greek pagans, FSM disciples, Daoist followers, Shinto believers, that guy on 4th Ave. who believes in that Chariots of the Gods is a valid piece of historical accuracy, etc..

MooCowofJustice

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would God Speak? This makes no sense to me.

Muslims believe it to be something along the lines of the world requiring a new push in the right direction. Something like a belief that Christians and Jews had lost their way, so God sent the words of the Qur'an to set things right again.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Crazily being the operative word. Gabriel's words were heard by an older Muhammad as he was having dehydration issues in that cave and later the Jews routinely corrected his religious inaccuracies and lack of knowledge, much to his ire.

The premise of Islam is "Allah is God, and Muhammad is his prophet." If you actually question either premise, the entire thing falls apart. And that's pretty much the only thing you really need concern yourself with when examining it, since the rest is built on that foundation. It's not more valid or unique because it's supported by a large quarter of the world than say "Zeus is God and Hercules is his son" or "Odin is God, and Thor is still more impressive". And because of this, it's no more in need of respect than the latter.

So here's the real question; do you respect a religion because it is valid and sound or do you respect it because it is a held dear and pure by a large group of people?

Trick question: religion by definition is faith-supported and thus unable to be considered valid and sound together. So clearly the only reason you would say it needs "respect" is because you fear the religious majority or you are overly sensitive to the needs of people with socially acceptable invisible friends. No one White Knights the following regularly: Norse pagans, Greek pagans, FSM disciples, Daoist followers, Shinto believers, that guy on 4th Ave. who believes in that Chariots of the Gods is a valid piece of historical accuracy, etc..

Please don't twist my words in such a way.

Nobody argued that Islam was in need of or deserving of more or less respect.

That is definitely a trick question, but neither of your proposed answers is correct. The reason you respect it is because it is the right thing to do. If someone truly believes in any of those things, fine. They have a right to and should be respected as long as they respect you. You just can't expect them to give respect first. Attitudes like the ones displayed here are attitudes that can lead to violence, whether intended or not.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Muslims believe it to be something along the lines of the world requiring a new push in the right direction. Something like a belief that Christians and Jews had lost their way, so God sent the words of the Qur'an to set things right again...

My question is far more fundamental. Personification is a way to understand something, but when taken literally it can lead to delusion.

MooCowofJustice

Taken literally? I don't think Muslims mean to say that God actually spoke in the sense of used sounds like humans do with our mouths. I don't even think Muslims like the idea of portraying God in a human form. It probably just meant more in a sense of communication, sending a message.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Please don't twist my words in such a way.

If you intended something else, you could elaborate. You have the power of infinite generativity of language at your fingertips.

Your post to Shaky said that the topic was sensitive and respect got a shout-out, so it seems reasonable that your underlying premise is "religion needs respect in discussions". Since you did not elaborate why except to avoid hurting people's feelings, my point still stands. If someone thinks the sun revolves around the earth, I wouldn't be compelled to spare his feelings with application of logic, so why would this be true with religion?

First off, "attitudes displayed here lead to violence" is a ridiculous concept. Last I checked, agnostic or atheist crusades and inquisitions did not change the dynamics of history and displace or purge whole groups of people and cause untold famine, war, and strife. If you truly believe calling people out on their blind faith will lead to violence, I can assure you it won't be from this end.

Second, my answers were pretty accurate; either you respect something because it makes a great deal of logical sense, or you are applying a fallacy to justify it.

Again, if a large group of people practice something, and you might hurt their feelings if you tell them it's wrong, this doesn't make their beliefs justified in any way. It just means you're unwilling to rock the boat because you are afraid or you feel like they are victims or you self-identify with the group in some way.

Otherwise, you had best go to your nearest underpass and defend the exotic beliefs of the homeless people who believe the Man on the Moon is controlling his thoughts from afar. I hear people might not treat his beliefs so delicately, for some strange reason.

MooCowofJustice

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If you intended something else, you could elaborate. You have the power of infinite generativity of language at your fingertips.

Crazily meaning very. I like to use words in different and technically incorrect ways, because I'm weird like that.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Your post to Shaky said that the topic was sensitive and respect got a shout-out, so it seems reasonable that your underlying premise is "religion needs respect in discussions". Since you did not elaborate why except to avoid hurting people's feelings, my point still stands. If someone thinks the sun revolves around the earth, I wouldn't be compelled to spare his feelings with application of logic, so why would this be true with religion?

I meant that Islam was in need of no more or less respect than any other religion/system of belief.

It's a basic principle of decency to respect people, and respecting people means respecting beliefs, ideas, and other things.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
First off, "attitudes displayed here lead to violence" is a ridiculous concept. Last I checked, agnostic or atheist crusades and inquisitions did not change the dynamics of history and displace or purge whole groups of people and cause untold famine, war, and strife. If you truly believe calling people out on their blind faith will lead to violence, I can assure you it won't be from this end.

Except that it is not a ridiculous concept. As far as I know, there can never be any crusades in the name of Atheism or Agnosticism. Inquisitions might be another story, but as far as I know there haven't been any.

And yet this entire point is ridiculous. The idea that Agnosticism and Atheism can never have any part of the blame in conflicts of this nature is absurd. It implies that they are above such issues, and they most certainly are not. In some cases I would argue that Agnosticism and Atheism are, in their own ways, also religions. And according to what seems to be a basic idea being put forth here, only religions are responsible for those conflicts.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Second, my answers were pretty accurate; either you respect something because it makes a great deal of logical sense, or you are applying a fallacy to justify it.

I found your answers far too exclusive of other ideas.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Again, if a large group of people practice something, and you might hurt their feelings if you tell them it's wrong, this doesn't make their beliefs justified in any way. It just means you're unwilling to rock the boat because you are afraid or you feel like they are victims or you self-identify with the group in some way.

I didn't say it justified their beliefs. The fact of the matter is, for me, their beliefs should be justified on the basis of the fact that they are beliefs. If someone believes in creation and not evolution, it does not serve as evidence that they lack the capacity for reason. I know this is not what you said, but I feel it is implied.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Otherwise, you had best go to your nearest underpass and defend the exotic beliefs of the homeless people who believe the Man on the Moon is controlling his thoughts from afar. I hear people might not treat his beliefs so delicately, for some strange reason.

For this, I'll pose you a question: What reason would anyone have to care?

Your example here is one of a person obviously believed to be insane. And there is a difference. The man you have here speaks loudly about it, and typically only about that. His condition is not so much a belief as it is a mental condition that tortures him and dominates his capacity for reason. Most importantly, conditions like this can occasionally lead to violence and danger to other people.

I know I am not the most articulate person, especially with this reply. But my time is short at the moment and I have to be going. Hopefully I can clear up any further misunderstandings I've created when I get back.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Crazily meaning very. I like to use words in different and technically incorrect ways, because I'm weird like that.

Your word use here wasn't actually a point of contention; I merely used it as a springboard.

Pastafarianism is a belief. So is belief in UFOs. If systematic is a requirement, then I'm sure Mulder qualifies.

And like most major religions, it's also used to prejudge people, exclude them, vilify them, and commit heinous crimes against them. Things like the purge of the Cathars and the Curse of Ham which explained away black slavery were religious crimes interpreted to be okay by religious bodies of people. While I won't argue that the actual intent of organized religion or religious belief is to create harm or chaos in all cases, it is invariably a side effect that faith-based belief has on already unstable people, since it has no grounding in reality and is immutable in form.

Also, Pastafarianism, again to abuse the example, espouses fairness and decency. I would not respect or recognize this belief system as valid, but as what it really is - parody. A parody all the more amusing since it correctly mirrors big religions that we all seem to have to 'respect'.

Right, so your assertion that violence would come of my argument or "kind of talk" was baseless. That was my whole point there.

No, I never implied or claimed that agnosticism and atheism are above such things. I don't even capitalism them half of the time when used. If anything, atheism is equally stupid because it assumes an absolute without proof as well.

No, the point is that religious belief systems are definitively tied to faith and are held as sacred versus profane. This creates a mindset in which people willingly follow a doctrine based on a premise that isn't defensible and furthermore is unable to be adapted to reason. It can masquerade as reason, but it lacks that foundation and always will.

And if it's unreasonable, I don't have this social obligation to respect it when it's in my face, for the same reason why I don't respect someone's right to get angry and shout because he or she is having an illogical emotional spell. Similarly, I don't respect someone's superstition of keeping a rabbit's foot on their keychain and if I was told repeatedly that I should have one on mine I will retaliate with "that's really silly" arguments in turn.

Let me be axiomatic about it then:

1. Something is reasonable.

2. Something isn't reasonable.

Why would you defend the latter over the former?

And you are right; I never said that religious people are incapable of reason; I am stating that their belief system in particular has a foundation lacking reason, and any beliefs that stem from this foundation are entirely suspect because of this.

If I had a basic premise of "the sun revolves around the earth", and I had absolutely no way of proving this besides "I believe it is true", this is not knowledge. Knowledge requires not just belief that A is A, but logical proof of such. Evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not the other way around.

I did not indicate that the guy under the overpass is a loud preacher of the MotM, you did. You just injected your own interpretation of a hypothetical person to separate them from what is otherwise identical mindset. If a religious person says "I believe in a Jewish carpenter who created miracles two thousand years ago, said he was the son of this Jewish God who was totally not like him at all but was vain and hurt people and was inconsistent, but this new guy is nice and loving except when he made those demons possess those pigs and the pigs committed suicide and oh hey he says let's be nice to each other and I'm now a good person but you're not because you don't believe, etc. etc." that person is no more rational than the guy chugging his Boone's Farm and regaling me about the Man on the Moon.

It's a faith-based assertion that becomes ludicrous because it basis an entire belief system that guides an individual and determines how they interact with the world. Any conclusions they reach explicitly because of this belief system is by extension irrational, such as "gays are wrong because Bible" or "I can't eat pig's flesh because Qu'ran".

So all crazy bums are dangers to people? Maybe we should round them up then.

I understand time constraints. Take your time in a reply. I'm not uninterested in your answer, but I am challenging you based on what I perceive as your "side" of the debate. My underlying argument is that religion should not be excluded from scrutiny that any other "I believe it is so, therefore it is so" belief arguments and I stand by that.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Taken literally? I don't think Muslims mean to say that God actually spoke in the sense of used sounds like humans do with our mouths. I don't even think Muslims like the idea of portraying God in a human form. It probably just meant more in a sense of communication, sending a message.

OK, why would God send a message?

Shakyamunison

I think it is because they (Muslims and Christians) believe that God is separate from them. However, if God was separate from them, they would not exist.

MooCowofJustice

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, why would God send a message?

Well, for a lot of people, you could say it was out of love, and maybe guidance.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it is because they (Muslims and Christians) believe that God is separate from them. However, if God was separate from them, they would not exist.

I don't follow you. Would you mind explaining?

Though I also don't think that your idea of what Christians and Muslims believe is entirely true, at least not in the context of Christians because of the Trinity.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Pastafarianism is a belief. So is belief in UFOs. If systematic is a requirement, then I'm sure Mulder qualifies.

Maybe it does.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And like most major religions, it's also used to prejudge people, exclude them, vilify them, and commit heinous crimes against them. Things like the purge of the Cathars and the Curse of Ham which explained away black slavery were religious crimes interpreted to be okay by religious bodies of people. While I won't argue that the actual intent of organized religion or religious belief is to create harm or chaos in all cases, it is invariably a side effect that faith-based belief has on already unstable people, since it has no grounding in reality and is immutable in form.

I would agree that conflicts of this nature are definitely side effects, but I never argued that those things should be condoned, merely respected. Here I must be defining respect as much less agreeable than you and others might. To respect and not condone, I would argue that speaking out against such acts is fine and even necessary. But the means of speaking and the words chosen should not seek to destroy or condemn the beliefs associated with it. In hopefully simpler terms for myself and everyone else, blame the interpreter, not the idea.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Also, Pastafarianism, again to abuse the example, espouses fairness and decency. I would not respect or recognize this belief system as valid, but as what it really is - parody. A parody all the more amusing since it correctly mirrors big religions that we all seem to have to 'respect'.

I do not know the subject, so it does not seem fair to comment on Pastafarianism.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Right, so your assertion that violence would come of my argument or "kind of talk" was baseless. That was my whole point there.

I meant that there could be no crusades because of my understanding of the definition of the term crusade.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
No, the point is that religious belief systems are definitively tied to faith and are held as sacred versus profane. This creates a mindset in which people willingly follow a doctrine based on a premise that isn't defensible and furthermore is unable to be adapted to reason. It can masquerade as reason, but it lacks that foundation and always will.

And if it's unreasonable, I don't have this social obligation to respect it when it's in my face, for the same reason why I don't respect someone's right to get angry and shout because he or she is having an illogical emotional spell. Similarly, I don't respect someone's superstition of keeping a rabbit's foot on their keychain and if I was told repeatedly that I should have one on mine I will retaliate with "that's really silly" arguments in turn.

I wouldn't say religion is unadaptable. No religion has ever remained the complete same. They have been faced with conflicts that from what I understand usually arise from another religion's growing popularity, or a change in general social standing. And it is here that again I have to say that they are not illogical. What they are is hard or impossible to prove through scientific means, and that definitely seems to be an important thing to note.

And here I want to highlight what I see as a habit of mind that I find incorrect. Why would you tell someone they are stupid or silly, when you could simply tell them that you don't believe in a lucky rabbit's foot? I am not assuming whoever is telling you to get one is perfectly in the right to shove it in your face, the door must swing both ways, and they in turn should respect the belief or lack of belief that you have stated.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Let me be axiomatic about it then:

1. Something is reasonable.

2. Something isn't reasonable.

Why would you defend the latter over the former?

Because I am arguing that neither is unreasonable.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And you are right; I never said that religious people are incapable of reason; I am stating that their belief system in particular has a foundation lacking reason, and any beliefs that stem from this foundation are entirely suspect because of this.

Okay, I now may or may not have my point nailed down finally. Hah. Yeah, forgive me, I am not exactly what you'd call highly intelligent or very smart, I just think a lot.

I am going back to what I have replied earlier in this post, that religious beliefs are not unreasonable, they are difficult or hard to prove through scientific or logical means with the information we have available that can be documented or proven to be factual.

Maybe you could compare it to a language barrier when it comes to translating one sentence into another language. One word's meaning in English does not have the same context and thoughts associated with it as the translation does in Russian or Mandarin.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If I had a basic premise of "the sun revolves around the earth", and I had absolutely no way of proving this besides "I believe it is true", this is not knowledge. Knowledge requires not just belief that A is A, but logical proof of such. Evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not the other way around.

Yes, and religious beliefs are not based on nothing. There was actual reasoning for the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe as you know. When you look up at the sun and the moon and stars, they look like they are the ones doing the moving. So naturally, everybody thinks that they are the ones doing the moving. In this case, it is still not illogical, it is simply uninformed.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I did not indicate that the guy under the overpass is a loud preacher of the MotM, you did. You just injected your own interpretation of a hypothetical person to separate them from what is otherwise identical mindset. If a religious person says "I believe in a Jewish carpenter who created miracles two thousand years ago, said he was the son of this Jewish God who was totally not like him at all but was vain and hurt people and was inconsistent, but this new guy is nice and loving except when he made those demons possess those pigs and the pigs committed suicide and oh hey he says let's be nice to each other and I'm now a good person but you're not because you don't believe, etc. etc." that person is no more rational than the guy chugging his Boone's Farm and regaling me about the Man on the Moon.

Well, typically, most people aren't quoted as living under an overpass. I worked with what you gave me.

But yes, they are different. Because the guy talking about the Man in the Moon likely does not function well in regular society. Christians can believe and still function as logical and reasonable people, because they are not identical in mindset with the man designed to pretty much be insane.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I understand time constraints. Take your time in a reply. I'm not uninterested in your answer, but I am challenging you based on what I perceive as your "side" of the debate. My underlying argument is that religion should not be excluded from scrutiny that any other "I believe it is so, therefore it is so" belief arguments and I stand by that.

I appreciate it, and this is pretty darn enjoyable. I intend to keep posting, especially because I'm sure I still don't make as much sense as I should be. So until next time!

Stealth Moose

Glad you're enjoying the debate! I'll give you a worthy reply tonight when I next have pc access. This old phone won't do any justice to reply on.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Well, for a lot of people, you could say it was out of love, and maybe guidance.

I don't follow you. Would you mind explaining?

Though I also don't think that your idea of what Christians and Muslims believe is entirely true, at least not in the context of Christians because of the Trinity.

Loving and giving guidance is a reflection of what humans (animals) do. I think attributing that to God is a type of personification.

Remember, I believe that God cannot be understood by humans.

The Trinity, in my opinion, is again a type of personification. People used to believe we had a body, mind and soul. This is an incorrect idea, that has been personified onto a man-made god.

Stealth Moose

I will reply tomorrow afternoon. Sadly, still restricted to mobile phone which makes it difficult to do lengthy replies.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Maybe it does.

The point is that merely being a systematic belief in something via faith does not warrant 'respect' in any sense but the most general. And again, that respect is no longer warranted when you use that belief system to impose on others or attempt to make them see your viewpoint. They are well within their rights to critique your reasoning.

Compare this scenario:

Someone makes a faith-based assumption that people with red hair spread this new disease that cropped up which has stumped scientists. So a small group of people round up gingers and murder them.

Should I blame only the people who rounded up the red heads, or should I also blame the blind faith assertion by someone who is not in a position to know any better than the rest of us?

Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

That's a semantic difference though. A jihad, or crusade, or pogrom are all very similar, despite the religious or belief system agent behind each. The point was that agnostics and atheists are not systematically doing bad things to people in the name of baseless assertions or old books. Religious people have done this for thousands of years, and in some parts of the world still do.

True, some religions are co-opted by local traditions. But the underlying faith premise remains intact and prohibits actual rational discussion of other premises which rely on this foundation.

For example, if the only way to the Father is through the Son, it would be unChristian to question Jesus's divinity or origins. Heresy in some ways. This is because the religion does not lend itself to evaluation but blind acceptance, and this is the problem. In parts of the world were people are systematically subjected to various religions and denied education (which makes them great puppets for interested religious leaders) they literally do not question it because to do so invites punishment.

If you understand exactly what a scientific process requires, it's easy to see that no religion can ever meet these standards, since once they did, they would cease to be religions and instead be theories up for debate by other educated members of the world and scientific community. Religion is by definition presupposing faith over reason. That's why it can't be reasonable.

Take any religious argument, and somewhere at the bottom of that inductive scrapheap is this premise:

"God exists."

And no one can prove this.

I think you're confusing the situation here. If a friend said "Look, I have a lucky rabbit's foot" I'd say "that's nice" or "Wow, hate rabbits much?". But if my friend said "This rabbit foot is very lucky, because it is blessed by the Easter Bunny. If you don't believe, you are going to Tartarus for all eternity", then I'm perfectly within my rights to go "LOLNOPE".

Then you'll need to demonstrate your reasoning for this. I've demonstrated multiple times that religion does not use a rational foundation and presupposes truth without proof and then builds an entire system of law, ethics, and behavior around this. It tells people how to live their life and treat others. It's not always the end-result which is the problem; there are some good Christians, good Muslims, good Jews, etc. Rather liberal in each case, because they don't apply the rules universally or literally, but being a good person is not dependent on religion. If someone has to have metaphysical punishment force them to be good, they aren't good to begin with.

Except this analogy does not hold water. Reason is the lens through which truth is viewed. Everything you hold as valid in your life, from gravity to the passing of time to cause and effect is based on logical principles and axiomatic arguments that are reinforced throughout your life and by many many other people besides.

When someone posits "God exists, because this book says so and this group who supports this book by interpreting it say so", you're not viewing anything through the lens of reason by accepting "truth" prepackaged for you. When you then refuse to examine it for yourself for validity and attack others who are skeptical, this is the absence of reason entirely.

"Look, John - there's a volcano!"

"No, fool, that is Surtr, the giant of fire, sleeping and bellowing smoke until the Ragnarok comes!"

"Oh okay, sounds legit!"

^ Is that what you're saying? Someone come up with an explanation, which could fit reality closely upon shallow examination or from a very ignorant standpoint. But you wouldn't try to argue this in court, I'd hope. And the reason being that because you make a good excuse for something doesn't make it so. Another example would be saying "The earth is round because our feet are arched." This is a valid conclusion with an invalid premise.

Or the guy could require medical treatment and his lack of reason is attributed to his untreated condition. But that's reading too far into the example, and missing the forest for the trees as it were.

The point here is that his systematic belief is faith-bound and without a rational basis. In this respect, it is identical to a religious belief system which is equally faith-bound and without a rational basis. Remember, just because an argument looks "logical" doesn't mean it truly is so. At the bottom of most arguments is a single piece of inductive reason holding it up, and that must be examined closely before anything else can be considered valid.

As with the above example, if I conclude that the earth is round, but I make assumptions as to why regarding the shape of our feet, or how boomerangs fly, or how water flows downhill, none of these premises hold up to scrutiny, and my entire methodology is suspect. This becomes especially problematic if I am asserting something that is empiracally not findable. Like an invisible deity who wrote a book ages before I was capable of conscious thought.

Thank you for waiting until I had ample time to respond. Your turn!

Shakyamunison

(The sound of crickets)

MooCowofJustice

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The point is that merely being a systematic belief in something via faith does not warrant 'respect' in any sense but the most general. And again, that respect is no longer warranted when you use that belief system to impose on others or attempt to make them see your viewpoint. They are well within their rights to critique your reasoning.

I don't think I ever argued for respecting a belief when it is used for those purposes. It's been a few days, but I think the last post I made specifically argued against that.

Ugh, I am so going to **** up here. My thoughts are so many different places, haha. Forgive me in advance for giving a convincing performance of a ****tard.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Compare this scenario:

Someone makes a faith-based assumption that people with red hair spread this new disease that cropped up which has stumped scientists. So a small group of people round up gingers and murder them.

Should I blame only the people who rounded up the red heads, or should I also blame the blind faith assertion by someone who is not in a position to know any better than the rest of us?

Well, I'm not sure what you intended to prove here, but I would argue that the definite thing to do would be blame the people who actually performed the murders. As far as I know, nobody would justify murder simply because somebody spreads a disease. In fact, most rational people would probably just take the easier approach and avoid the gingers altogether.

I understand your point and all that, but I see no avenue here where it would undermine mine.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Oh. The flying spaghetti monster thing. That I know about. I would say yes, give it the respect it deserves.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
That's a semantic difference though. A jihad, or crusade, or pogrom are all very similar, despite the religious or belief system agent behind each. The point was that agnostics and atheists are not systematically doing bad things to people in the name of baseless assertions or old books. Religious people have done this for thousands of years, and in some parts of the world still do.

Correct. Atheists and Agnostics systematically do bad things to people in the name of false scientific assertions or money. Perhaps even new books.

You are simply attempting to argue that religion is only an excuse people use to commit atrocities. It may be true, but the blame for such acts fall on the people who perform these acts. Religion is no less deserving of respect because one person or many people chose to believe in one such interpretation, or manipulated certain statements and ideas to justify their own means. I could very easily apply the same argument against Atheism, Agnosticism, Pastafarianism, or anything. Even simple economic systems.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
True, some religions are co-opted by local traditions. But the underlying faith premise remains intact and prohibits actual rational discussion of other premises which rely on this foundation.

For example, if the only way to the Father is through the Son, it would be unChristian to question Jesus's divinity or origins. Heresy in some ways. This is because the religion does not lend itself to evaluation but blind acceptance, and this is the problem. In parts of the world were people are systematically subjected to various religions and denied education (which makes them great puppets for interested religious leaders) they literally do not question it because to do so invites punishment.

I am unclear on your attempted point here. Your argument is logical and likely true, but it should not apply, I suppose is what I mean to say. It seems to me that you are saying what is akin to the statement that the definition of a word is ironclad. This is a pretty bad example, but the definition of a Christian is a person who believes that Jesus Christ is God. Of course it is true that Christian discussion does not lend itself to ideas that Christ was not God. However, you are using this to claim that religion is unadaptable, and that religious people are not willing to think beyond that idea.

But that is untrue, because of the study of Theology, and even conversions and different movements within religions. For example, there was a theologian in the Roman/Byzantine empire who gained a following when he preached that God the Father was older than God the Son, making the Father superior to the Son. But the idea was considered heretical because of the concept of the Trinity, making each aspect of God equal to the others. The movement there was squashed, but that is unimportant.

For a newer example, if I recall, one Pope in recent years announced his support of the Big Bang theory.

This might be where I made myself look like the ****tard.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If you understand exactly what a scientific process requires, it's easy to see that no religion can ever meet these standards, since once they did, they would cease to be religions and instead be theories up for debate by other educated members of the world and scientific community. Religion is by definition presupposing faith over reason. That's why it can't be reasonable.

Take any religious argument, and somewhere at the bottom of that inductive scrapheap is this premise:

"God exists."

And no one can prove this.

To draw on what inspired Pastafarianism, nobody can disprove it either. Which is why it cannot be irrational and unreasonable. I don't think that Science has ever claimed that God does not exist, and any scientist that tells you otherwise should be ignored.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I think you're confusing the situation here. If a friend said "Look, I have a lucky rabbit's foot" I'd say "that's nice" or "Wow, hate rabbits much?". But if my friend said "This rabbit foot is very lucky, because it is blessed by the Easter Bunny. If you don't believe, you are going to Tartarus for all eternity", then I'm perfectly within my rights to go "LOLNOPE".

I do not think that I did. I think both you and your friend overstepped your bounds. He probably shouldn't have insinuated that you're an evil and bad human being because you don't believe in his rabbit's foot, and you probably shouldn't have insinuated that he's a moron because he believes in his rabbit's foot.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Then you'll need to demonstrate your reasoning for this. I've demonstrated multiple times that religion does not use a rational foundation and presupposes truth without proof and then builds an entire system of law, ethics, and behavior around this. It tells people how to live their life and treat others. It's not always the end-result which is the problem; there are some good Christians, good Muslims, good Jews, etc. Rather liberal in each case, because they don't apply the rules universally or literally, but being a good person is not dependent on religion. If someone has to have metaphysical punishment force them to be good, they aren't good to begin with.

Then first I have to ask you to define what you are considering as a rational foundation.

What you cited at the end of this paragraph is simply an attempt to curb social deterioration. Something you've actually appeared, at least to me, to argue that religion causes.

I need two posts, because we've begun to exceed the character limit.

MooCowofJustice

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Except this analogy does not hold water. Reason is the lens through which truth is viewed. Everything you hold as valid in your life, from gravity to the passing of time to cause and effect is based on logical principles and axiomatic arguments that are reinforced throughout your life and by many many other people besides.

When someone posits "God exists, because this book says so and this group who supports this book by interpreting it say so", you're not viewing anything through the lens of reason by accepting "truth" prepackaged for you. When you then refuse to examine it for yourself for validity and attack others who are skeptical, this is the absence of reason entirely.

What I said on this reply last time was my comment about language barrier. And perhaps this will help make me look less stupid. Your views right now are currently using the lens of science, which requires you to be able to experiment extensively, and only then make a conclusion. However, religious views do not require experimentation. I tried to describe what I glimpsed temporarily as a different mindset entirely from one which has been supported and nurtured by science for as long as it has been in use. What this means for my argument is simply what I have repeatedly stated in this post. Religion is not unreasonable, it uses reason to its fullest capacity as was possible at the time.

In fact, I would argue that the nature of cause and effect as a necessity to the scientific method will some day serve as a barrier to science's progress. There is still much that people do not know, and who is to say that cause and effect is a universal rule? After all, every cause is in essence also an effect, which had its own cause, repeatedly tracing back to the beginning of time. Which is one place where cause and effect reasoning cannot provide an answer. Truthfully, cause and effect reasoning can never provide an answer for this.

This also may not prove that religion is reasonable, but it does suggest that it is no less so than any other idea.

I don't think anybody ever posited that God existed because the Bible said so. In fact, it's the opposite, if anything. The Bible has been posited to exist because of God. God was thought to exist because nobody knew what created everything, how people came to be or how they developed consciousness beyond other animals. I think that's also about where science is, actually. No answer to the main question, still.

Against my better judgement, I want to post one thought I've had on the subject that grew from my personal experience. The way I see it, you believe in coincidence, or you believe in God.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
"Look, John - there's a volcano!"

"No, fool, that is Surtr, the giant of fire, sleeping and bellowing smoke until the Ragnarok comes!"

"Oh okay, sounds legit!"

^ Is that what you're saying? Someone come up with an explanation, which could fit reality closely upon shallow examination or from a very ignorant standpoint. But you wouldn't try to argue this in court, I'd hope. And the reason being that because you make a good excuse for something doesn't make it so. Another example would be saying "The earth is round because our feet are arched." This is a valid conclusion with an invalid premise.

I do not see a basis for your example, so I cannot comment on it. What makes the guy think a volcano is Surtr?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Thank you for waiting until I had ample time to respond. Your turn!

No problemo. I can't promise any immediate replies myself. Big assignments due soon, sleep that needs to be gained, etc etc. I do still intend to continue though, because this is still fun.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
What I said on this reply last time was my comment about language barrier. And perhaps this will help make me look less stupid. Your views right now are currently using the lens of science, which requires you to be able to experiment extensively, and only then make a conclusion.

Not the lens of science; the lens of reason. Reason begets science, because the idea is not to assume without proof. Science does not give us absolute truths based on faith, and neither should logical arguments. We would not argue the existence of a round earth without logical proofs any more than we would accept an accused criminal's denial of a crime for the same reasons. The earth is round because of multiple premises, which meet a strict criteria, and must be testable, falsifiable, and make future predictions.

The claim that "God exists absolutely" does not fit even the most basic criteria, and does not rely on any logical proofs whatsoever. If this most basic of religious premises cannot be logically proven, nothing based on it can be valid either.

Correction, they cannot hold up to experimentation. Because God is not itself a testable idea, and exists only in the minds of people who believe. Even religious leaders admit as much and the honest ones don't attempt to say otherwise. Apologists, on the other hand, attempt to use sophistry and fallacies to prove that religion is equally or more valid than rational concepts and ideas.

This is a misunderstanding of what is reason. Reason is not "reasonable" to an individual's subjective viewpoint which is relatively unexamined. I would not claim that my faith in aliens from Mars is a product of reason unless I had actual proof that aliens did exist on Mars. In the absence of proof, the burden is on the one making the claim. If I say "aliens exist on Mars", I am required to prove that this is logically so. No one else should be coerced into believing me on the basis of "I have faith that this is so". That is not knowledge in any sense of the word.

Actually, how you sense and understand nature presupposes cause and effect. Religion, for all its inability to adhere to basic burden of proof, asserts cause and effect. It is the most evident and axiomatic of scientific principles, and this is why we use it as a measuring tool for all logical arguments.

No rational argument can exist without this form.

P1. A is unlike B because reason X. (Reason X could be the originating cause in this case, like a tree spawning acorns)
P2. X is the case.
* Therefore, A is unlike B.

That's a very basic argument of identity. I opted not to use the most basic form which is "A is A and only A; therefore, B is not A" because that would muddle the point and require you to have a working knowledge of epistemology. Which, I might add, is an excellent field of study. No, the point is that even the most basic of attempts to explain the world require cause and effect. Saying it is a potential barrier misunderstands how all-pervasive it truly is in our understanding of the world.

I think you've misunderstood the point of scientific theories and method here. It is not the purpose of such things to determine absolutes or to determine things outside of the existence of human beings. It is a method used to glean knowledge which is based on our ability to use our senses and make conclusions from relationships we witness in the natural world. The "beginning of time", if there is such a thing (and our own finite existence owes a lot to this theory) is not empirically verifable.

There is no proof here, just an assertion that avoids a basic logical foundation. Again, the bottom line is this:

"God exists"

^ This is the foundation upon which a religion exists (except for perhaps Buddhism or traditional Confucianism) and is the underlying assumption in all religious arguments. Until this can be substantiated, none of the other arguments have any merit.

Actually, people including JIA, have posited that God exists because of the Bible. The only exceptions I'm familiar with are personal "miracles", which I don't put much stock in either. The idea that creation is so complex it requires a creator or could never be because of naturally occurring principles interacting for billions of years is a huge assumption. The city of New York is irreducibly complex in design, function, and appearance. No one would ever argue one person or one being created New York.

Second, the reasoning is circular for a lot of Christians: The Bible is both proof of God's law and existence, and is written by him (according to the church). No one has seen God's signature in the preface, or his thumb print in the ink on page 45. No one saw him hunched over a desk, scribbling furiously onto papyrus sheets in the candle light, nor magic it into existence.

The Old Testament is thousands of years old, and the New Testament wasn't solidified until many centuries after Christ's birth, and excluded a lot of Gospels, from the Gospel of Thomas to the Gospel of Judas. A lot of Biblical interpretation and tradition has very human origins, including a council to determine if God could be defined as a Holy Trinity, the appearance of angels with wings, and why only four gospels made it into the NT. The church authority also branded some Christians with titles such as "Heretics" and "Gnostics" despite all believing in Christ in some way.

This is a false dilemma, and therefore I offer you a third option: you see the effects of what we could call random chance or chaos theory that appear as if to be a coincidence, but just because something is astronomically unlikely does not preclude it from ever happening. Given enough time and impacting variables, something expected or desired will happen. There are 'miracles' or 'coincidences' that happen every day. Even something as mundane as being born is a lottery of whether or not you will be afflicted with many diseases, birth defects, or even survive the initial process before you are confronted with countless possibilities throughout your life.

Surtr, a fire giant of Norse mythology, is associated with fire, heat, and smoke and is theorized by some to be associated with the volcanoes on Iceland. Since the lion's share of Norse mythology comes from Iceland, the example had some basis.

But you would not believe for a second that the argument presented for Sutr's existence, as I described above, would be convincing to anyone but an individual raised in ancient Norse culture and relatively ignorant of or suspicious of alternative systems of belief.

When you have time, no worries. I have a busy schedule too.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by eninn
that any translation of the Quran is not the Quran.

The Quran is originally an Arabic work, but I'm sure it was translated into Coptic, Greek, Persian and other nearby languages at some point in its history. It just seems baffling that a divine being would exclude an overwhelming majority of the world's understanding of his work because they don't speak the language of one area of the Middle East.

But then, I don't subscribe to any of the 'logic' presented within so I'm just musing aloud here.

Shakyamunison

@Stealth Moose

"God exists" requires a definition of God. If the definition of God is as the bible states, that would lead to one conclusion. However, if God is for example, the Cosmos, then it God does exist, because the Cosmos does exist.

Stealth Moose

If you subscribe to pantheism, than God does exist, but only in the vaguest ways. God is 'nature' or 'all-things', and this is also unprovable in one sense (you cannot prove God has intent, will, or even intellect) but you can prove that God, per your definition exists.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If you subscribe to pantheism, than God does exist, but only in the vaguest ways. God is 'nature' or 'all-things', and this is also unprovable in one sense (you cannot prove God has intent, will, or even intellect) but you can prove that God, per your definition exists.

Why would God have intent, will, or even intellect?

Stealth Moose

If God was relatively uninterested in humanity, its existence wouldn't be comforting, now would it? No one wants to have suffered all this without a good reason and a promise at the end of the road.

Dolos

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well this made the Gods very upset. They can all line up, and die gurgling on my big black dick.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Dolos
They can all line up, and die gurgling on my big black dick.

That was completely meaningless!

Did you even get the point in my met-a-phor?

Dolos

They can't escape meaningfulness. Just got it.

We define our meaning.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Dolos
They can't escape meaningfulness. Just got it.

This life has no meaning. big grin

Dolos

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This life has no meaning. How do you define meaning?

Ah, you just gave meaning a meaning. Check mate.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Dolos
How do you define meaning?

Ah, you just gave meaning a meaning. Check mate.

laughing

That is why the Gods where upset. wink

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
They probably should not have given humans things like "intelligence", "abstract thinking", "reflective thinking" and "free will". Wait, no free will is a myth too, and not every adult thinks post-formally either.

Ding Ding!

Dolos

Was I wrong about what you were trying to say, Shakya.

You think God is real and we don't have free will?

What an unsupported assertion.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Dolos
Was I wrong about what you were trying to say, Shakya.

You think God is real and we don't have free will?

What an unsupported assertion.

Which God?

Dolos

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Which God? The supposed "grand designer", an abstract intelligence - omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - creating the universe to fulfill a grand plan.

If that is not your definition of God, than God can be overthrown by us. A theme recurrent in Greek Mythology, the Son becomes the Father. I believe its possible that our cosmological constant is a mathematical operation punched into a supercomputer by intelligences that came into being from another universe with anywhere from a 3 to 10 dimensionality - with a either similar or dissimilar cosmological constant, and we exist within their matrix. Yet they have no way of knowing where our free will is going to take us, granted that have immense control over what happens within the simulation, limitation is an illusion.

In that case, what if their design is harmful to you as it was to the man and his wife who were immolated in Kenya for stealing - they suffered and were mutilated, unable to absorb oxygen through the lungs, death by fire. Or the man who had is face smashed to bits, gurgling for air through the mutilated, smashed apart remains of his face.

These beings are not good, and I defy them. They have no way of deciding where humanity's free will can take us, though they have immense control over us - they may exist in another simulation that has immense control over theirs. In a way, by acting against them one human might incur the aid of a being superior them, and this might incur the wrath of a being superior to that, and so on ad infinitum.

You must expand your mind. Religion is distracting, and nonsensical.

Stealth Moose

http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fsm_road_pic.jpg

MooCowofJustice

Moose, I'll be sure to get back to you. But in the mean time, did you see where I replied to the other half of your post on the bottom of page 3? We broke the character limit, exceeding it in my reply by about 2000+ characters, so I had to split it into two posts.

Raisen

we all know that anything that isn't Christian, white, or straight male is the only good thing. if you are one of the above, you're wrong apparently.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Raisen
we all know that anything that isn't Christian, white, or straight male is the only good thing. if you are one of the above, you're wrong apparently.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18vrzri35n0h5jpg/k-bigpic.jpg

The butthurt is strong with this one.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Moose, I'll be sure to get back to you. But in the mean time, did you see where I replied to the other half of your post on the bottom of page 3? We broke the character limit, exceeding it in my reply by about 2000+ characters, so I had to split it into two posts.

I actually did not see the first post because it was on the previous page. I'll look over it now.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I don't think I ever argued for respecting a belief when it is used for those purposes. It's been a few days, but I think the last post I made specifically argued against that.

Ugh, I am so going to **** up here. My thoughts are so many different places, haha. Forgive me in advance for giving a convincing performance of a ****tard.

You called out Shaky for lacking respect, from what I recall, when he is asking penetrating questions and showing a lack of reverence for someone else's religion. I countered that it is perfectly valid to act this way with any other belief system that has a faulty premise, and religion should not get a "pass". That's really what began all this.

I'm not saying equal blame is required here, or only blame one person. Again, don't limit yourself to just two options here. The murderers have blame for their actions which they control, and require severe punishment. Those that spread the harmful lies have blame for their actions which they control and require moderate punishment. It's the same reason why you wouldn't legally allow someone to shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre because of the chaos and harm that can come which they knowingly initiated.

Which is none. It's a parody, not a valid belief system. It's ridiculousness is used to mirror real life religions. If you think "all belief systems require respect, whether or not they are logical", this is not a defendable position.

Erm, no. Professed scientists who are fraudulent and big business CEOs and boards who are profit-motivated may be agnostic, atheist, or religious; the end-result is not at all dependent on their belief system. This assertion is wild.

1. You have someone in a position of authority, whether it is a political leader, a religious leader, or a head of household.

2. That person makes a baseless assertion, and requires that no one examine it but simply obey and submit.

3. This assertion becomes the foundation upon which an ethics system is created, which involves all sorts of ridiculous arguments like gay people are evil, pigs and shellfish are abominations, or no one should be near menstrating women. The former numbered points indicate the submissive followers must adhere and not question.

4. The leader who is making these assertions shares some of the blame for any atrocities committed in accordance with these beliefs. This is all the more the issue in say, Christian or Muslim atrocities (which are more widely known to us in this part of the world) and include Pope-sanctioned Crusades, Inquisition, the torture and execution of the Knight's Templar, the genocide of the Cathar, the killings following Reformation, fundamentalist jihad, suicide bombings, etc.

In each of these cases, religious leaders use the immutable words (or translated by them but not open to interpretation by anyone else) to influence a group of people who may become responsible for atrocities and crimes. This is not something I made up; it's evident in history.

And my point is any time a belief system, regardless of intent, creates a systematic way to live your life that is bounded on something supernatural, which cannot be measured or proven, it bears the burden of proof and responsibility at the same time.

You seem to be thinking I am arguing from this "superior" viewpoint of a non-religious individual and I take the side of "faceless and godless scientists, smug atheist, and profiteers" when that's far from the truth. This isn't an "us versus them" discussion. It's a discussion about what's reasonable to believe in and what's reasonable to respect.

Ancient mythologies are not any more measurable or provable than Christ, Muhammad, or the Easter Bunny, and none of them should be treated with kid's gloves except if someone fears reprisal.

You must answer this for me:

When is it okay to not apply something logical and likely true in the absence of any other logical and likely true argument?

Admitting the validity of an argument and then immediately chucking it aside because it doesn't fit your worldview isn't any way to debate.

More like you make your arguments unexamined in appearance. More emotional than otherwise. Arguments may include emotion for emphasis or pathos, but never to ultimately shape truth. I can be angry or excited about my argument to prove X, but that emotion should not in itself be the reason why I support X; I must have a logical argument behind it.

If you feel overwhelmed or otherwise not equal to the task, you can educate yourself by taking a Logics and Reasoning course at your local college. Ethics and History of Philosophy are good courses as well to supplement your reading, and the list of traditional fallcies or flaws in reasoning are a Google search away.

http://www.trulyfallacious.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/burden-of-proof-religious-logic.jpg

If my friend suddenly judges my moral character from a lack of belief in his superstition, I have every right to fire back at him with "dude, that's ridiculous". If you think I have overstepped my bounds by defending my moral character and my reasoning, then I have to question what you stand for. Social passiveness? Appeasement of any and all ideas? I can't believe that you would willingly advocate a social situation in which people turn a blind eye to something when they themselves are being personally judged.

If you didn't vote Democrat and your friend, relative or co-worker said you were a fundamentalist gun-slinging civil rights hater, I would hope you would defend yourself. You wouldn't go "Oh, we should respect this belief system" when you yourself are being actively disrespected.

Here, use this as an example.

Shakyamunison

Someone who lacks faith will be upset when someone else challenges their belief. The less faith they have the more anger they will feel.

I once had the chance to talk to a 70 year old Catholic Priest about Buddhism. He was never angry about how I believed, and never took offense. I gained a lot of respect for the man and Catholics in general.

MooCowofJustice

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You called out Shaky for lacking respect, from what I recall, when he is asking penetrating questions and showing a lack of reverence for someone else's religion. I countered that it is perfectly valid to act this way with any other belief system that has a faulty premise, and religion should not get a "pass". That's really what began all this.

Yeah, I'm not seeing any point where I can agree your claim is valid. All I can see in it is "my right to argue and belief in intense examination of any and all things to allows me to be uncivil and disrespectful because it does not fit my definition of reasonable."

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'm not saying equal blame is required here, or only blame one person. Again, don't limit yourself to just two options here. The murderers have blame for their actions which they control, and require severe punishment. Those that spread the harmful lies have blame for their actions which they control and require moderate punishment. It's the same reason why you wouldn't legally allow someone to shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre because of the chaos and harm that can come which they knowingly initiated.

Why wouldn't I limit myself to two options? I find one to be the only right option, and all others are wrong. Though I did not pick up on any indication of the liars advocating any violence. In the situation described now, both groups would deserve to be held accountable for their actions.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Which is none. It's a parody, not a valid belief system. It's ridiculousness is used to mirror real life religions. If you think "all belief systems require respect, whether or not they are logical", this is not a defendable position.

If someone truly believed in cosmic flying spaghetti monster, why should I tell them I think it's foolish?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Erm, no. Professed scientists who are fraudulent and big business CEOs and boards who are profit-motivated may be agnostic, atheist, or religious; the end-result is not at all dependent on their belief system. This assertion is wild.

So what you're saying is that Kings and Ruling Bodies that are motivated by wealth and power to conquer new lands and expel people that they believe are a threat to their power prove that religions are harmful because they manipulated words and meaning behind religious texts to forward their own agenda? That certainly is wild.

Right now you're trying to argue that religion is unique in being an excuse for one person to do bad things to another, when it just isn't true. Yes, religions get used for that, but typically only by people who subscribe to radical ideas and interpretations. People will use whatever they can to do bad things to each other, as long as it's good for their own agendas. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, it's just people being the dicks that we are.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
1. You have someone in a position of authority, whether it is a political leader, a religious leader, or a head of household.

2. That person makes a baseless assertion, and requires that no one examine it but simply obey and submit.

3. This assertion becomes the foundation upon which an ethics system is created, which involves all sorts of ridiculous arguments like gay people are evil, pigs and shellfish are abominations, or no one should be near menstrating women. The former numbered points indicate the submissive followers must adhere and not question.

4. The leader who is making these assertions shares some of the blame for any atrocities committed in accordance with these beliefs. This is all the more the issue in say, Christian or Muslim atrocities (which are more widely known to us in this part of the world) and include Pope-sanctioned Crusades, Inquisition, the torture and execution of the Knight's Templar, the genocide of the Cathar, the killings following Reformation, fundamentalist jihad, suicide bombings, etc.

In each of these cases, religious leaders use the immutable words (or translated by them but not open to interpretation by anyone else) to influence a group of people who may become responsible for atrocities and crimes. This is not something I made up; it's evident in history.

Here, I only see you broadly generalizing beyond reasonable and actual bounds. Mostly because of here. There are different interpretations. It's a basis for a lot of Islamic law, interpreting what Muhammad meant by a certain statement and what the Qur'an means by a certain statement. Same goes with Christian ideas.

And again, religion is only used to justify the acts.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And my point is any time a belief system, regardless of intent, creates a systematic way to live your life that is bounded on something supernatural, which cannot be measured or proven, it bears the burden of proof and responsibility at the same time.

You seem to be thinking I am arguing from this "superior" viewpoint of a non-religious individual and I take the side of "faceless and godless scientists, smug atheist, and profiteers" when that's far from the truth. This isn't an "us versus them" discussion. It's a discussion about what's reasonable to believe in and what's reasonable to respect.

Ancient mythologies are not any more measurable or provable than Christ, Muhammad, or the Easter Bunny, and none of them should be treated with kid's gloves except if someone fears reprisal.

I won't deny I stereotype. Everybody does, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. But I am not using that here. I take complete issue with your definition of what is deserving of respect and what isn't. And you'll just have to forgive me. Most of the time I am simply not as articulate or clever as I need to be.

I did not advocate for kid gloves, ever. I advocated for what I'm thinking of as regular decency.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You must answer this for me:

When is it okay to not apply something logical and likely true in the absence of any other logical and likely true argument?

Admitting the validity of an argument and then immediately chucking it aside because it doesn't fit your worldview isn't any way to debate.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
More like you make your arguments unexamined in appearance. More emotional than otherwise. Arguments may include emotion for emphasis or pathos, but never to ultimately shape truth. I can be angry or excited about my argument to prove X, but that emotion should not in itself be the reason why I support X; I must have a logical argument behind it.

If you feel overwhelmed or otherwise not equal to the task, you can educate yourself by taking a Logics and Reasoning course at your local college. Ethics and History of Philosophy are good courses as well to supplement your reading, and the list of traditional fallcies or flaws in reasoning are a Google search away.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://www.trulyfallacious.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/burden-of-proof-religious-logic.jpg

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If my friend suddenly judges my moral character from a lack of belief in his superstition, I have every right to fire back at him with "dude, that's ridiculous". If you think I have overstepped my bounds by defending my moral character and my reasoning, then I have to question what you stand for. Social passiveness? Appeasement of any and all ideas? I can't believe that you would willingly advocate a social situation in which people turn a blind eye to something when they themselves are being personally judged.

If you didn't vote Democrat and your friend, relative or co-worker said you were a fundamentalist gun-slinging civil rights hater, I would hope you would defend yourself. You wouldn't go "Oh, we should respect this belief system" when you yourself are being actively disrespected.

This reply has been rushed, and I'm out of time. I'll be sure to hit the remaining points here at a later time, in addition to your first post. Until then.

Raisen

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18vrzri35n0h5jpg/k-bigpic.jpg

The butthurt is strong with this one.

I actually did not see the first post because it was on the previous page. I'll look over it now.

I'm not white and i'm not Christian. i'm just accepting of other's beliefs.

i'm betting that you're white.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Yeah, I'm not seeing any point where I can agree your claim is valid. All I can see in it is "my right to argue and belief in intense examination of any and all things to allows me to be uncivil and disrespectful because it does not fit my definition of reasonable."

This is not a forum strictly for people of one belief system, so I shouldn't be required to censor myself when I have valid points to contradict posted inaccuracies and wild claims. If someone said NASA was controlling my dog from space with a satellite, I'd beg for proof, I wouldn't be civil and respectful because people's feelings are more important than reason.

I'm sadly out of time but a lot of this looks like strawmanning.

Originally posted by Raisen
I'm not white and i'm not Christian. i'm just accepting of other's beliefs.

i'm betting that you're white.

Because there's a white guy for my avatar? Gotta go with those sweeping generalizations. What's your point anyways?

Raisen

are you white?

Stealth Moose

What's your point anyways. My race is irrelevant unless you're attempting to apply a stereotype or blind prejudice.

Raisen

ahhh. so you are a white buddhist

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
ahhh. so you are a white buddhist

I'm the Buddhist, and I am a mix of Russian and Choctaw.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Raisen
ahhh. so you are a white buddhist

I lol'd. What a failed attempt at... something that was. I am not white nor am I buddhist. Hell, my ignorance of Buddhism is on display in one of these very threads. But you can't let something like ignorance and context get in the way of the no-doubt solid point you're making?

Raisen

lol. so you're part native now? you recognized by your tribe? what percent are you and what proof do you have? lol.
i'm sick of yuppie upper class whites trying to be exotic.
you have the Cherokee princess syndrome it appears.
and now you're absorbing Asian culture in the improper way, whilst using it as a way to bash anything that is "typical" American.

Generally White Buddhists are:

-trendies
-yuppies
-late 20's to early 50's
-consider themselves cultured and open-minded
-usually attend book fairs, pride parades, film festivals
-hang out in trendy overpriced coffee shops
-listen to obscure music
-frequent trendy neighborhoods
-eat exotic foods like sushi or are vegetarian
-read 'hip' urban entertainment newspapers
-will start off religious discussions with " I was raised catholic, but........."

Their reasons for being Buddhist are also superficial. It's like they want to add something to their personal resumes to make them seem more worldly and interesting to others.

What's most annoying is that no one takes them seriously. It's almost a given that they will jump off the bandwagon once it's no longer considered 'cool' to be so by the 'in crowd'.

I also like how you're speaking about Buddhism as if it's a religion, when it is always, always taught as being a philosophy and explicitly not a religion.

Raisen

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I lol'd. What a failed attempt at... something that was. I am not white nor am I buddhist. Hell, my ignorance of Buddhism is on display in one of these very threads. But you can't let something like ignorance and context get in the way of the no-doubt solid point you're making?

got you mixed up with shaky for a sec.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Raisen
got you mixed up with shaky for a sec.

Those of us with Indian blood get that a lot.

Shakyamunison

My father was Choctaw, and my mother was Russian. I have no way to prove anything to you because I was born dirt pore. I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, and spent most of my life pissed off about how Christianity ripped off my life. It was only after I discovered Nichiren Buddhism that my life started making sense. By the way Nichiren Buddhism is Japanese. I don't drink coffee, and I can't stand Coffee Shop Buddhists. Buddhism is not about intellectual mumbo jumbo; it is about a better life.

Instead of telling me how stupid you are, why don't you just ask me? I will tell you how stupid you sound.

Raisen

ahhh. here we go. so many "native" white people. you have colored eyes? light hair?

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Raisen
ahhh. here we go. so many "native" white people. you have colored eyes? light hair?

Yes and I'm typing this using the wifi at my people's casino.

Lol@ your sweeping generalizations.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
ahhh. here we go. so many "native" white people. you have colored eyes? light hair?

Are you a bigot? I am RED. I pass off as white in this white society, but I am red.

Raisen

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Yes and I'm typing this using the wifi at my people's casino.

Lol@ your sweeping generalizations.

you can be 12.5% and still be part of some tribes. white people really like to abuse that opportunity. what percent are you? what tribe?

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you a bigot? I am RED. I pass off as white in this white society, but I am red.

i'm not a bigot at all.
what percent are you? you're fifty? it would be impossible to have light eyes and light hair at that percentage

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
i'm not a bigot at all.
what percent are you? you're fifty? it would be impossible to have light eyes and light hair at that percentage

I really don't know. My father was dark skinned and my mother was white and blond haired. I am a redhead. I have the light skin and freckles that comes with being Ginger. On the other hand, my brother was just as dark as my father.

Did you know that black people can also me Ginger?

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I really don't know. My father was dark skinned and my mother was white and blond haired. I am a redhead. I have the light skin and freckles that comes with being Ginger. On the other hand, my brother was just as dark as my father.

Did you know that black people can also me Ginger?

ginger black people always have a significant amount of white in them.

Raisen

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
ginger black people always have a significant amount of white in them.

You can't use the word Ginger. You are not a redhead. The word Ginger is used as a slander.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
you're white man. just accept it.

When it comes to getting a good paying job, you bet I'm white.

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When it comes to getting a good paying job, you bet I'm white.

I clicked on your music link. is that a pic of you in the hat? cuz that's definitely a white guy lol.

don't be confused about who you are man. it's painful to see.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
I clicked on your music link. is that a pic of you in the hat? cuz that's definitely a white guy lol.

don't be confused about who you are man. it's painful to see.

That is me. What I have told you is the truth. The problem is really yours. You are the person who asked me.

I take it that you are black. Is that correct? While your people were enslaved, my people were systematically exterminated on both sides of the planet. We all know what happened to the Native Americans, but do a little research on Russia from the same time period.

You seem to like to point to my white (Russian) side. I guess that is fine with me, I really don't understand why it matters to you, unless you are a bigot.

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is me. What I have told you is the truth. The problem is really yours. You are the person who asked me.

I take it that you are black. Is that correct? While your people were enslaved, my people were systematically exterminated on both sides of the planet. We all know what happened to the Native Americans, but do a little research on Russia from the same time period.

You seem to like to point to my white (Russian) side. I guess that is fine with me, I really don't understand why it matters to you, unless you are a bigot. [/QUOTE

i'm not black. i'm half Mexican and half white.

I've just encountered so many white people who seem to want to be exotic. it's annoying as hell, and i'm definitely not the only one who thinks so.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen

i'm not black. i'm half Mexican and half white.

I've just encountered so many white people who seem to want to be exotic. it's annoying as hell, and i'm definitely not the only one who thinks so.

Ya, that is how I feel about coffee shop Buddhist. Some guy says to me that he is a Buddhist, so I ask what school? Most of the time they have no idea what I am talking about, so I can relate.

And I'm sorry for calling you stupid. You were just pissing me off.

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, that is how I feel about coffee shop Buddhist. Some guy says to me that he is a Buddhist, so I ask what school? Most of the time they have no idea what I am talking about, so I can relate.

And I'm sorry for calling you stupid. You were just pissing me off.

yeah, I was trying to get into your feelings a little. i'm almost always assumed to be some ultra-conservative white guy on these boards. I can see how people would assume this based on how I sometimes back the underdog. and the underdog is almost always JIA or a conservative person on here.

although i'm not Christian or Repub, i'm all about supporting people's ability to say what they want without being belittled. JIA IS annoying, but he doesn't deserve some of the treatment he gets. he may be trying to push his religion down your throat, but everyone has the option of ignoring. We already know what he's all about, and he definitely doesn't bash people.......so why not just let him be crazy about jesus?

it seems like white men are easy targets in the states. there's a mass assumption that they're racist, lack charisma, and have an all around good life just because they're white

it seems like it's cool to make fun of Christians and vicariously blame them for crimes committed by other Christians.

I know that I made an assumption about you. the irony isn't lost on me.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
yeah, I was trying to get into your feelings a little. i'm almost always assumed to be some ultra-conservative white guy on these boards. I can see how people would assume this based on how I sometimes back the underdog. and the underdog is almost always JIA or a conservative person on here.

although i'm not Christian or Repub, i'm all about supporting people's ability to say what they want without being belittled. JIA IS annoying, but he doesn't deserve some of the treatment he gets. he may be trying to push his religion down your throat, but everyone has the option of ignoring. We already know what he's all about, and he definitely doesn't bash people.......so why not just let him be crazy about jesus?

it seems like white men are easy targets in the states. there's a mass assumption that they're racist, lack charisma, and have an all around good life just because they're white

it seems like it's cool to make fun of Christians and vicariously blame them for crimes committed by other Christians.

I know that I made an assumption about you. the irony isn't lost on me.

JIA can dish it out just as well.

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JIA can dish it out just as well.

I haven't seen it.

don't take this as me giving JIA a pass, but Christians are taught to spread the gospel. as annoying as it is, many of them believe they are doing YOU good by doing this.

can't change a tiger's stripes bro.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
I haven't seen it.

don't take this as me giving JIA a pass, but Christians are taught to spread the gospel. as annoying as it is, many of them believe they are doing YOU good by doing this.

can't change a tiger's stripes bro.

He needs to slow down and talk to people. I've told him this many times. I like JIA when he gets off his soup box and talks to me. It is very rare, but he is getting better. He is a good person, but I just think he's afraid. BTW, JIA is not the underdog.

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He needs to slow down and talk to people. I've told him this many times. I like JIA when he gets off his soup box and talks to me. It is very rare, but he is getting better. He is a good person, but I just think he's afraid. BTW, JIA is not the underdog.

maybe you should pm him bro. tell him how much you love him when he genuinely expresses himself to you. (no homo of course) let him know that you don't mock his religion; just his presentation of it.
let him know that perhaps Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, and Flying Spaghetti Monster are playing topless volleyball on one of the beautiful beaches in heaven. They're all buds who's intimacy has grown exponentially due to their mutual effort to stop The Devil, Ghosts, Witches, The Hamburglar and other nefarious characters.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
maybe you should pm him bro. tell him how much you love him when he genuinely expresses himself to you. (no homo of course) let him know that you don't mock his religion; just his presentation of it.
let him know that perhaps Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, and Flying Spaghetti Monster are playing topless volleyball on one of the beautiful beaches in heaven. They're all buds who's intimacy has grown exponentially due to their mutual effort to stop The Devil, Ghosts, Witches, The Hamburglar and other nefarious characters.

I did that, years ago.

However, I would like to point out that this is a debate forum.

This is the ring.

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I did that, years ago.

However, I would like to point out that this is a debate forum.

This is the ring.

you sometimes hit below the belt.

with your mouth

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
you sometimes hit below the belt.

with your mouth

I reject your characterization. I think there are things that I believe that are shocking to you. Shocking can be offensive, but not below the belt.

Raisen

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I reject your characterization. I think there are things that I believe that are shocking to you. Shocking can be offensive, but not below the belt.

not shocking shaky. it's hard to shock me anymore. i'm willing to believe anything and all is possible.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Raisen
not shocking shaky. it's hard to shock me anymore. i'm willing to believe anything and all is possible.

OK, start a thread.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Raisen
you sometimes hit below the belt.

with your mouth Ha. Gay.

Originally posted by Raisen
i'm willing to believe anything That's... not really a good thing.

Raisen

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ha. Gay.

That's... not really a good thing.

I worded that wrongly. i'm willing to believe anything is possible within the confines of my reasoning. not naive

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ha. Gay.

That's... not really a good thing.

I lol'd. I mean, wait... How juvenile. Shame bro.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Raisen
i'm half Mexican and half white. If you're half black, then what's your other race/skin color? And if you're half Mexican, what's your other nationality--and do you carry dual citizenship?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I lol'd. I mean, wait... How juvenile. Shame bro. I am the Shame Bro sad

Raisen

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If you're half black, then what's your other race/skin color? And if you're half Mexican, what's your other nationality--and do you carry dual citizenship?

you know exactly what i'm talking about. i'm an American citizen. my mother is an American citizen who is of Mestizo blood origin.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Raisen
you know exactly what i'm talking about. i'm an American citizen. my mother is an American citizen who is of Mestizo blood origin.

Skin color, ethnicity, race and nationality are different concepts. Your previous posts indicate a lack of familiarity with stuff like phenotypes and genetic variation. Anyone who classifies people based on skin color is simply ignorant.

So perhaps this clarifies why I find your derailing here to be pointless.

Raisen

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Skin color, ethnicity, race and nationality are different concepts. Your previous posts indicate a lack of familiarity with stuff like phenotypes and genetic variation. Anyone who classifies people based on skin color is simply ignorant.

So perhaps this clarifies why I find your derailing here to be pointless.

oh. you're the blond haired, blue eyed native right? the one with .2% apache in him?

don't be mad bro.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Raisen
you know exactly what i'm talking about. i'm an American citizen. my mother is an American citizen who is of Mestizo blood origin. How could I have known your mother was Mestizo? Saying you're "Mexican" is no more a clue to your ethnic make-up than me saying "I'm Canadian". My entire family is British, but if I said I was "half-white, half-Canadian", I'm only filling in half the picture for both nation and race. I could be part British-black and part Candian-Metis. Which would make be black/Native/white in race, and U.K./Canadian/any part of Africa or the Caribbean (most likely) in nationality. And that's not even including citizenship I could totally be Andorran.

Kinda a lot to infer isn't it?

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
How could I have known your mother was Mestizo? Saying you're "Mexican" is no more a clue to your ethnic make-up than me saying "I'm Canadian". My entire family is British, but if I said I was "half-white, half-Canadian", I'm only filling in half the picture for both nation and race. I could be part British-black and part Candian-Metis. Which would make be black/Native/white in race, and U.K./Canadian/any part of Africa or the Caribbean (most likely) in nationality. And that's not even including citizenship I could totally be Andorran.

Kinda a lot to infer isn't it?

laughing out loud

I just about fell out of my chair. Good job!

Raisen

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Raisen
almost every Mexican American will say that their race is Mexican. Out of curiousity, why do you think I know about "La Raza"? I'm flattered you think I know everything, but in fact I don't--The Spanish language and Latino people are rather underepresented in Canada. I had to look it up just now--and if you all know it's "inaccurate", then that's kinda the problem, isn't it?

I learned something today about this. I hope you did too... about the difference between race and nationality?

Raisen

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Out of curiousity, why do you think I know about "La Raza"? I'm flattered you think I know everything, but in fact I don't--The Spanish language and Latino people are rather underepresented in Canada. I had to look it up just now--and if you all know it's "inaccurate", then that's kinda the problem, isn't it?

I learned something today about this. I hope you did too... about the difference between race and nationality?

ahhh. you're Canadian. explains it. anybody who grew up around Mexican people(see, I did it again) in the U.S.A. can confirm what I told you.

so you can lower your nose a little now.

Lord Lucien

I'm Canadian, that's physiologically impossible. We're like Whos from Whoville.

eninn

This seems a very odd point of view to have. You say IF there is an all knowing creator, THIS is what he would have done. That makes no sense to me. You just have to accept the reality of things, it just what it is. To me, its like you might as well say IF there is an all knowing creator, why would there be any death, any pain, any sadness? I mean its just the reality of life, wether you believe in god or not, its just a reality of life you have to accept. How this is to be interpreted as an argument against god, I don't understand.

Let me ask you something, if I were to say well evolution is false because if we did evolve then why don't we have wings? Why don't we live for a thousand years? Why didn't we evolve to the point that we don't require food? Would you actually accept any of these arguments as reasonable against evolution? No, of course not, its just ridiculous, because all it does is demonstrate me not accepting the reality of life, all it does is show me completely creating random parameters out of thin air and trying to use them as tho they actually carry any type of weight. If we were to accept your argument that Allah revealing the message in quran is an argument against his existence, then where do we stop? Do we also accept that since you stubbed your toe this morning and it hurt, its an argument against his existence? Do we also accept that since your coffee wasn't as hot as you would like it to be this morning, its an argument against his existence?

In addition, you should realize that the vast majority of muslims DON'T speak arabic. That doesn't mean we are completely ignorant to the quran. I don't speak arabic, but I have made effort to try and understand. There are plenty of arabic speaking people, both for islam and against islam, from whom we can easily obtain knowledge. But just because you would rather be spoon fed a "right" answer, that doesn't make any of what you're saying valid.

I mean what a ridiculous idea. What should have been done? Should a thousand quran have been revealed in each and every different language and dialect? Is this the only thing that would satisfy you? Or must have it just been revealed in english, just to personally satisfy you? This is a point of view that I find very nonsensical, you just have to accept the reality of life, the quran is in arabic, it is what it is. This doesn't mean you can never learn anything about it, you can very easily learn about it. This doesn't automatically render one incompetent of learning the quran or islam, so many non muslims who don't know a word of arabic have embraced islam, how did they do that?

If that is truly how you feel, then thats how you feel, I can't tell you how to feel or how not to feel. But I just find it a very odd way of thinking, and I don't see how one can logically come to the conclusions which you have come to.

As far as my take on it, I don't think these facts written in the quran are some kind of be all end all for a muslim to say there you have it, i'm right you're wrong. The quran is so deep, it addresses so many aspects of humanity, of life, to try and sum it up in a few verses is just doing a complete injustice to the knowledge given to us in this holy book. Both the op and myself have both went out of our way to reiterate the fact that the quran is a book of signs, NOT a book of science. So nobody is sitting here saying look, here is your unequivocal proof. We are merely just pointing out one of the many beauties of the quran, the signs found within the quran, just as the quran claims itself to have. These are just a few of the many signs given to us by our creator.

I would also like to point out that the prophet Muhammad IS a human just like all the rest of us. ALL the prophets were humans. We love and respect them because of the message they brought to us, but our worship is only to our creator, not to any human being.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yWB22hgUqM

eninn

---

One of the highlights in the life of the great Prophet Muhammad (SA) is the fact that he was untrained and unschooled (ie, he did not attend any school). He had not been trained by any teacher and neither he had acquainted himself with any written work.

No historian, Muslim or non-Muslim, can be found who would claim that the Prophet (SA) had been taught to read or write by anyone in his childhood or youth, let alone during his old age, which was the time of his mission. No one has ever either indicated an instance of the Prophet (SA) having read or written a line.

The Arabs, particularly those from Hijaz, were generally unlettered during that period, and those of them who could read and write were very well-known and very few in number. It would, as a rule, be impossible for a man to learn this skill under such conditions and not be well-known for this virtue among the people.

As we know, at William James Durant remarks: "Evidently no one thought of teaching him (the great Prophet) reading and writing. At that time the art of reading, and writing was of little significance to the Arabs. For this very reason, there were no more than seventeen persons among the Quraysh tribe who could read and write. It is not known that Muhammad himself should have written anything. After his appointment as Prophet, he had a special scribe for him. Yet the most popular and eloquent Arabic book was recited by him. He had a better acquaintance and grasp of the affairs than the educated ones".'

John Davenport in his book entitled: "Apology for Fault to Muhammad and Qur'an" observes: "As regards education, such as is usual throughout the world, it is the general belief that Muhammad had no education other than that which was commonly practiced in his tribe".

Constante Vergil Giorgio in his book entitled: "Muhammad - a Prophet to Be Acquainted with Afresh" remarks: "Although he was unschooled, the early verses sent down to him spoke of the pen and knowledge; namely of writing, putting into writing, learning, and of teaching. In no other major religion has knowledge been so extensively appreciated, and no other religion can be found in which such an importance has been attached to knowledge, at its initial stage of development. Had Muhammad been a scholar, no surprise would be caused at the verses having been sent down into the Ghar Hira' (Hira' Cave), since a scholar appreciates knowledge, but the Prophet was neither schooled nor tutored. I congratulate the Muslims on their religion having so dearly regarded, at its inception, the acquisition of knowledge".

Gustav Lubon in his famous work: "The Civilization of Islam and the Arabs" notes: "It is well-known that the Prophet was unschooled. This stands to reason also by appealing to inductive generalization, that if he happened to be knowledgeable, the contents and paragraphs of Qur'an would have been better interrelated. Furthermore, if Muhammad was not unschooled, he would not have been capable of propagating a new religion, for an unschooled person is better aware of the needs of the common (illiterate) people and thus is more capable of helping them to the right path. However, whether the Prophet was schooled or unschooled, undoubtedly, he was possessing the highest degree of intellect, wisdom and awareness".

Not being conversant with the Qur'anic concepts, materialistically oriented Gustav Lubon fabricates nonsensical words concerning the relationships of Qur'anic verses and the incapability of the educated to understand the needs of the uneducated, thus insults the Qur'an and the Prophet (SA). Yet he admits that there is no recorded evidence or indication concerning the Prophet (SA) having been able to read and write.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXzFUeT2d9U

eninn

----
Allah says in the Holy Qur'an
115. "Did you think that We had created you in play (without any purpose), and that you would not be brought back to Us?"

116. So Exalted be Allah, the True King, La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Lord of the Supreme Throne!

117. And whoever invokes (or worships), besides Allah, any other ilah (god), of whom he has no proof, then his reckoning is only with his Lord. Surely! Al-Kafirun (the disbelievers in Allah and in the Oneness of Allah, polytheists, pagans, idolaters, etc.) Will not be successful.

118. And say (O Muhammad): "My Lord! Forgive and have mercy, for You are the Best of those who show mercy!"
The only solution to all
The Oneness of God
And follow the path of the prophets and messengers

Because it is the right way

This is the goal of human existence on earth

And finally
Everyone will die
Must be good and do good deeds in this world

You are responsible for the all your actions
allah will ask you about all what you did
Both small and large
Must be prepared

Allah says in the Holy Qur'an
(12) Indeed, it is We who bring the dead to life and record what they have put forth and what they left behind, and all things We have enumerated in a clear register

(13) And every person We have imposed his fate upon his neck, and We will produce for him on the Day of Resurrection a record which he will encounter spread open

(49) And the record will be placed , and you will see the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, "Oh, woe to us! What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has enumerated it? "And they will find what they did present . And your Lord does injustice to no one

This is happening now

In the path of the devil
And get away through the teachings of the prophets and messengers

Allah says in the Holy Qur'an

27. O Children of Adam! Let not Shaitan (Satan) deceive you, as he got your parents out of Paradise, stripping them of their raiments, to show them their private parts. Verily, he and Qabiluhu (his soldiers from the jinns or his tribe) see you from where you cannot see them. Verily, We made the Shayatin (devils) Auliya' (protectors and helpers) for those who believe not.
Surah Al-A'raf
----Allah alone is the creator and manufacturer of mankind
Knows either useful for us and bad for us

Adam and Eve, peace be upon them

Knows by
Should not be eating from the tree
God warned them of doing this
Because it is a sin

After God created Adam and ordered the angels to prostrate to him and happened Kafr Satan and sin - God Almighty wanted to exercise Adam his mission on earth. But before the exercise of his mission insert God in practical experience from the curriculum, which will be followed by man on earth, and seduction that would be inflicted by the devil. God Almighty's mercy him he did not want Adam begins his mission to exist on a theoretical basis, because there is a difference between talking theory and experiment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdxLScsoYyY

Allah only wants one thing from His slaves.

"And I (Allah) created not the Jinn and mankind except they should worship Me (alone). I seek not any provision from them nor do I ask that they should feed Me. Verily, Allah is the All-Provider, Owner of Power, the Most Strong."

Allah only wants mankind to worship Him alone and ascribe no partners with Him in worship, and truly be His slaves. He wants them to surrender to His will, as they surrender to His control for the means of their lives. It is only fair to worship only the One who holds the existence of everything and everyone is in His Hands. One should thank Allah who, alone, provides for him by worshipping Him alone

This simple
Does not require much thinking
- Paradise is quite different from the life of the world
God wants to honor Adam sons
Give him extra strength and lasting youth and happy life does not end with the wives and virgins

This is a blessing and a gift from God to Adam sons
After enduring all the hardships and difficulties faced in the life of the world
God says in the Holy Qur'an
19. Then as for him who will be given his Record in his right hand will say: "Take, read my Record!
20. "Surely, I did believe that I shall meet my Account!"
21. So he shall be in a life, well-pleasing.
22. In a lofty Paradise,
23. The fruits in bunches whereof will be low and near at hand.
24. Eat and drink at ease for that which you have sent on before you in days past!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDmeOakD0nI

eninn

-----

Evil from people and not from allah

Why did allah punished the people on their actions

"Nay! man is evidence against himself. Though he puts forth his excuses."

Holy Qur'an (75:14-15)

This verse refers to man's being responsible before Allah far his speech, behaviour, and deeds and will be judged by Him on the Resurrection Day the Day of Justice and Punishment).

All these are in order to make his relation with his Lard directly and also to judge himself before his Lord. He is made to feel his shortcomings and responsibilities. As such, negative attitudes should be corrected spontaneously and without any force lest he loses his self-sensibility and feeling of responsibility which leads him to lose his self-motivation and self-respect. Later on it can lead to losing his value as a wise and distinguished man, who then needs farce to make him carry out his obligations and avoid what is forbidden.

Allah, the Almighty says:

"And those who give w hat they give (in alms) while their hearts are full of fear t hat to their Lord they must return. These hasten to do good things and they are foremost in (attaining) them. And We do not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent of its ability, and with Us is a book which speaks the truth, and they s hall not be dealt with unjustly."

Holy Qur'an (23:60-62)

"He who does not judge him/ herself daily is not from us, if one does a good deed, Allah will increase it while if he does an evil deed, Allah forgives him."

Islam wants to bring up the power of conscience in man's soul in precedence of the power of state and to develop the virtue of personal responsibility; to became a guardian to judge oneself and know that one is responsible an the Resurrection Day far what Allah has granted. Everyone is responsible for the property he owns. And from where did he gain it and how did he use it? Man is also responsible far the knowledge he acquires and the capabilities to which it is applied before Allah and how they are employed. Did he use them far his own personal benefit or far the general benefit of society? Did he exploit them far corrupt and destructive practices, and for boosting only himself and his worldly interests? Man is responsible far his mentality and intelligence which Allah gave him and how they are put to use. And if they were misdirected in deviated ways, deceiving others or corrected in the way of guidance and edification of soul and its reformation.

He is also responsible for the strength that Allah gave him and to what purpose did it gain. Was it spent in wasteful disobedience and being aggressive? Or was it used towards goodness and following the right way? Man is also responsible for the power, position and social rank which Allah gave him and whether they were misused for suppression, creating terrorism, and seeking predominance to obtain personal gain over others? Or was it constructively put to use for social development in the way of Allah, the Almighty?

Consequently, man will be questioned for the tongue which Allah gave him and how did he use its talents. Did he use it for uttering the word of goodness, reformation and benefitting social progress? Or did he use it for cheating, backbiting, lying, and insulting others?

Similarly, he will be questioned for the. eyes which Allah gave him and for what purpose were they put. Did he use them for reading knowledgeable books and respecting Allah's greatness? Or did he use them for looking at what Allah has forbidden and prohibited?

He will also be questioned on Allah's gift of ears and was the sense of hearing used only for listening to gossip, empty words, indecency and wasteful entertainment? Or were they directed at hearing the word of guidance, educative and fruitful debates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpT9I6yqlcY

Stealth Moose

That is perhaps the most I've seen someone monolog here. Some of that looks slightly related to points made by other posters but if so, not easily singled out. I might recommend addressing people directly for a discussion. If your intent is merely to reaffirm your values and ignore everything else, you may want to go to a forum which caters to Muslims already, as no one here will be easily swayed by persistent quotes from whichever holy book is used. Unless of course they've already bought what you're selling.

eninn

The reputation of the Holy Qur'an cleft the bonds of time and distance and influenced beyond them. The miracles of the prophets before the Prophet of Islam (p.b.u.h.), and even his own miracles save the Qur'an, happened in a special period of time, at a definite place and for a specific group of people. For example : the utterances of the holy little child of Virgin Mary, and raising the dead by Jesus (a.s.) were done at some definite times and places before the eyes of some particular people. And we know that regarding the things that depend on time and place, the farther we move away from them correlatively the weaker they become. This is one of the properties of affairs related to time.

But,

the Holy Qur'an does not depend on time and place. Its brilliance and authority that illuminated the darkness of Arabia fourteen centuries ago continues unwaveringly to shine with its original splendor. Besides that, the passing of time, the advancement of science and the development of information have made it possible for us to understand it and take its advantages even more than the nations of former ages did. It is evident that what time and place cannot influence will continue to be everywhere in the world for eternity. It is also clear that a world-wide everlasting religion should have a world-wide everlasting document of legitimacy in its possession.

Then we can discuss the Holy Qur'an :
from the point of modern science;
and the scientific explorations;
and the rotation of the Earth;
and reproduction in the plant kingdom;
and general reproduction in all the particles of the world;
and general gravity;
and the surrendering of the Sun and the Moon;
and the secrets of the creation of mountains;
and the advent of the world;
and the existence of life on other planets;
and the winds, the pollinator of plants;
and the question of the roundness of the Earth;
And many other scientific facts and knowledge about the world can be found in the Holy Qur'an, too.

I hope my answer is clear and satisfactory. Thank you again for your question smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unyiUKwe7Jw&list=PL9FEDF06E670E3EE4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Zku1xBnuw