Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Today at 05:36 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Today at 02:11 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 11:42 AM

Reading stabbings
Yesterday at 10:32 PM

Coronavirus crisis
Yesterday at 12:20 PM

Qur'anic studies today
January 12, 2021, 03:05 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 12, 2021, 11:42 AM

Hello
January 09, 2021, 07:46 AM

Paris murder
January 08, 2021, 07:50 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
January 07, 2021, 03:21 AM

The Lady of the Heaven., ...
January 04, 2021, 05:10 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
January 01, 2021, 10:01 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Comments on Debunker and IA debate

 (Read 41433 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 9 10 11« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #300 - April 17, 2011, 10:28 PM


    So its like a raindrop that evaporates the instant it falls, leaving behind a residue that resembles no raindrop at all.

    What an inefficient thing for god and his emissaries to do.

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #301 - April 17, 2011, 10:31 PM

    Quote
    So its like a raindrop that evaporates the instant it falls, leaving behind a residue that resembles no raindrop at all.

    What an inefficient thing for god and his emissaries to do.


    OMG! billy is discussing scriptural claims?!

    anyway, if God was really seeking efficiency, then the best method would have been forcing us to believe. 

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #302 - April 17, 2011, 10:34 PM

    ,,and while I have got your attention, let me ask you a basic question that I am failing to get a satisfactory muslims response on.  

    Why is pork forbidden in Islam - what really is so wrong with eating pork?  The most commonly cited reason for pork being haram is that they ingest their own faeces, but if rabbits and other animals in nature do the same, then why are they not haram too?

    The West eats pork and suffers no more long term damage from it than it does with beef or other meats.  In fact the BMA are yet to issue guidelines against the eating of pork, as they did with beef after BSE.  

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #303 - April 17, 2011, 10:35 PM

    Quote
    OMG! billy is discussing scriptural claims?!

    anyway, if God was really seeking efficiency, then the best method would have been forcing us to believe.  

     

    I always discuss scriptural claims.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #304 - April 17, 2011, 10:40 PM

    Quote
    Why is pork forbidden in Islam - what really is so wrong with eating pork?  

     
    i don't know. there are practices that have to do with rituals, and don't have to make any sense. Why drinking blood is filthy when it runs in our veins? why can't a bleeding person pray unless the bleeding stops, because blood is filthy?

    Quote
    The most commonly cited reason for pork being haram is that they ingest their own faeces, but if rabbits and other animals in nature do the same, then why are they not haram too?

     
    that's muslims trying to justify rituals, but i don't think there's any scriptual text justifying why blood or pork is filthy.

    Quote
    The West eats pork and suffers no more long term damage from it than it does with beef or other meats.  In fact the BMA are yet to issue guidelines against the eating of pork, as they did with beef after BSE.  

     
    again, the reason given in the quran is that pork is filthy (like blood), it has nothing to do with health.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #305 - April 17, 2011, 10:42 PM


    I always discuss scriptural claims.


    well, my impression is you discuss religious practices. As I understand you, religion is what is practiced, not what is in religious books, and that's why I rarely ever noticed you  discussing scripture (discussing the actual verses, like what Soren is doing here).

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #306 - April 17, 2011, 10:44 PM

    Quote
    well, my impression is you discuss religious practices. As I understand you, religion is what is practiced, not what is in religious books, and that's why I rarely ever noticed you  discussing scripture (like the actual verses).


    The two are intertwined.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #307 - April 17, 2011, 10:49 PM

    it had to be protected or more prophets would be needed.

    God needs? If he doesn't, then he is practically responsible for the corruption of the other books. Sounds more like a car dealer trying to scam you. "all the other cars suck, but mine are the best"

    OMG! billy is discussing scriptural claims?!

    anyway, if God was really seeking efficiency, then the best method would have been forcing us to believe.  

    sounds like we're here to be tested...

    I know someday you'll have a beautiful life, I know you'll be a star
    In somebody else's sky, but why, why, why
    Can't it be, can't it be mine

    https://twitter.com/AlharbiMoe
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #308 - April 17, 2011, 11:06 PM

    Quote
    God needs? If he doesn't, then he is practically responsible for the corruption of the other books. Sounds more like a car dealer trying to scam you. "all the other cars suck, but mine are the best"


    My, my, this is the first time I see you discussing religion, at all.
    God is ultimately responsible for everything. By given us free-will, He's ultimately responsible for our mischief. As for your analogy, i don't see how it's relevant so i won't  comment.

    Quote
    sounds like we're here to be tested...

    the test is for us.... God knows the results already.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #309 - April 17, 2011, 11:18 PM


    i don't know. there are practices that have to do with rituals, and don't have to make any sense. Why drinking blood is filthy when it runs in our veins? why can't a bleeding person pray unless the bleeding stops, because blood is filthy?
     
    that's muslims trying to justify rituals, but i don't think there's any scriptual text justifying why blood or pork is filthy.

    I actually agree with the muslims, and thats why its called filthy (although I dont believe they are any' filthier' than other animals). Its a visual Muhammed would have seen like I did when I visited the third world & saw wild pigs eating poo
    btw do you get wild rabbits in saudi arabia?
    Quote
    again, the reason given in the quran is that pork is filthy (like blood), it has nothing to do with health.

    But pork is not filthy, well not anymore than other allowed animals?  So it what other way could it be called filthy?


    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #310 - April 17, 2011, 11:24 PM

    Quote
    But pork is not filthy, well not anymore than other allowed animals?  So it what other way could it be called filthy?


    eating pig or drinking blood is ceremonially filthy, if you will. It has nothing to do with physical filth, since, as you pointed out, other animals can be as filthy.

    wild bunnies in arabia? i don't think so.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #311 - April 17, 2011, 11:50 PM

    My, my, this is the first time I see you discussing religion, at all.

    Yes, usually I don't like discussing religion. But I am curious as to how you're still a muslim. Thinking hard Curiosity is what lead me to leave my faith.

    God is ultimately responsible for everything. By given us free-will, He's ultimately responsible for our mischief.

    Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic, but I'll assume the former.
    So why would it make sense that the entire universe/world revolves around, and even created by a god who makes mischievous creatures and punishes them for their mischief? This is God we're talking talking about. The first and the last. The source for all existence. How do you attribute such a characteristic to a colossal figure like the creator of the universe?

    As for your analogy, i don't see how it's relevant so i won't  comment.

    As in "We have the right religion here, and everybody else's is just bull"

    the test is for us.... God knows the results already.

    That is it. The idea of life being a test. I can't imagine purpose being any less divine than an experiment. I wouldn't even call it that since God knows the future results. It's like he's is putting on a show for himself.
    And what do you mean by "us"? And "for"? One would usually use those words to describe an action of fulfilling someone's needs/demands or relieve someone's burden. Certainly not everyone asked or wanted to be tested. We aren't even offered it. It was imposed on us.

    I know someday you'll have a beautiful life, I know you'll be a star
    In somebody else's sky, but why, why, why
    Can't it be, can't it be mine

    https://twitter.com/AlharbiMoe
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #312 - April 18, 2011, 12:10 AM

    Quote
    So why would it make sense that the entire universe/world revolves around, and even created by a god who makes mischievous creatures and punishes them for their mischief? This is God we're talking talking about. The first and the last. The source for all existence. How do you attribute such a characteristic to a colossal figure like the creator of the universe?


    I think debunker worships God as the Joker from Batman.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #313 - April 18, 2011, 12:27 AM

    Quote
    Yes, usually I don't like discussing religion. But I am curious as to how you're still a muslim.  Curiosity is what lead me to leave my faith.


    oh, don't mind me, i'm just an unsophisticated couch-potato who's never really curious about anything, except, perhaps, for what might be on the next channel.

    Quote
    Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic, but I'll assume the former.
    So why would it make sense that the entire universe/world revolves around, and even created by a god who makes mischievous creatures and punishes them for their mischief? This is God we're talking talking about. The first and the last. The source for all existence. How do you attribute such a characteristic to a colossal figure like the creator of the universe?

    He did NOT ENFORCE mischief upon us. He gave us the ability to choose to avoid mischief, that's all. It was a gift, really, but one that comes with enormous responsibilities.

    Would you buy any pills that would turn you into a robot who can never make his own choices? Even if such pills would mean you'd always make the right choice and achieve great success? I personally wouldn't. Did you watch the movie Equilibrium, btw?

    Quote
    As in "We have the right religion here, and everybody else's is just bull"

    still not sure what you're trying to say.

    Quote
    That is it. The idea of life being a test. I can't imagine purpose being any less divine than an experiment. I wouldn't even call it that since God knows the future results. It's like he's is putting on a show for himself.
    And what do you mean by "us"? And "for"? One would usually use those words to describe an action of fulfilling someone's needs/demands or relieve someone's burden. Certainly not everyone asked or wanted to be tested. We aren't even offered it. It was imposed on us.

    Oh i was just referring to the event of taking your first breath of life only to find yourself as an adult, dragged by two mighty angels to Hell. You would naturally ask as to what's going on, and they'd tell you: "Have you lived a life you never lived, you would have done such and such, etc"... that would be a bit too weird, don't you think? That's why the test is for us (to know what we've done).

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #314 - April 18, 2011, 01:07 AM

    This thread so much reminds me of the movie, "The Box"

    but hey, don't mind me, im the other OTHER white meat *heh*  bunny

    When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.
    Helen Keller
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #315 - April 18, 2011, 04:03 PM

    eating pig or drinking blood is ceremonially filthy, if you will. It has nothing to do with physical filth, since, as you pointed out, other animals can be as filthy.

    So why ban it? (btw what does ceremonially mean in this context?) 
    Why make so much room for it in the Quran? 
    From what I remember when I read it, eating pig & carrion were forbidden in several places in the Quran yet not once does it mention rape or underage sex being haram Huh?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #316 - April 18, 2011, 06:08 PM

    oh, don't mind me, i'm just an unsophisticated couch-potato who's never really curious about anything, except, perhaps, for what might be on the next channel.

    lol ok sorry. I'm really bad at words. I honestly did not mean it that way. What I meant was I was curious to know why non-muslims don't believe in Islam. I am now wondering why you still remain a Muslim despite the hearing the same arguments that have convinced me. That's really what it was. It sometimes irritates me when I feel like you know something that I don't Smiley

    He did NOT ENFORCE mischief upon us. He gave us the ability to choose to avoid mischief, that's all. It was a gift, really, but one that comes with enormous responsibilities.

    Would you buy any pills that would turn you into a robot who can never make his own choices? Even if such pills would mean you'd always make the right choice and achieve great success? I personally wouldn't. Did you watch the movie Equilibrium, btw?

    I wouldn't say "enforce" either. That wouldn't be an accurate description. If he gave us the the ability to choose to avoid mischief, that is still not all. Think about our biological structure and how our hormones and hardwiring in our brains play a significant role in the likelihood of our behaviour, as opposed to other primates, and other animals. We are more inclined to resorting to violence than bonobos but less than chimps, for example. Certainly we are not created with completely neutral minds. Even the angels asked "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You? Allah said, Indeed, I know that which you do not know."
    It's like God is telling us "I'm gonna give you twisted minds, and if you manage to not act on your impulses, I will reward you" and although some of us succeed in doing so, it is still a despicable idea to begin with.

    Oh i was just referring to the event of taking your first breath of life only to find yourself as an adult, dragged by two mighty angels to Hell. You would naturally ask as to what's going on, and they'd tell you: "Have you lived a life you never lived, you would have done such and such, etc"... that would be a bit too weird, don't you think? That's why the test is for us (to know what we've done).

    You're talking about it like they're the only two choices God has. I don't agree with either.



    Also: Gonna see the movie

    I know someday you'll have a beautiful life, I know you'll be a star
    In somebody else's sky, but why, why, why
    Can't it be, can't it be mine

    https://twitter.com/AlharbiMoe
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #317 - April 18, 2011, 07:32 PM

    Quote
    lol ok sorry. I'm really bad at words. I honestly did not mean it that way. What I meant was I was curious to know why non-muslims don't believe in Islam. I am now wondering why you still remain a Muslim despite the hearing the same arguments that have convinced me. That's really what it was. It sometimes irritates me when I feel like you know something that I don't

     
    I certainly believe there are no definite proof for any religion (including Islam). All what religions offer are a set of arguments, that's all.

    Quote
    I wouldn't say "enforce" either. That wouldn't be an accurate description. If he gave us the the ability to choose to avoid mischief, that is still not all. Think about our biological structure and how our hormones and hardwiring in our brains play a significant role in the likelihood of our behaviour, as opposed to other primates, and other animals. We are more inclined to resorting to violence than bonobos but less than chimps, for example. Certainly we are not created with completely neutral minds. Even the angels asked "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You? Allah said, Indeed, I know that which you do not know." It's like God is telling us "I'm gonna give you twisted minds, and if you manage to not act on your impulses, I will reward you" and although some of us succeed in doing so, it is still a despicable idea to begin with.

    well, i don't agree that our minds are "twisted". Anyway, if you have argued from the view point of unequal chances given to humans, you would have had a point. But even if that was your argument then the answer is that our genes, environment, income, social status, health, etc are all factors that are counted in God's judgement.

    Quote
    You're talking about it like they're the only two choices God has. I don't agree with either.

    the options are endless, for example, God could have simply created more angels (instead of humans) and no trial would be necessary.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #318 - April 18, 2011, 07:42 PM

    So why ban it? (btw what does ceremonially mean in this context?) 

    like i said, rituals don't have to be explained. Why abstain from food/water all day long in Ramadan? There's no explanation for it... rituals don't need to be explained.

    I was using "ceremonially" filthy in the sense that it's not talking about physical filth.

    Quote
    Why make so much room for it in the Quran? 

     
    I'm not sure it was mentioned in too many places.

    Quote
    From what I remember when I read it, eating pig & carrion were forbidden in several places in the Quran yet not once does it mention rape or underage sex being haram Huh?

    rape being "haram" is included under forbidding fornication, but you're right in the sense that no punishment was prescribed for it.

    But in any case, Islam does give room for "Tazir", which is allowing the judge to prescribe punishments for crimes not mentioned in religious texts.   

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #319 - April 18, 2011, 07:56 PM

    like i said, rituals don't have to be explained.

    In any case, I often hear Islam is logical religion? i think its fair if you end up burning in hell because of it. Also do you believe pork & drinking are haram in todays context?


    Quote
    Why abstain from food/water all day long in Ramadan?

     
    I was always satisfied (and still am) with the fact that it helps one to empathise with those who are struggling to get food & water, and makes us extra grateful to his Lord in his infiite Almightiness for providing it

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #320 - April 18, 2011, 08:00 PM

    You guys are wasting your time if you're trying to find a logical hole in Islam.
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #321 - April 18, 2011, 08:05 PM

    In any case, I often hear Islam is logical religion? i think its fair if you end up burning in hell because of it. Also do you believe pork & drinking are haram in otdays context?


    yes, i believe they're forbidden forever. Pork is ritualistically forbidden, and the reason alcohol was forbidden stands today: it makes you drunk.
     
    Quote
    I was always satisfied (and still am) with the fact that it helps one to empathise with those who are struggling to get food & water, and makes us extra grateful to his Lord in his infiite Almightiness for providing it

    I'm pretty sure the Quran didn't justify fasting. it's a ritual, it doesn't need to be justified. Besides, that's a lame justification... Fasting for a day only makes you grumpy and easily irritable, but it doesn't convey the true extent of suffering of the hungry.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #322 - April 18, 2011, 08:23 PM

    q
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #323 - April 18, 2011, 09:06 PM

    @ Bison

    The gist of your post seems to be:

    Quote
    Both his chagrin and the need for numerous publications one after the other all proclaiming the exact same message – worship no others – seems to belie his powers of foreknowledge. The rational mind is not incensed about things which it saw coming a thousand years before it happened. It moves to counter the undesired event without bitterness. Anger is the product of seeing one’s plan thwarted.

     

    So you believe the angry tone of God regarding the corruption of prior scripture suggests lack of eternal knowlede of it happening.

    First off, I don't think it's befitting of God to be angry, not in our common understanding of the word, anyway. True, God does mention His wrath in many places in the Quran, but that's just the human linguistic vehicle to deliver a divine message: "Don't do it,  for your own sake, don't do it!"      

    Anyway, this tone of anger or surprise, as you put it, is only a literally device to deliver the message this was very wrong. For example, when God asked Moses as to what he was carrying in his hand, He wasn't really asking him, it was just a way of conversing with him, for God already had plans for Moses' staff even before asking about it (20:17-21).

    Quote
    Question is, are you looking for the devil my sweet? I’m watching you.

     No, but he's looking for me.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #324 - April 18, 2011, 09:22 PM

    w
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #325 - April 20, 2011, 12:06 AM

    @ Bison

    Quote
    But why the need for the endless stream of books to reassert the purity of his message as though he did not realise that men would alter them? If he's vowed to shield the Quran from a like fate, why did he not protect the first revelation?

     

    Islame asked this question probably 3 times, and 3 times I answered the same:

    Corrupting scripture is the natural course of events. People twist their religions to suit their desires, little by little, the whole thing is gone to some degree. In the case of the Quran, the claim is that its being the final commincation from God, a divine intervention in the affairs of men was necessary to protect it, else more prophets would be needed.

    Quote
    I enjoyed the analogy with Musa. I've always wondered why alone among all the postmen of God he got the most whooping up in the Quran. The man practically appears on every other page outstripping all the other message-bearers combined. And with no additional details about the Whence, Whither and Wherefore of his mission besides the sketchy material in al-Baqarah. Any light you can shed here will be thankfully recieved. There are more dramatic stories in the Quran I find than his. Imagine the gorgeous tale one could spin about the prophet who was swallowed by the big fish or the genocidal deluge unloosened on Noah's gang.

     
    I have to say, Bison, that you are only second to Hassan in terms of your knowledge of the Quran, and being an ex-muzzie does NOT explain your accute observations... perhaps you took it upon yourself to study the Quran during your free time, back when you were a towelhead?

    anyway, it is indeed curious that the Quran repeates too often the scene where Moses confronts the Pharoah, and I can't think of a good plausible reason at the moment.

    As to the lack of details making the stories too sketchy, I don't contest that, but I would like to point out that *parables* suffer from the scarcity of details, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose. What I'm saying is if you think of Quranic retelling (and altering) of Biblical stories as giving parables, you won't be bothered as much by the lackof details.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Debunker and IA debate
     Reply #326 - April 20, 2011, 01:46 AM



    anyway, it is indeed curious that the Quran repeates too often the scene where Moses confronts the Pharoah, and I can't think of a good plausible reason at the moment.



    I think the question was a setup.

    It has been answered by the Muslim scholars. Sort of. I won't mention their names or quote their boring work here as I have no idea who I am talking about but I remember the lectures. Basic idea is this - a prophet like Musa was promised in the bible, and Musa was a lot more like Muhammad than Issa, therefore Muhammad is the promised nabiyullah and Xianity is not as cool as Al-Islaam.

    From here I naturally deduct that signs of Allah about Musa were to point to people back in the day how much Musa was like Muhammad, therefore the latter is a real rasool.

    Overall I disagree that Musa is mentioned ridiculously often. I think Ibrahim balances it out, especially when we get a special surah for beautiful Yusuf, where ADD (changing topics) is completely absent.

    EDIT: I hope it's not too obvious that I'm not following this thread.

    "That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
  • Previous page 1 ... 9 10 11« Previous thread | Next thread »