Thread: Split from "Proud to be an American... wait, that's not a country.... ?"

Originally Posted by Mark75

You did something wrong so I'm punishing you for it because you deserve it. That's how it works, right?

Actually, you have absolutely no authority to punish me for anything whatsoever. If I did something wrong, then God would punish me. But you are not God, and you don't have the right nor the authority to punish me.

No one cares what the Bible says.

Just because you don't doesn't mean that everyone doesn't. Speak for yourself, 'kay?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Please let me make one thing clear. Let's take the example of Muslim extremists. They use the name of Islam to commit their own horrible deeds. I tell you, they are going AGAINST Islam by doing these kinds of crimes. You CANNOT kill innocents WHATEVER the reason, no matter to which religion they belong to. I have read both of the holy books, and I used the exact translations to figure out the messages. It's a pity that those extremists, in the name of "Jihad", go about killing people. They completely misunderstand the idea of "Jihad". It does NOT mean killing non-Muslims, rather, it means, "deed committed in the name of God." Thus, giving a donation, or even the advancement of science that people do that benefits humanity, can be considered Jihad. They are a bunch of ignorant, blood-thirsty fools who do not even know what their own book says.

Everyday Muslims don't have the authority to deem individuals as Muslim or non-Muslim. And since even the highest leadership of the Muslim faith can't come together and unanimously condemn the ethics of Muslim terrorists, these men have equal rights to the title of Muslim as anybody else. Apparently the Quran is just as ambiguous as the bible because these men love to cite passages that validate their jihad. Just as the Bible contradicts itself, I suspect the Quran preaches a peaceful existence while at the same time calling its followers to arms against the infadels. You say it doesn't, they say it does, and they act on it. Who's right?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

You misunderstand me. I was saying that WITHIN the books, the positive aspects seriously outweigh the negative ones. I know there is an immense number of good atheists and non-religious people. I was merely pointing to the scriptures.

So it's a balance scale? As long as the good passages outnumber the bad ones, it's ok?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Everyday Muslims don't have the authority to deem individuals as Muslim or non-Muslim. And since even the highest leadership of the Muslim faith can't come together and unanimously condemn the ethics of Muslim terrorists, these men have equal claim to the title of Muslim as anybody else. Apparently the Quran is just as ambiguous as the bible because these men love to cite passages that validate their jihad. Just as the Bible contradicts itself, I suspect the Quran preaches a peaceful existence while at the same time calling its followers to arms against the infadels. You say it doesn't, they say it does, and they act on it. Who's right?

Muslim authorities have nothing to do with faith. Sure they are a powerful image, but they can't mark a person as a Muslim or otherwise. It's the faith that comes from within. I would be happy to quote a few verses from the Quran here, but I don't exactly remember the chapter. But it is my understanding that Islam only allows bloodshed in self-defense. If a non-Muslim wants to live quietly and doesn't fight either against the Muslim as an individual or the Islamic faith as a whole, then he is to be given full human rights and is allowed to continue his own beliefs, unless and until he does something against Islam, or to the members of the society, such as killing. If he just lives peacefully, then you can NOT kill him for any reason, nor take ANY kind of rights away from him.
I am pretty sure what I stated above is correct. There are many types of terrorists. One who kills non-Muslims because he has to, or he would die a their hands. Another, who kills for revenge. Some kill because of the brain washing they get at extremist centers. While others kill purely out of murderous intent.
I know for a fact that extremist groups kidnap random teenagers, and brainwash them in the youth of their life. They are very easily manipulated, and most teenagers find the thrill of holding a gun in their hand too addictive. Otherwise, those extremists that are killing people now could have been peacefully doing an office job or something had it been not for the brainwashing that they underwent.

So it's a balance scale? As long as the good passages outnumber the bad ones, it's ok?

Thats not what I meant. Most anti-religious people single out these passages and then highlight them, without showing the rest of the message. This gives people a highly biased view of whats written in these books. They do not quote the good verses, because they only wish to taint the religion. It's a very clever operation, since the community at large looks at these singular verses and gets a false idea, because they are either too lazy or too short-sighted to read the whole thing and take the word of anti-religious groups.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Just because you don't doesn't mean that everyone doesn't. Speak for yourself, 'kay?

You said it yourself. The New Testament is highly modified from its original form. No one would stand for this if they cared about what the Bible was actually supposed to say. They just use the version they like, and interpret it in a way that suits them. I don't care what the Bible says because the Bible is not really the basis for any religion. The way it really works is that religious people decide their beliefs the same way anyone else does, then go and cherry pick verses that they agree with. So obviously they believe what the Bible says and live the way god wants them to. The only reason people invoke Bible verses is a way of saying "Look! god says so, too." It's a means of projection to assign divine, infallible truth to their beliefs. When people say "religion brings a sense of comfort and purpose to people's lives" this is what they're talking about.

Some would have you believe that the Bible tells us to kill fags, others would tell you we're supposed to accept everyone. The point is that I really don't care what the Bible does or does not support because everyone has different ideas about what it says. Religions are more like Biblical (or Quranic or whatever) interpretations. If we erased all knowledge of our present religions from everyone, then handed them Bibles, I think we'd end up with vastly different religions (if any). Because a religion is not what's written in these books. Religions are social institutions with rules, holidays, customs, etc. that are observed and upheld by people. Much of it really doesn't relate to the Bible in any way at all. Really though, the Biblical literalists are the worst ones because it's a screwed up book written by savages. It was probably really groundbreaking a few hundred years ago, but I think we should be a little past using ancient myths to justify anything. It's easy to say "Well, these guys are doing it wrong. That's not what the Bible says." You may be right, but it's beside the point. The Bible may not say it, but their religion is something distinct from the Bible. I argue against religions and supernatural thinking, not what the Bible says.

I agree with you, to an extent. But there are certain books that have not been modified since their original writing date. So what would you say for those? What if they ARE the word of God?
Most of these books define an exact set of rules, which we call "religion". If these books weren't changed, then there would be one and only one religion, that defines a set of universal laws for everyone to follow. Would arguments end then?
The answer is NO. Humans will never cease to have conflicts, because as long as humanity is there, there will be different viewpoints, and as long as there are different viewpoints, there will be arguments. And as long as there are arguments, then there will be blood shed. It's an inevitable characteristic of human nature.

[QUOTE=lucidmax15895;1481092]I agree with you, to an extent. But there are certain books that have not been modified since their original writing date. So what would you say for those?

Again, I don't really care what books say. I care what the people say. Your question is too vague to answer meaningfully.

[QUOTE=lucidmax15895;1481092]What if they ARE the word of God?

Then god has picked a very silly medium.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Most of these books define an exact set of rules, which we call "religion". If these books weren't changed, then there would be one and only one religion, that defines a set of universal laws for everyone to follow. Would arguments end then?
The answer is NO. Humans will never cease to have conflicts, because as long as humanity is there, there will be different viewpoints, and as long as there are different viewpoints, there will be arguments. And as long as there are arguments, then there will be blood shed. It's an inevitable characteristic of human nature.

Arguments = war, huh? And here I was thinking that talking about things was how we facilitated understanding. Aren't you propegating bloodshed by arguing here, then?

Arguments = war, huh? And here I was thinking that talking about things was how we facilitated understanding. Aren't you propegating bloodshed by arguing here, then?

Talking, and arguing, are two very different things. Talking is like negotiating peacefully, while arguing reeks of anger and hatred, the roots of blood shed. Here we are, sitting thousands of miles away, talking on a lone thread in a lucid dreaming forum. Accordingly, there is less than zero chance of bloodshed occurring here. But that is not the case always. As I said, conflict will lead to hatred, and thus civil wars and the like will erupt. That will be real blood shed. Nothing's gonna change with us talking about things here, and there will certainly be no bloodshed.
Oh, and by the way, wasn't it you who wanted to continue this talk?

Again, I don't really care what books say. I care what the people say. Your question is too vague to answer meaningfully.

So you're saying that you would rather believe what the masses say instead of searching for the truth? Majority is not always correct.

Then god has picked a very silly medium.

Well, what do you expect? What better way would there be to deliver a message other than humans who have been guided so that they could carry out the tasks? When the word of God was revealed to chosen people, they recited it, and copied it down. A message that has been passed down through generations both verbally and through written records, which were checked for accuracy. We are talking about the old ages here, without any technology or anything. God had to devise a system for all generations to come, He couldn't keep changing accordingly for each era, y'know.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Talking, and arguing, are two very different things. Talking is like negotiating peacefully, while arguing reeks of anger and hatred, the roots of blood shed. Here we are, sitting thousands of miles away, talking on a lone thread in a lucid dreaming forum. Accordingly, there is less than zero chance of bloodshed occurring here. But that is not the case always. As I said, conflict will lead to hatred, and thus civil wars and the like will erupt. That will be real blood shed. Nothing's gonna change with us talking about things here, and there will certainly be no bloodshed.
Oh, and by the way, wasn't it you who wanted to continue this talk?

Oh, I get it. We're arguing and you're just talking. Of course. Yes, it looks like we both want to continue this talk, but it was only you that said we're "wasting our time and resources by continuing this argument" from which "nothing except hatred is going to be obtained" and further called us to "please bring a stop to it, and do something productive, not counter-productive like the argument above." only to continue the argument. If you think it's a waste of time, go away. I don't think it is. It's only a waste of time if you're closed to changing your mind. Are you 100% convinced that everything you believe is correct? If so, remove your arrogant self from this thread. If not, recognize that there could be something to be gained from arguments. At the very least, don't be a hypocrite by continuing an argument that you think should be stopped.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

So you're saying that you would rather believe what the masses say instead of searching for the truth? Majority is not always correct.

What? I didn't say that. I said that I am concerned with what people think, not what books say. Reading comprehension, man.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Well, what do you expect? What better way would there be to deliver a message other than humans who have been guided so that they could carry out the tasks? When the word of God was revealed to chosen people, they recited it, and copied it down. A message that has been passed down through generations both verbally and through written records, which were checked for accuracy. We are talking about the old ages here, without any technology or anything. God had to devise a system for all generations to come, He couldn't keep changing accordingly for each era, y'know.

He could just tell us personally. That would be pretty easy, convenient and straightforward. Or couldn't he at least write the book himself? Humans are flawed and make errors, both when they write and when they read. A book written by god himself wouldn't be misunderstood if he didn't want it to be.

LucidMax, this is backtracking a littel bit, but I just don't understand this philosophy and would like someone to explain it to me...

Here is the thing. I don't see how anyone can believe that someone who causes pain to other people could possibly 'deserve' anymore than twice the amount of pain they caused to be exacted upon them? (I say twice because of the ancient practice of reprecussion, otherwise I would just say once the amount of pain. This was largely a Jewish legal practice. Where, for example, if I stole 5 dollars from someone, I have to pay back the first five dollars just to get even and then I have to pay another five for justice. I don't agree with it, totally, but I can understand it.)

I mean, even if I am Saddam Hussein and cause a ton of pain, I only cause a limited amount of pain and now I have to endure infinite pain. If evil was measured in numbers and Hussein commited eight-thousand evils, for some reason he now deserves an infinite amount of evil directed back towards him. If, in my lifetime, I commit three evils, what do I deserve? In the end, the fraction of 8000:Infinity is the same as 3:Infinity. If Major, but still finite evil is worthy of endless suffering, then why isn't small, finite evil worthy of it, too?

How does this work, morally speaking? I truly don't get it and would love to have someone explain to me why they think this thing. That is, how anyone could deserve that.

Oh, I get it. We're arguing and you're just talking. Of course. Yes, it looks like we both want to continue this talk, but it was only you that said we're "wasting our time and resources by continuing this argument" from which "nothing except hatred is going to be obtained" and further called us to "please bring a stop to it, and do something productive, not counter-productive like the argument above." only to continue the argument. If you think it's a waste of time, go away. I don't think it is. It's only a waste of time if you're closed to changing your mind. Are you 100% convinced that everything you believe is correct? If so, remove your arrogant self from this thread. If not, recognize that there could be something to be gained from arguments. At the very least, don't be a hypocrite by continuing an argument that you think should be stopped.

Again with the edgy attitude. It's hopeless trying to reason with you. While it's true that arguments could prove beneficial, don't you think it would be better to carry it out without hatred in our hearts? In other words, peacefully and politely?
Oh, talk about being arrogant. While you cannot greet someone without an edge to your voice, you are calling me arrogant? Wake up, dude. Since you all wanted to continue this talk, I did so too. Now please stop quoting my message about ending this thread. I will not be the one to stop here, because you all don't want to, right? If you don't wanna stop, then fine with me. I will be replying.

I am concerned with what people think, not what books say.

Ah, my bad. I took "concerned" as "believe". Forgive my mistake.

He could just tell us personally. That would be pretty easy, convenient and straightforward. Or couldn't he at least write the book himself? Humans are flawed and make errors, both when they write and when they read.

Yeah, you expect him to summon each and every one of us personally to his private room and then explain to us so that you guys would be confirmed of it's authenticity? He actually DID write the book himself, then he conveyed it to his messenger. The messenger then conveyed the message to humanity. When these books were written, the angels "proof-read" the books, in other words, made absolutely sure that the message was accurate.

A book written by god himself wouldn't be misunderstood if he didn't want it to be.

Ah, this is the baddest question of them all. It is currently under debate all over the world. It's significance is immense. I see it flowing all over the internet, the main question from atheists, particularly. "If he didn't want it to be misunderstood, then why would he let it be?"
If you think about it, the question, in general terms, comes to something like this. "Why would he let people do sins when he doesn't want them to?" "Why would he let evil exist if it's against his will?" "If he is the one who decides everything, then isn't it unfair to punish humans for their sins?"
These questions are the toughest nut to crack. It is true that if God is omnipotent, then why would he let people do sins in the first place? Why can not he just make all of them "good" so that everyone goes to heaven?
The answer is to give US a freedom of choice. The WILL to do something. I see a gangbang going on. I can either stop it, or join it. This conscious action is what he will ask us about. What we did when we had the choice. It's similar to creating a game. You could either control the player yourself, or you could give it artificial intelligence and let it do actions of it's own. Personally, I thank God for doing that. Because it would be unbelievably boring to be forcefully guided all the way, don't you think? Think about it. A life where you don't have the freedom to do anything. A life you can not control. A life where you cannot have your will. Don't you think we are far better of with the freedom to chose?

If Major, but still finite evil is worthy of endless suffering, then why isn't small, finite evil worthy of it, too?

Who said that finite evil is worthy of infinite suffering? If that was so, then why not kill a few more thousand people, since you are gonna be eternally punished anyways? This insults God's sense of fairness. He is merciful. I don't believe he would cause a soul to burn forever just because he smoked weed once. No. You will be held responsible for and only for what you did. You would be punished for the appropriate time, and then you will be forgiven and sent to heaven if you repent on your actions. You will NOT be held accountable for more than what you did. This psychology is highly flawed.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Again with the edgy attitude. It's hopeless trying to reason with you. While it's true that arguments could prove beneficial, don't you think it would be better to carry it out without hatred in our hearts? In other words, peacefully and politely?
Oh, talk about being arrogant. While you cannot greet someone without an edge to your voice, you are calling me arrogant? Wake up, dude. Since you all wanted to continue this talk, I did so too. Now please stop quoting my message about ending this thread. I will not be the one to stop here, because you all don't want to, right? If you don't wanna stop, then fine with me. I will be replying.

Just say "Whoops, I was a hypocrite. Sorry." and I will forgive you. I don't want you to stop. I want you to not be an insulting hypocrite. You made a hypocritical statement and I called you out on it and you have continued to go against your word. Either retract your statement (with an apology if you really care about politeness~) or actually practise what you preach and stop continuing the argument you said should not be continued. Do you still think we're "wasting our time and resources by continuing this argument" from which "nothing except hatred is going to be obtained" and further wish us to "please bring a stop to it, and do something productive, not counter-productive like the argument above"?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Yeah, you expect him to summon each and every one of us personally to his private room and then explain to us so that you guys would be confirmed of it's authenticity?

Sure, why not? That works for me. Have we got something more important to do? He could even have a big assembly to tell us all at once over his PA system. They did it all the time in school.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

He actually DID write the book himself, then he conveyed it to his messenger. The messenger then conveyed the message to humanity. When these books were written, the angels "proof-read" the books, in other words, made absolutely sure that the message was accurate.

Angels are flawed as well. Also, god needs editors to check if he's made any mistakes? What the fuck?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Ah, this is the baddest question of them all. It is currently under debate all over the world. It's significance is immense. I see it flowing all over the internet, the main question from atheists, particularly. "If he didn't want it to be misunderstood, then why would he let it be?"
If you think about it, the question, in general terms, comes to something like this. "Why would he let people do sins when he doesn't want them to?" "Why would he let evil exist if it's against his will?" "If he is the one who decides everything, then isn't it unfair to punish humans for their sins?"
These questions are the toughest nut to crack. It is true that if God is omnipotent, then why would he let people do sins in the first place? Why can not he just make all of them "good" so that everyone goes to heaven?

But there's an important difference you are not considering between the question of why he allows us to sin and what I actually am asking. What I'm asking is why does he not make it more clear that these are his rules, or that he is there. In the mind of an atheist, they are not choosing to defy god. There is simply no god to defy, and so no reason to consider his laws either way. Allowing us to sin is vastly different than allowing us to unknowingly sin. Beside that, which laws are we supposed to consider? There are countless versions of religion all with different rules. Why doesn't he just come and tell us exactly what the rules are and leave the rest up to us? From my perspective, every religion and scripture seems an equally worthless collection of rituals and myths. How am I to make a proper choice?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

The answer is to give US a freedom of choice. The WILL to do something. I see a gangbang going on. I can either stop it, or join it.

Mind your own business~

Originally Posted by Mark75

What I'm asking is why does he not make it more clear that these are his rules, or that he is there. In the mind of an atheist, they are not choosing to defy god. There is simply no god to defy, and so no reason to consider his laws either way. Allowing us to sin is vastly different than allowing us to unknowingly sin.

Amen.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Muslim authorities have nothing to do with faith. Sure they are a powerful image, but they can't mark a person as a Muslim or otherwise. It's the faith that comes from within. I would be happy to quote a few verses from the Quran here, but I don't exactly remember the chapter. But it is my understanding that Islam only allows bloodshed in self-defense. If a non-Muslim wants to live quietly and doesn't fight either against the Muslim as an individual or the Islamic faith as a whole, then he is to be given full human rights and is allowed to continue his own beliefs, unless and until he does something against Islam, or to the members of the society, such as killing. If he just lives peacefully, then you can NOT kill him for any reason, nor take ANY kind of rights away from him.
I am pretty sure what I stated above is correct. There are many types of terrorists. One who kills non-Muslims because he has to, or he would die a their hands. Another, who kills for revenge. Some kill because of the brain washing they get at extremist centers. While others kill purely out of murderous intent.
I know for a fact that extremist groups kidnap random teenagers, and brainwash them in the youth of their life. They are very easily manipulated, and most teenagers find the thrill of holding a gun in their hand too addictive. Otherwise, those extremists that are killing people now could have been peacefully doing an office job or something had it been not for the brainwashing that they underwent.

I thought this bolded line was very interesting. "until he does something against Islam." What is something? Speaking out against Islam? Does that qualify as doing "something" against Islam and therefore warranting violent action from the good Muslims? I think the most extreme of the extremists consider the mere fact of not being a Muslim to be an act against the faith and would therefore justify their violent behavior.

Islam is an organized religion, note the emphasis on "organized." It is an institution with a definite structure and a definite leadership and a definite message. Most people believe that these holy books are open for interpretation, but obviously there is a more or less definite message that is being transmitted. There are ambiguous passages that had to have been written with a certain purpose and meant to be interpreted in a certain way. Is it not the job of the leadership to set the record straight if their followers are straying from the true message? Why would they let this go on unless there was a certain amount of truth to it, or a percieved level of righteousness? If this organization does not outright condemn the actions of the militant Muslims, how are we to know they are wrong? I hear every day of my life "they are not real Muslims, that's not real Islam." Says who? They consider themselves Muslims, they practice their faith whether "good" Muslims acknowledge their status as Muslims or not. My point is, how can you say they are not Muslims, or it isn't "real" Islam, when technically they have equal rights to the title of Muslim as anybody else and there is no definite law or power that can or will take that title away from them? They are Muslims.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Thats not what I meant. Most anti-religious people single out these passages and then highlight them, without showing the rest of the message. This gives people a highly biased view of whats written in these books. They do not quote the good verses, because they only wish to taint the religion. It's a very clever operation, since the community at large looks at these singular verses and gets a false idea, because they are either too lazy or too short-sighted to read the whole thing and take the word of anti-religious groups.

I know they single out the bad, because they are anti-religious and the positive aspects serve no purpose to their argument. Why would they waste their time or hurt their own point of view by highlighting the positive aspects of the religion they are critcizing. The positive aspects are just taken as a given in most circumstances. It is my stance that no amount of "bad" should be tolerated in a holy book. It means nothing that the good outweighs the bad. Even so, the bad can be extrodinarily bad and the good, no matter how much of it there is, in no way cancels out the bad.

Just say "Whoops, I was a hypocrite. Sorry." and I will forgive you. I don't want you to stop. I want you to not be an insulting hypocrite. You made a hypocritical statement and I called you out on it and you have continued to go against your word. Either retract your statement (with an apology if you really care about politeness~) or actually practise what you preach and stop continuing the argument you said should not be continued. Do you still think we're "wasting our time and resources by continuing this argument" from which "nothing except hatred is going to be obtained" and further wish us to "please bring a stop to it, and do something productive, not counter-productive like the argument above"?

Oh man, this is getting a head ache. I wished the argument to stop before, but then you guys wanted me to continue (or something) so I did. Now stop quoting that message already.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Actually what you said at the end of your last post was incredibly insulting. Until you repent for your crimes, I will give you a taste of your own actions. Maybe you should apologize for your crass hipocrisy.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I do apologize if anyone was offended by what I said.

Are you plain blind or do you take so much enjoyment from this argument? Geez. Oh and for the record, I still regret us having this argument. I don't like arguments, but for the sake of making my point, I shall continue.

Sure, why not? That works for me. Have we got something more important to do? He could even have a big assembly to tell us all at once over his PA system. They did it all the time in school.

Yeah, okay. Let's assume he gather's everyone alive in the world right now and tell them all that he is the true God and what we have to do to get into heaven. Then what? Will you atheists follow it? Undoubtedly, there would still be objections to THAT set of rules as well. Skepticism is a natural human trait. Assume that everyone starts to follow that religion and lives on peacefully. Now what? They die and go to heaven. Then? The new generation will be less faithful than them, as they didn't see God personally, they are just doing so because their fathers did. The generation after that will raise even more doubt. This will inevitably continue until people say, "We don't care whether some dumb farts thousands of years ago saw God, we didn't, so we don't believe it.". Which would result in atheism all over again.

Angels are flawed as well. Also, god needs editors to check if he's made any mistakes? What the fuck?

How much do you expect God to do for a mere species of life that he created? That is so inferior to Him that we cannot hope to compare? Do you expect him to keep running around and telling all atheists that he is God? Why can't he have his servants do the work? Do you think that an entity as powerful as that has nothing better to do than to personally tend to each and every one of your criticisms? -_-

What I'm asking is why does he not make it more clear that these are his rules, or that he is there.

Again, he would have to have assemblies again and again until doomsday. He made it clear time and time by again through his messengers. Just how many preachers have existed so far? But still, humans continue to criticize and be ignorant.

Beside that, which laws are we supposed to consider? There are countless versions of religion all with different rules. Why doesn't he just come and tell us exactly what the rules are and leave the rest up to us?

You should study on the religions, and seek out the one that you feel is the right one. It will come to you. You will know which one it is. Trust me. But if you still don't feel at easy following any religion, you are welcome to stay as you are. After all, we all have different views. I respect that.

There is simply no god to defy.

Can you prove that? While I also cannot certainly prove the existence of God, but, you also cannot prove his non-existence. So please hold that claim until such a time we get proof.

Mind your own business~

I sincerely apologize. I did not mean any offense.

Amen.

Sorry, but I don't exactly get what you mean by "Amen" in your post.

What is something? Speaking out against Islam? Does that qualify as doing "something" against Islam and therefore warranting violent action from the good Muslims?

Here, "something" means using any kind of means to defy Islam, or to cause corruption. Such as killing Muslims, declaring an all out war, using violence, etcetera. If you speak out peacefully and properly, without using any form of violence, then it's Islamic law that they cannot kill you. In short, until you use force against them, they will not use force against you.

Is it not the job of the leadership to set the record straight if their followers are straying from the true message? Why would they let this go on unless there was a certain amount of truth to it, or a percieved level of righteousness?

Actually, authorities all over the world are trying to stop those who go astray. Islamic organizations are making every effort to preach the true message and get people back to the right track. They do that using the TV, internet, and any form of media available. What they cannot do is to single out each and every one of the wrong-doers and then put him on the right track.
Oh, and by the way, just because I do a robbery and then get away with it doesn't mean that my religion allows robbery. Thats what I am trying to differentiate. A religion can not be held accountable for what we consciously and knowingly do. With a few exceptions, of course.

If this organization does not outright condemn the actions of the militant Muslims, how are we to know they are wrong?

Do you actually listen to Islamic speeches? All Muslim leaders all over the world clearly condemn terrorism, given that the terror that is being inflicted is not on innocents. If they are using force against those who killed their families, I can't hold them responsible. As long as there is a valid reason and no innocents are harmed in any way, I don't think that thy are wrong. And please don't ask me what the valid reasons are. I am not a scholar on Islamic rules. I have studied it to a certain extent, and up to that, I can say that harming innocents is ANY way is strictly prohibited.

They consider themselves Muslims, they practice their faith whether "good" Muslims acknowledge their status as Muslims or not.

"they practice their faith", you say. But the "faith" that they are practicing is wrong and does not follow the rules of Islam. You can call them hypocrites, as they are not following the original rules and have made rules of their own. That is not true Islam. It's just a false derivative. Do you get my point?

and there is no definite law or power that can or will take that title away from them

There IS a law. The Quran. The IS a power. God. They will be held responsible for their actions, make no mistake. And they shall be punished like any other person, Muslim or not.
I agree that there is no authority that we can come out and DIRECTLY ask, since in Islam, that authority was the Prophet Muhammad. He clearly defined a set of rules, which were flawless for that age and era. Sadly, we cannot have that in THIS age, we just have the Quran, in it's original form, to interpret and seek guidance from. Islamic authorities can only just repeat what is in the Quran, because they themselves have no means of divine communication. Wait, is that a phrase? Oh well, you know what I mean.

I know they single out the bad, because they are anti-religious and the positive aspects serve no purpose to their argument. Why would they waste their time or hurt their own point of view by highlighting the positive aspects of the religion they are critcizing.

Exactly. Never credit those positive aspects that have done billions of benefits to man kind. And also, you have to agree that singling out those aspects WITHOUT consideration of the whole thing tends to give people a false idea.

It is my stance that no amount of "bad" should be tolerated in a holy book. It means nothing that the good outweighs the bad. Even so, the bad can be extrodinarily bad and the good, no matter how much of it there is, in no way cancels out the bad.

Exactly WHAT is bad? After all that I have clarified so far, can you tell me what you believe to be wrong. Again, remember that I am no expert. I can only give you answers on par with the level of a slightly more knowledgeable Muslim, but no more. If you have questions that deeply question the roots of Islam, why not ask the scholars. I bet I can give you some good sites. Search Dr. Zakir Naik on internet. You will find that his speeches have a great deal of merit in them. He is a truly admirable man that has fully studied, understood, and by-hearted ALL of the holy scriptures in existence. I suggest you listen to those, even if you do not believe in Islam. It will clarify a lot more than I can ever do here.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Again with the edgy attitude. It's hopeless trying to reason with you. While it's true that arguments could prove beneficial, don't you think it would be better to carry it out without hatred in our hearts? In other words, peacefully and politely?
Oh, talk about being arrogant. While you cannot greet someone without an edge to your voice, you are calling me arrogant? Wake up, dude. Since you all wanted to continue this talk, I did so too. Now please stop quoting my message about ending this thread. I will not be the one to stop here, because you all don't want to, right? If you don't wanna stop, then fine with me. I will be replying.



Ah, my bad. I took "concerned" as "believe". Forgive my mistake.



Yeah, you expect him to summon each and every one of us personally to his private room and then explain to us so that you guys would be confirmed of it's authenticity? He actually DID write the book himself, then he conveyed it to his messenger. The messenger then conveyed the message to humanity. When these books were written, the angels "proof-read" the books, in other words, made absolutely sure that the message was accurate.



Ah, this is the baddest question of them all. It is currently under debate all over the world. It's significance is immense. I see it flowing all over the internet, the main question from atheists, particularly. "If he didn't want it to be misunderstood, then why would he let it be?"
If you think about it, the question, in general terms, comes to something like this. "Why would he let people do sins when he doesn't want them to?" "Why would he let evil exist if it's against his will?" "If he is the one who decides everything, then isn't it unfair to punish humans for their sins?"
These questions are the toughest nut to crack. It is true that if God is omnipotent, then why would he let people do sins in the first place? Why can not he just make all of them "good" so that everyone goes to heaven?
The answer is to give US a freedom of choice. The WILL to do something. I see a gangbang going on. I can either stop it, or join it. This conscious action is what he will ask us about. What we did when we had the choice. It's similar to creating a game. You could either control the player yourself, or you could give it artificial intelligence and let it do actions of it's own. Personally, I thank God for doing that. Because it would be unbelievably boring to be forcefully guided all the way, don't you think? Think about it. A life where you don't have the freedom to do anything. A life you can not control. A life where you cannot have your will. Don't you think we are far better of with the freedom to chose?




Who said that finite evil is worthy of infinite suffering? If that was so, then why not kill a few more thousand people, since you are gonna be eternally punished anyways? This insults God's sense of fairness. He is merciful. I don't believe he would cause a soul to burn forever just because he smoked weed once. No. You will be held responsible for and only for what you did. You would be punished for the appropriate time, and then you will be forgiven and sent to heaven if you repent on your actions. You will NOT be held accountable for more than what you did. This psychology is highly flawed.

I don't know if you even read my post. All evil on this world is finite. Even that of Stalin and Attilla the Hun and Charles Manson is finite. How can it be otherwise?

I did read your post, and I answered accordingly. I know that evil is finite, since there is so much you can do in your life time, that is not infinite. That was not originally your question, right?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I did read your post, and I answered accordingly. I know that evil is finite, since there is so much you can do in your life time, that is not infinite. That was not originally your question, right?

Okay, well you must have misunderstood me then. I pretty much said 'how can finite evil be repayed with infinite hell.' You answered the part about casual sinners not deserving hell, but did not address how even the most wicked people who ever lived obviously don't deserve infinite pain.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Sorry, but I don't exactly get what you mean by "Amen" in your post.

He means he agrees. I take it English isn't your first language?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Here, "something" means using any kind of means to defy Islam, or to cause corruption. Such as killing Muslims, declaring an all out war, using violence, etcetera. If you speak out peacefully and properly, without using any form of violence, then it's Islamic law that they cannot kill you. In short, until you use force against them, they will not use force against you.

Does it make that explicitly clear or is that your personal interpretation? I've never read the Quran so I can only rely on the people who have read it and on my observations of apparently un-muslim-like behavior from a great many Muslims. Cleary a great number of them don't see it as you do. Take not only the terrorists as examples, but the fact that a cartoonist was horrifically murdered a few years back from drawing a picture of Mohammed, while others remain in hiding or recieve death threats on a regular basis. You have to agree that it is more than a select few who see it this way, it is a major portion Islams followers. Even if few would be willing to do the deed themselves, they sure as hell support the people who do, probably even more than when know support it in the privacy of their own homes. And I do consider silence to be just the same as support, especially in America where there is no threat to their lives.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Actually, authorities all over the world are trying to stop those who go astray. Islamic organizations are making every effort to preach the true message and get people back to the right track. They do that using the TV, internet, and any form of media available. What they cannot do is to single out each and every one of the wrong-doers and then put him on the right track.
Oh, and by the way, just because I do a robbery and then get away with it doesn't mean that my religion allows robbery. Thats what I am trying to differentiate. A religion can not be held accountable for what we consciously and knowingly do. With a few exceptions, of course.

If this is true, I haven't seen it, so obviously the ones who matter are not preaching the "true" message, and clearly there aren't many who are willing to do it. When I say leaders, I don't mean community leaders, I mean like an ayatollah or whatever the closest thing to the pope is. They need someone with real authority. But that won't happen because not only do many of their high ranking members support the jihad, they are actively a part of it. There are a great many mullahs and imams in the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Those are supposed to be Islamic scholars, do Islamic scholars not know anything about their own religion?

There is a key flaw in your robbery analogy. As long as a person doesn't rob a bank in the name of religion, it doesn't really matter. All of this violence is in the name of God, it is because of God. A bank robbery is because of money.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Do you actually listen to Islamic speeches? All Muslim leaders all over the world clearly condemn terrorism, given that the terror that is being inflicted is not on innocents. If they are using force against those who killed their families, I can't hold them responsible. As long as there is a valid reason and no innocents are harmed in any way, I don't think that thy are wrong. And please don't ask me what the valid reasons are. I am not a scholar on Islamic rules. I have studied it to a certain extent, and up to that, I can say that harming innocents is ANY way is strictly prohibited.

All Muslim leaders condemn terrorism? Most of their leaders are a part of their problem. I can't recall ever seeing an Islamic leader of any significance forcefully oppose terrorism. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it just means such occurances are few and far between.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

"they practice their faith", you say. But the "faith" that they are practicing is wrong and does not follow the rules of Islam. You can call them hypocrites, as they are not following the original rules and have made rules of their own. That is not true Islam. It's just a false derivative. Do you get my point?

Islamic Extremist: "The faith you are practicing is wrong and does not follow the rules of Islam. I am not a hypocrite and I follow the original rules, not having made up my own rules. This is true Islam. It isn't a false derivative." Do you get my point?

I have already pointed out that a significant number of Muslims do not agree with you.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

There IS a law. The Quran. The IS a power. God. They will be held responsible for their actions, make no mistake. And they shall be punished like any other person, Muslim or not.
I agree that there is no authority that we can come out and DIRECTLY ask, since in Islam, that authority was the Prophet Muhammad. He clearly defined a set of rules, which were flawless for that age and era. Sadly, we cannot have that in THIS age, we just have the Quran, in it's original form, to interpret and seek guidance from. Islamic authorities can only just repeat what is in the Quran, because they themselves have no means of divine communication. Wait, is that a phrase? Oh well, you know what I mean.

I thought we established that the Quran is too ambiguous to serve as the authority. There needs to be a human power to decipher the book for the rest of humanity so that we can all be on the same page, just like the Catholics did with the Pope. And God's judgment of these individuals doesn't do us a lot of good now does it? I don't really care if they have to spend an eternity in hell for what they did, I just care if they fuck up my life here on Earth.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Exactly. Never credit those positive aspects that have done billions of benefits to man kind. And also, you have to agree that singling out those aspects WITHOUT consideration of the whole thing tends to give people a false idea.

You've missed my point entirely. I don't agree with you in the slightest. How do you measure goodness? Religion has done a billion goods? What about all of the bads? Religion is responsible for the darkest times the human race has ever seen. Death, destruction, and oppression on an incomprehensible scale over thousands of years. Does any number of charities undo that? Do you think if you do enough good it can cover up the evil? Do you see my point? It doesn't matter that religion is responsible for good things, not if it has the capacity to do evil on such a grand scale.

That's like saying: Yes, unfortunately we do execute heretics and we do oppress women and we are intolerant of other religions and do we cultivate a standard of ignorance among our followers........ but look over here!!!! We give to charities and we help people with their problems and we save them from the devil and allow them into heaven!

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Exactly WHAT is bad? After all that I have clarified so far, can you tell me what you believe to be wrong. Again, remember that I am no expert. I can only give you answers on par with the level of a slightly more knowledgeable Muslim, but no more. If you have questions that deeply question the roots of Islam, why not ask the scholars. I bet I can give you some good sites. Search Dr. Zakir Naik on internet. You will find that his speeches have a great deal of merit in them. He is a truly admirable man that has fully studied, understood, and by-hearted ALL of the holy scriptures in existence. I suggest you listen to those, even if you do not believe in Islam. It will clarify a lot more than I can ever do here.

I thought we established what was bad? You talked about people pointing about negative passages in scriptures, and you thought they were wrong because they didn't also take the time to point out the many good passages. Like it is at all relevant to their argument. The Bible for instance teaches that homosexuality is evil, the Quran apparently teaches that you should murder anybody who draws Mohammed. There are plenty more, I thought you already knew all of this.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

He means he agrees. I take it English isn't your first language?



Does it make that explicitly clear or is that your personal interpretation? I've never read the Quran so I can only rely on the people who have read and on my observations of apparently un-muslim-like behavior from a great many Muslims. Cleary a great number of them don't see it as you do. Take not only the terrorists as examples, but the fact that a cartoonist was horrifically murdered a few years back from drawing a picture of Mohammed, while others remain in hiding or recieve death threats on a regular basis. You have to agree that it is more than a select few who see it this way, it is a major portion Islams followers. Even if few would be willing to do the deed themselves, they sure as hell support the people who do, probably even more than when know support it in the privacy of their own homes. And I do consider silence to be just the same as support, especially in America where there is no threat to their lives.



If this is true, I haven't seen it, so obviously the ones who matter are not preaching the "true" message, and clearly there aren't many who are willing to do it. When I say leaders, I don't mean community leaders, I mean like an ayatollah or whatever the closest thing to the pope is. They need someone with real authority. But that won't happen because not only do many of their high ranking members support the jihad, they are actively a part of it. There are a great many mullahs and imams in the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Those are supposed to be Islamic scholars, do Islamic scholars not know anything about their own religion?

There is a key flaw in your robbery analogy. As long as a person doesn't rob a bank in the name of religion, it doesn't really matter. All of this violence is in the name of God, it is because of God. A bank robbery is because of money.



All Muslim leaders condemn terrorism? Most of their leaders are a part of their problem. I can't recall ever seeing an Islamic leader of any significance forcefully oppose terrorism. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it just means such occurances are few and far between.



Islamic Extremist: "The faith you are practicing is wrong and does not follow the rules of Islam. I am not a hypocrite and I follow the original rules, not having made up my own rules. This is true Islam. It isn't a false derivative." Do you get my point?

I have already pointed out that a significant number of Muslims do not agree with you.



I thought we established that the Quran is too ambiguous to serve as the authority. There needs to be a human power to decipher the book for the rest of humanity so that we can all be on the same page, just like the Catholics did with the Pope. And God's judgment of these individuals doesn't do us a lot of good now does it? I don't really care if they have to spend an eternity in hell for what they did, I just care if they fuck up my life here on Earth.



You've missed my point entirely. I don't agree with you in the slightest. How do you measure goodness? Religion has done a billion goods? What about all of the bads? Religion is responsible for the darkest times the human race has ever seen. Death, destruction, and oppression on an incomprehensible scale over thousands of years. Does any number of charities undo that? Do you think if you do enough good it can cover up the evil? Do you see my point? It doesn't matter that religion is responsible for good things, not if it has the capacity to do evil on such a grand scale.

That's like saying: Yes, unfortunately we do execute heretics and we do oppress women and we are intolerant of other religions and do we cultivate a standard of ignorance among our followers........ but look over here!!!! We give to charities and we help people with their problems and we save them from the devil and allow them into heaven!



I thought we established what was bad? You talked about people pointing about negative passages in scriptures, and you thought they were wrong because they didn't also take the time to point out the many good passages. Like it is at all relevant to their argument. The Bible for instance teaches that homosexuality is evil, the Quran apparently teaches that you should murder anybody who draws Mohammed. There are plenty more, I thought you already knew all of this.

I can tell you from personal reading that it does say not to screw with Christains and Jews, cause we are pretty much alright even if we are wrong on some things. So, that is one thing that is not followed by plenty of Islamic people. But I can't tell you whether or not violence against other people in general is okay, because I haven't read the whole thing.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Are you plain blind or do you take so much enjoyment from this argument?

I do.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Yeah, okay. Let's assume he gather's everyone alive in the world right now and tell them all that he is the true God and what we have to do to get into heaven. Then what? Will you atheists follow it? Undoubtedly, there would still be objections to THAT set of rules as well. Skepticism is a natural human trait.

But that's okay. God wants us to choose for ourselves. Considering that, he should not let so many of us go around thinking he's not even there. We're not really making a choice to obey or disobey him when we don't think he's even there (at least not a properly informed choice). From what I can tell, there is no god. So it's not that I'm specifically choosing to obey or disobey him in any aspect of his rules, it's just that he isn't there to be obeyed or disobeyed. god is a non-issue and not a consideration. At no point have I considered the potential consequences for my eternal soul when making any decision in my life, because there are no conseqences or even a soul. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to make these considerations. It isn't fair to me to tell me that I will be punished for ignoring the authority of a being I didn't even think was real. Apparently I'm making some horribly ill-informed decisions here, so what's god doing that's so important that he can't take 10 minutes to clarify?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Assume that everyone starts to follow that religion and lives on peacefully. Now what? They die and go to heaven. Then? The new generation will be less faithful than them, as they didn't see God personally, they are just doing so because their fathers did. The generation after that will raise even more doubt. This will inevitably continue until people say, "We don't care whether some dumb farts thousands of years ago saw God, we didn't, so we don't believe it.". Which would result in atheism all over again.

Again, he would have to have assemblies again and again until doomsday. He made it clear time and time by again through his messengers. Just how many preachers have existed so far? But still, humans continue to criticize and be ignorant.

You're speaking as if there is only one religion to which all preachers and divine messages belong. There are about a million; They're all different. So which grain of sand in the desert of religions is the right one and how am I supposed to be able to disginguish it from the rest? What you're saying is tantamount to saying that he painted that grain of sand bright yellow so we could see it easily. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

How much do you expect God to do for a mere species of life that he created? That is so inferior to Him that we cannot hope to compare? Do you expect him to keep running around and telling all atheists that he is God? Why can't he have his servants do the work? Do you think that an entity as powerful as that has nothing better to do than to personally tend to each and every one of your criticisms? -_-

Projecting your frustration onto god? No surprise there!

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

You should study on the religions, and seek out the one that you feel is the right one. It will come to you. You will know which one it is. Trust me. But if you still don't feel at easy following any religion, you are welcome to stay as you are. After all, we all have different views. I respect that.

This isn't shopping for a new sweater. If there is actually a god, I'd have to guess that he wants us to follow the actual rules rather than one of the countless modifications/fabrications thereof.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Can you prove that? While I also cannot certainly prove the existence of God, but, you also cannot prove his non-existence. So please hold that claim until such a time we get proof.

"IN THE MIND OF AN ATHEIST..."

Reading comprehension, man.

Originally Posted by spockman

I can tell you from personal reading that it does say not to screw with Christains and Jews, cause we are pretty much alright even if we are wrong on some things. So, that is one thing that is not followed by plenty of Islamic people. But I can't tell you whether or not violence against other people in general is okay, because I haven't read the whole thing.

On the other hand, the Koran also says to kill infidels. It's a contradiction, but what holy book is above that?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

On the other hand, the Koran also says to kill infidels. It's a contradiction, but what holy book is above that?

Except that Jews, Muslims, and Christains technically believe in the same God. Well, Jews and Muslims do, at any rate. So it could be argued that they aren't really infidels.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

He means he agrees. I take it English isn't your first language?

Um, no. But using 'Amen' to agree is not common, you know.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Does it make that explicitly clear or is that your personal interpretation? I've never read the Quran so I can only rely on the people who have read it and on my observations of apparently un-muslim-like behavior from a great many Muslims. Cleary a great number of them don't see it as you do. Take not only the terrorists as examples, but the fact that a cartoonist was horrifically murdered a few years back from drawing a picture of Mohammed, while others remain in hiding or recieve death threats on a regular basis. You have to agree that it is more than a select few who see it this way, it is a major portion Islams followers. Even if few would be willing to do the deed themselves, they sure as hell support the people who do, probably even more than when know support it in the privacy of their own homes. And I do consider silence to be just the same as support, especially in America where there is no threat to their lives.

No, it's rather a general interpretation of the message in the Quran. I don't care if the whole world does not agree with my opinion. They are doing wrong, whatever they think. It doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.
About the cartoonist, well, drawing an image, especially a cartoon where the point is to insult, is highly enraging to all Muslims. How would you feel if someone so bluntly insulted the person for whom you hold the utmost respect? While I don't say that killing is okay, I can not also say that it was without reason.
I don't know what kind of Muslims you meet up with, or have known. All I can say is that no decent guy, Muslim or otherwise, supports terrorism at any cost.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If this is true, I haven't seen it, so obviously the ones who matter are not preaching the "true" message, and clearly there aren't many who are willing to do it. When I say leaders, I don't mean community leaders, I mean like an ayatollah or whatever the closest thing to the pope is. They need someone with real authority. But that won't happen because not only do many of their high ranking members support the jihad, they are actively a part of it. There are a great many mullahs and imams in the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Those are supposed to be Islamic scholars, do Islamic scholars not know anything about their own religion?

They reason not many are willing to object to terrorism is because they are too scared to do so. In countries like Iraq, and even certain parts in America, you can very well be anonymously killed for even voicing your opinion against the extremist groups.
The problem is that the scholars who, I believe, are corrupt have gained a lot more attention than those who are preaching the true message, and a common non-Muslim cannot be expected to know about them. The best reference I can give you is Dr. Zakir Naik. He is truly an example of a scholar that preaches the true message.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

There is a key flaw in your robbery analogy. As long as a person doesn't rob a bank in the name of religion, it doesn't really matter. All of this violence is in the name of God, it is because of God. A bank robbery is because of money.

Oh well. You got what I meant anyways. ^_^

Originally Posted by Caprisun

All Muslim leaders condemn terrorism? Most of their leaders are a part of their problem. I can't recall ever seeing an Islamic leader of any significance forcefully oppose terrorism. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it just means such occurances are few and far between.

Let me correct myself. All PROPER Muslim leader condemn terrorism. The self-proclaimed, corrupt leaders like those of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not to be considered real leaders.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Islamic Extremist: "The faith you are practicing is wrong and does not follow the rules of Islam. I am not a hypocrite and I follow the original rules, not having made up my own rules. This is true Islam. It isn't a false derivative." Do you get my point?

Me: "I am a super hero. I can fly without support. I can kill people with my eyes." Do you believe that statement? No. My point, just because someone considers himself to be correctly following the commands of his religion doesn't mean that he IS.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I have already pointed out that a significant number of Muslims do not agree with you.

There are different types of people, who hold different opinions. There's nothing I can do about it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I thought we established that the Quran is too ambiguous to serve as the authority. There needs to be a human power to decipher the book for the rest of humanity so that we can all be on the same page, just like the Catholics did with the Pope. And God's judgment of these individuals doesn't do us a lot of good now does it? I don't really care if they have to spend an eternity in hell for what they did, I just care if they fuck up my life here on Earth.

No. Quran is not too ambiguous to serve as an authority. The INTERPRETATIONS of the Quran are too ambiguous to serve as authority. You are right there. There has to be some sort of definite authority. But leading billions is not an easy task. There are a lot of problems, the main being the threat from groups who consider the deciphering to be incorrect, and the like.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You've missed my point entirely. I don't agree with you in the slightest. How do you measure goodness? Religion has done a billion goods? What about all of the bads? Religion is responsible for the darkest times the human race has ever seen. Death, destruction, and oppression on an incomprehensible scale over thousands of years. Does any number of charities undo that? Do you think if you do enough good it can cover up the evil? Do you see my point? It doesn't matter that religion is responsible for good things, not if it has the capacity to do evil on such a grand scale.

That's like saying: Yes, unfortunately we do execute heretics and we do oppress women and we are intolerant of other religions and do we cultivate a standard of ignorance among our followers........ but look over here!!!! We give to charities and we help people with their problems and we save them from the devil and allow them into heaven!

I agree. But then again, most people look at it like this :

They execute heretics and oppress women and are intolerant of other religions and cultivate a standard of ignorance among their followers!!!!! but they also give to charities and help people with their problems and save them from the devil and allow them into heaven......

Get my point? While you are showing that what I said is biased, you have to agree that people do not EQUALLY consider the good points compared to the negative ones. The best thing would be to view the picture with a non-biased, cool, understanding mind.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I thought we established what was bad? You talked about people pointing about negative passages in scriptures, and you thought they were wrong because they didn't also take the time to point out the many good passages. Like it is at all relevant to their argument. The Bible for instance teaches that homosexuality is evil, the Quran apparently teaches that you should murder anybody who draws Mohammed. There are plenty more, I thought you already knew all of this.

Wrong. The Quran DOES NOT teach to kill anyone who draws Muhammad. Can you give me a reference? I want to make it clear that there are certain people who misunderstand Quran or do not consider it at all and do horrible acts, thinking they did it in the name of religion. I cannot say anything about the Bible, because I read it only to some extent, and not in as much understanding as I read the Quran. And speaking of homosexuality, doesn't Bible also prohibit sexual intercourse? If all people followed the Bible, how would the human race continue?

Originally Posted by spockman

I can tell you from personal reading that it does say not to screw with Christains and Jews, cause we are pretty much alright even if we are wrong on some things. So, that is one thing that is not followed by plenty of Islamic people. But I can't tell you whether or not violence against other people in general is okay, because I haven't read the whole thing.

I can. Violence against general people is prohibited. There have been a lot of examples in Islamic history where infidels were allowed to live in Muslim community and given full human rights.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I do.

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Mark75

But that's okay. God wants us to choose for ourselves. Considering that, he should not let so many of us go around thinking he's not even there. We're not really making a choice to obey or disobey him when we don't think he's even there (at least not a properly informed choice). From what I can tell, there is no god. So it's not that I'm specifically choosing to obey or disobey him in any aspect of his rules, it's just that he isn't there to be obeyed or disobeyed. god is a non-issue and not a consideration. At no point have I considered the potential consequences for my eternal soul when making any decision in my life, because there are no conseqences or even a soul. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to make these considerations. It isn't fair to me to tell me that I will be punished for ignoring the authority of a being I didn't even think was real. Apparently I'm making some horribly ill-informed decisions here, so what's god doing that's so important that he can't take 10 minutes to clarify?

I understand what you mean. Given the fact that there is no such proof of the existence of God, I cannot say that you are wrong. Who knows? You could be right and I could be wrong. I could find myself wiped out of existence after I die, since in your view, there is no afterlife. THAT is exactly why I don't think this argument can lead us to any final decision. Unless and until either one of these can be proven for sure, this argument will continue for a long time, finally reaching a point where we both say that we cannot believe anything for sure.

Originally Posted by Mark75

You're speaking as if there is only one religion to which all preachers and divine messages belong. There are about a million; They're all different. So which grain of sand in the desert of religions is the right one and how am I supposed to be able to disginguish it from the rest? What you're saying is tantamount to saying that he painted that grain of sand bright yellow so we could see it easily. Give me a break.

And yet, have you done any research into what some of those grains of sand say? Also, there is not THAT much variety of religions. There are about 10 or so main religions, so it cuts down your choice to a pretty acceptable level.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Projecting your frustration onto god? No surprise there!

Huh?

Originally Posted by Mark75

This isn't shopping for a new sweater. If there is actually a god, I'd have to guess that he wants us to follow the actual rules rather than one of the countless modifications/fabrications thereof.

You have to understand that I don't have any more references than you. If I could answer these questions, then there wouldn't be atheism, would there?

Originally Posted by Mark75

"IN THE MIND OF AN ATHEIST..."

Reading comprehension, man.

Exactly. In the mind of an atheist. You believe there is no God. Since you do not have any proof of the non-existence of God, then don't you think that that belief is nothing more than an assumption? The same goes for me as well.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

On the other hand, the Koran also says to kill infidels. It's a contradiction, but what holy book is above that?

*sigh* I have said it again and again, but you guys don't just get it. In Islam, YOU CANNOT KILL INNOCENTS, infidels or not.

Originally Posted by spockman

Except that Jews, Muslims, and Christains technically believe in the same God. Well, Jews and Muslims do, at any rate. So it could be argued that they aren't really infidels.

I suppose it could. I guess Christians do as well, they think that Jesus was a son of God. So I guess the ultimate belief is the same. It is often said that Jew-ism and Christianity are the closest religions to Islam.

Now THAT was a long type. I guess it's because there is a greater number of atheists and critics here than religious people. Oh well.