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


Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 08:44 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 04:40 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
April 18, 2024, 06:39 PM

New Britain
April 18, 2024, 05:41 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 18, 2024, 05:47 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad

 (Read 160739 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 33 34 3536 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1020 - December 30, 2009, 02:25 AM

    Anyway, has Kim ever come in here  again ?
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1021 - December 30, 2009, 02:29 AM

    Islam's afterlife is appealling if you're a man I guess, not so much so if you're a woman. The delights in heaven even if you're a pious Muslimah bare no significance to the many virgins their husbands would get. This is not really that much of a surprise since Islam was meant to appeal to the 7th century arab male mentality (not to be racist in anyway).


    You mean the promise in heaven men will get 72 sexy angels ?  Cheesy There is no "Sexy Angels" promised by Allah in Quran, there is only Houris. Nobody knows what Houris is. The definition of Houris as voluptuous sexy female angel is from Germany or France, back in 16th century if im not mistaken.

    Houris is just something doesnt exist in this world, things made of white stoneslike materials or creatures with very very large eyes with full black pupils.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1022 - December 30, 2009, 02:35 AM

    Gatty, the 573x127 image in your signature violated the forum rules: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?page=12 - max image size in sig is 468x60. I've edited your sig to remove the image.

    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1023 - December 30, 2009, 02:35 AM

    Ok, sorry, ill fix it up *if i have time*  Roll Eyes
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1024 - December 30, 2009, 02:58 AM

    Hi Heyjustlooking,

    Do
    Islam's afterlife is appealling if you're a man I guess, not so much so if you're a woman. The delights in heaven even if you're a pious Muslimah bare no significance to the many virgins their husbands would get. This is not really that much of a surprise since Islam was meant to appeal to the 7th century arab male mentality (not to be racist in anyway).


    Do you really think that the Islamic version of afterlife would really be appealling to most or even very many men?

    Lynna

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1025 - December 30, 2009, 03:23 AM

    It appeals to *some* men. It never appealed to me. It sounds more like a prison. And, to me, paradise is to know all the answers and learn everything about life and the universe. But the writer(s) of the Quran obviously did not value knowledge as a sort of reward, but instead focused on the more carnal and vain aspects of pleasure.

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1026 - December 31, 2009, 12:15 AM

    Hi Heyjustlooking,

    Do
    Do you really think that the Islamic version of afterlife would really be appealling to most or even very many men?

    Lynna


    It's subjective really, but I wouldn't think so. For me I would not like human emotions of envy to be taken away from a woman whilst the man's desire and lust is increased - it is in a way degrading to men and women. Like Kafirist said it appeal to the carnal desires of man i.e. 7th century arab male. The view of women back then was simplistic.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1027 - December 31, 2009, 02:44 AM

    Like Bill Maher said "Promising Pussy in the afterlife... thats the lowest... thats really the cheapest way to attract followers!"

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves." - from Goethes Faust
    "Only the wisest and the stupidest men never change." - Confuzios
    "there is no religion of peace, only people who are peaceful while being religious."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1028 - December 14, 2010, 03:22 PM

    Just how it's strongly monotheistic - I thought it'd bring me closer to God. I was wrong. Sigh.


    I'm not sure how you found it STRONGLY monotheistic. I mean I'm not trying to act very smart here, but speaking of monotheism, how does Islam differ from Christianity? In Christianity there is one God as well, not three. In Islam the case is the same. Were you a Christian before converting to Islam? and did your friends in Indonesia tell you that there are three Gods in Christianity and in islam there's is only one?

    You see..this is what happens when you misunderstand the scripture. Muhammed believed in the Bible, but he misunderstood and misread it. He thought Christianity's God had sex with Marry, that Marry was part of the trinity and that there are three gods.

    When it comes to misrepresenting Christianity, Muslims have won!
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1029 - December 14, 2010, 04:18 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nC-98dnVvU


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

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1030 - December 14, 2010, 04:30 PM

    I mean I'm not trying to act very smart here, but speaking of monotheism, how does Islam differ from Christianity? In Christianity there is one God as well, not three.

    Well, one god but three persons, right?  And that the three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and three are not one...

    I'd say that this is a rather significant point of divergence.

    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1031 - December 14, 2010, 05:08 PM

    It's not "one god but three persons" like you wrote. It's one god, one being IN three persons. Saying that God exists as three persons but is one God means that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way. Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well. "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient

    Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity."

    For example, in John 3:16 you read "god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son". Now people like Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat wil have a field day with this. They will open a dictionary and read to you: "Hey christian, how can god beget? Begetting means to have sexual intercourse and then give birth to something! Did your God have sex with Marry? See...convert to Islam please Cheesy"

    But little did they know that the word Beget doesn't mean "have sex" in biblical sense. Even if they did know, they would still continue to misinterpret that word in order to fool Christians.

    Same thing happened here. By referring to the term "person" of the trinity, we don't mean the common western understanding of the term as used in English Language. it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity

    For example: I am one being. But I can have many characters/nature right? For example my name is John and today I'm a thief. Tomorrow I might be a doctor. Will you say that the doctor john is an alien and the thief john is a human being? Nope. No matter what my profession/character/title is, I'm still a human being.

    Or I can be both a thief and doctor. yet still I will continue to be a human being and both the doctor and thief john will be in communion with each other. doctor by day, thief by night?

    Here's a question: some atheists believe in evolution, right? If human beings came from monkeys, doesn't that make monkeys human being too? We have monkeys today, and if the evolution theory is right, then monkeys are human beings too, and men are human beings too, but there are some differences between the two. Yet both monkeys and men are human beings.

    Let's take the water for example. It's H20 right? You can turn water into ice, and then water will take the form of Ice. then you can melt it back into liquid, and then hit it some more and turn it into vapour. then you can again turn the vapour into liquid and then freeze it into ice.

    Now can i ask a question? No matter how many times you convert liquid into ice and vapour and then back to ice and liquid, does the H20 change?

    1X1X1 = 1, not 3
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1032 - December 14, 2010, 05:16 PM

    Here's a question: some atheists believe in evolution, right?

    Almost all do, yes.

    Quote
    If human beings came from monkeys

    Not monkeys, but apes.

    Quote
    If human beings came from monkeys doesn't that make monkeys human being too?

     
    Not really, you came from your mum, does that make you a woman?  Does that make you your mum?

    Having said that human beings do belong to the ape family. 

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1033 - December 14, 2010, 05:24 PM

    Well, one god but three persons, right?  And that the three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and three are not one...

    I'd say that this is a rather significant point of divergence.


    By the way, Arx i don't know if you are a muslim or not and I apologize if i'm incorrectly assuming that u are, in the quran, allah can be a fire, is able to and has entered into his own creation, (god spoke through moses through a fire. any muslim who ever read the quran knows that very well and I'm not remotely misinterpreting it. Read Quran Chapter 27 v.7-9 and tell me if I'm misreprensting/misquoting/misreading and/or willfully twisting words/verses to make my point.

    According to Quran, allah is also a leg, hand, ears, eyes, has desire to have sex and a wife, has a penis and testicles. There is a huge debate among muslim scholars about this topic at the moment (why has allah entered into his creation to make his point?). Also, muslims diefy Muhammed to a point where they literally worship Muhammed. And have you seen how they bow down and kiss the black stone that pagan women used to rub their vagina on during their menstrual period and ask for forgiveness from the pagan god?

    In Al Bukari Allah starts appearing to people in different forms at the Judgment day and people have trouble recognizing him finally people ask Allah, "Do you have any signs in which we can recognize Allah, they will say "the shin" so Allah will uncover his shin where upon every believer will prostrate before him. So basically this is saying Allah will pull up his robes to show his shin so that Muslims can recognize him . If Allah has shins wouldn't that imply that Allah also has some type of body?

    Muslims deliberately hide these info from Christians when they proselytize. And I don't blame them for that. Their prophet was a deceiver. But I take offense when a christian claims to be a christian but doesn't study his own religion and is unable to represent his faith correctly.

    Do you see the double-standards?

    I congratulate Kimdonesia for she finally realized her mistake and left Islam. But if she is reading this: "If you ever claimed to be a Christian, know that you were not one"
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1034 - December 14, 2010, 05:33 PM

    There are 99 names of allah, some of them contradictory. The concept of an omnipotent, omniscient being is contradictory to all the claims that religious people give to god.  Claiming the use of logic between religions is like in Dungeons and Dragons claiming The Cloak of Candor Is more powerful than the Shawl of Wizards because it has more fabric.  It may be true, but you are still both wearing bedsheets and towels.

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1035 - December 14, 2010, 05:40 PM

    haha, great comparison ^^^

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


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

  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1036 - December 14, 2010, 05:49 PM

    There are 99 names of allah, some of them contradictory. The concept of an omnipotent, omniscient being is contradictory to all the claims that religious people give to god.  Claiming the use of logic between religions is like in Dungeons and Dragons claiming The Cloak of Candor Is more powerful than the Shawl of Wizards because it has more fabric.  It may be true, but you are still both wearing bedsheets and towels.


    +1
     that would make a great quote!
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1037 - December 14, 2010, 05:50 PM

    Claiming the use of logic between religions is like in Dungeons and Dragons claiming The Cloak of Candor Is more powerful than the Shawl of Wizards because it has more fabric.  It may be true, but you are still both wearing bedsheets and towels.


    Excellent! Cheesy

    @armanduk2010 - you are a great advert for becoming an Atheist/Agnostic  Afro



  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1038 - December 14, 2010, 06:00 PM

    out of the fire and into the frying pan.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1039 - December 14, 2010, 06:07 PM

    By the way, Arx i don't know if you are a muslim or not and I apologize if i'm incorrectly assuming that u are,

    I'm not.


    Quote
    I take offense when a christian claims to be a christian but doesn't study his own religion and is unable to represent his faith correctly.

    Do you see the double-standards?

    Is that why you had to plagiarise your explanation of the Trinity (quoted below with my added links) from wikipedia?

    Saying that God exists as three persons but is one God means that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way. Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well. "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient

    [link]

    Quote
    Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity."

    [link]

    Quote
    By referring to the term "person" of the trinity, we don't mean the common western understanding of the term as used in English Language. it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity

    [link]


    --------------------------

    "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

    -- Thomas Jefferson

    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1040 - December 14, 2010, 06:34 PM

    .......................
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1041 - December 14, 2010, 07:01 PM

    .......................
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1042 - December 14, 2010, 07:06 PM

    Armanduk - no-one here is questioning you leap of faith believing in God. 

    What we are questioning is the other leap of faith you made, that one in which you came to the conclusion that Christianity is the the only truth that came from this God.

    Same shit, different colour - see my signature..

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1043 - December 14, 2010, 07:17 PM

    That's your interpretion and opinion, not everyone else's. But you are entitled to your opinion just as I'm to mine.

    Here's a list of world-famous scientists who believed in God

    # Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
    Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

    # Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
    Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

    # Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

    # Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
    In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

    # Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
    One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

    # Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
    Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

    # Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

    # William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

    # Max Planck (1858-1947)
    Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

    # Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
    Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

    # Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
    Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

    # Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
    Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

    I bet you are a better scientist than the ones mentioned above. Can I read some of your thesis please?

    By the way I plagarized all these from here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html because I'm an advert for being an atheist/agnostic


    oh fuck off. just because some famous scientists who have my respect believed in god, doesn't mean that your belief has any validity. blaise pascal for example, was a great mathematician who made great contributions to combinatorics but pascal's wager is a very bad argument, as it makes a fundamental assumption that either christianity is true or it is not, discarding the notion of other systems of belief. once you make that assumption, pascal's wager works perfectly fine.

    descartes' religious belief was entirely based upon his philosophical epistemology. i bet you don't even know what it is, do you? does the word 'rationalism' mean anything to you? do you know anything of his 'trademark argument'?

    you know nothing of philosophy, science or mathematics. fuck off with your strawman appeal to authority and go back to your halleluljahs and hail mary's. you just went from becoming an ignorant muslim to an ignorant christian.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1044 - December 14, 2010, 07:27 PM

    heheheh world famous scientist from 15 cent till 19-th... wow Cheesy...

    Just look at the sun and the moon, rotating around the earth perfectly! Out of all the never ending space in the universe, the sun and moon ended up close to earth rotating around it perfectly.!!

  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1045 - December 14, 2010, 07:31 PM

    @serrated_colon you can fuck off too and salute your Ape god out of whom your grandfather came (right?)

    Yes I will be honest by saying that I know nothing of mathematics, phsyics, science etc but what do YOU know about them? Are you claiming that you know about them any better than the scientists mentioned above? And Are the two scientists you mentioned any better than Isaac Newton, Galili and and Albert Einstein and the rest I mentioned?

    You might not be a muslim but you are acting like one. (A muslim will say: if you don't believe in my crap, I will kill you. So convert or die (in your case, it would be "name-calling"))

    It's okay though. There are ex-muslims who leave Islam but remnants of nazism, violence and intolerance still remain in them for quite a while. I have been a practicing muslim for 24 years and I can relate.

    Notice that I'm not here to convert an atheist to Christianity. If you don't believe in God and/or Christianity, I could hardly give a damn.

    Quoting: "just because some famous scientists who have my respect believed in god, doesn't mean that your belief has any validity"

    My response: "Oh fuck off! Just because two famous scientists Darwin and Stephen Hawkings, who have my respect, do not believe in god doesn't mean that your belief that god doesn't exist has any validity"

    "You are just another ignorant muslim who became an ignorant atheist"

    Notice the double standard? Cheesy

    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
    Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

    READ
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1046 - December 14, 2010, 07:37 PM

    Most of the religions including CHRISTIANS used to believe earth is the center of universe until Galileo used his telescope to find out planet Jupiter and the two moons circling around it.

    Our universe is great piece of marvel, and all the religions are shittiest at best.

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1047 - December 14, 2010, 07:39 PM

    If your faith helps you to become a better person, then feel free.

    When you try and enforce your claims, thats when us apes become hungry.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1048 - December 14, 2010, 07:42 PM


    I bet you are a better scientist than the ones mentioned above. Can I read some of your thesis please?


    You are such a great advert for Christianity  Afro - please do carry on.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #1049 - December 14, 2010, 07:43 PM

    I plagarized it from Wikipedia? Yes. But didn't those who wrote that in the wikipedia also plagarize from the Bible?

    Quote
    And when I quoted the Quran and hadith along with their explanations, was I NOT also plagarizing from the Quran?

    No.  Apparently you don't understand the difference between plagiarism and referencing/quoting the source.

    Quote
    I don't see your point though. What you are trying to prove by bringing up "plagarizing" is unclear.

    That you needed to look it up yourself then copy/paste the 'explanation' and pass it off as your own words helps to show, hypocrisy aside, how your own understanding is lacking.  And I don't blame you since anybody's claim to understand the 'trinity' is nothing more than a load of pre-post-modernist bollocks.  It is inherently illogical and proud of it.  Thus the main point of my post was in the Jefferson quote.

    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Previous page 1 ... 33 34 3536 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »