Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
QuoteReplyTopic: ? to all the people that believe in the b Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 02:21
Originally posted by pekau
Originally posted by Zagros
I don't mean to single you out, Zaitsev, but please end your vendetta! It has become somewhat tiresome to see the continuation of this conflict in every thread the both of you participate in. Many thanks.
I am afraid that science-religion debate has been going on ever since the Age of Renassiance... and is still continued today. That would be a difficult demand. Could one get banned for their religious ideas?
are you talking about from this forum?
No, only by continuously breaking the code of conduct.
Faith is the ability to go on believing in something after it has been disproven.
Originally posted by gcle2003
That the whole universe was created at 9:15 pm BST July 4 1933 would for instance be an article of faith, were I to believe it, because it cannot be disproven, just as no other single-moment creationist theory can.
Am I the only one who sees a slight contradiction here? After it's been disproven, because it can't be disproven
Yes you probably are the only one that sees it, because there isn't one. It can't be disproven. I never said 'After it had been disproven'. If I had said that it would have been a contradiction, but you just made it up.
No single-moment creationist theory can ever be disproven. That's all i've ever said. And it is because they cannot be disproven that they are useless.
Originally posted by gcle2003
And, just for the record, why the personal dig?
I could ask you, why the blatant attack against people of faith?
You could, and that would be dodging the issue as usual.
What 'blatant attack on people of faith'?
Omar is a person of faith - are you claiming I made a blatant attack on him? Or are you for some reason maintaining that 'people of faith' should have some special privilege and be beyond criticism?
When I criticise people's knowledge, or their arguments, or their presentation, I'm not criticising their faith. I'm totally uininterested in their faith, except insofar as I do interest myself in the wild variety of things people believe in, and studying their interrelatiionships.
As a side note I find it quite disgraceful that gcle's open personal insult towards praetor was ignored. In addition, targetting me in "every thread you both participate in". Seems less than impartial, but I'm sure you have your reasons.
It wasn't a 'personal' attack on Praetor, but an attack on his ability to present an argument properly and convincingly. I certainly don't think he is an idiot: he probably is intelligent but he unfortunately has obviously been badly educated. That's not his fault.
I don't mean to single you out, Zaitsev, but please end your vendetta! It has become somewhat tiresome to see the continuation of this conflict in every thread the both of you participate in. Many thanks.
I am afraid that science-religion debate has been going on ever since the Age of Renassiance... and is still continued today. That would be a difficult demand. Could one get banned for their religious ideas?
My interjection had nothing to do with the "science-religion debate"; I would just like for us all to communicate in a more cordial tone and refrain from ad hominem.
A question that I've always found relevent, is WHY would the apostles make it up?
Why would Muhammad make the Quran up? Why would Brigham Young (or whoever wrote it, im not really into the subject) make the book of Mormon up? Why would the Mayans make the Popul Vuh up?
Since religions are mutually exclusive (if one religion is true all others have to be false) either all of them made it up, or all of them minus one. If the latter is true, I wouldn't know which one to pick.
A question that I've always found relevent, is WHY would the apostles make it up?
Why would Muhammad make the Quran up? Why would Brigham Young (or whoever wrote it, im not really into the subject) make the book of Mormon up? Why would the Mayans make the Popul Vuh up?
Since religions are mutually exclusive (if one religion is true all others have to be false) either all of them made it up, or all of them minus one. If the latter is true, I wouldn't know which one to pick.
Well, I am not denying anything... but Muhammad wanted to gain support from the Jews and Christians in the beginning. He condemned the Christians and Jews when they refused to support Muhammad's cause.
Freedom is a concept, Jesus is supposed to be the Man. More than that, He was supposed to achieve something by His sacrifice. Only christians state that He did it, others don't think so. Christians say they are right I say they are not quite right.
Salvation is "a matter of sincerety, humility and honesty". Who do I have to be sincere with, humble and honest. God? Why how can I do it if the guy doesn't even speak to me. Read the holy books? I've read them but they are more like tangled fairy tales than direct guides. Maybe I'm hard headed but wouldn't it be easyer if G just pops out so that everybody witness him and sttes his will? Why so much confusion? Does he enjoys seeing people doing wrong things?
Poor babies, they not even know they are such sinners! Hey, what happens once a kid is baptized, his sins are all erased. That's quick man, maybe I should make arangements to get baptized 1 second before I pass out. Oh no, that would throw me in Heaven where ...
...sex is irrelevant!!! Well I don't know about hell but I'm sure that heaven is definitely not interesting. If I die at 90 I would really like to go to a place where I could act like I was 20. Anyway, why is sex defined as a sin. Why does the Church or God consider something that is absolutely natural as being something outrageous? Maybe eating or breathing are sins too. Free thinking (not bound by the limits of the religious dogmas) seems for sure to be a capital sin. Well I can't help it, I'm thinking, what am I supposed to do? Perform a lobotomy to myself?
Free will defined as chosing between "go to heaven if you do that" or "go to hell if you don't" is only freedom of choice (a quite twisted one too) no free will at all. Free will means that I chose to do "this", not "that" not because there is a reward or punishment just because that's how I want/feel/care. Some choice God offers us,too, why don't he make that "free" choice himself? What if I don't want to make that choice?
Could you accept the idea of an inconsistent God?
Sex is not a sin in Islam, it is seen as a natural, and healthy function between two people, marriage as a pre-requisite for it to not be sinful, adultery and sex without marriage is a sin, but not the actual act of sex.
In Islam everyone is born with a clean slate, and it matters upon your actions in life as to how you will be judged
In Islam, there is a freedom of choice, however, not all actions will lead to heaven or hell particulary, character, intent etc, are factors too, and most importantly God
You both think that you are right. I think of both of you to not necessarily be right not that you are wrong.
Speaking for myself, I know that I am not right, but I know that I am not wrong either. Religion is how God guides us to him, it is not a means in and of itself.
A question that I've always found relevent, is WHY would the apostles make it up?
Why would Muhammad make the Quran up? Why would Brigham Young (or whoever wrote it, im not really into the subject) make the book of Mormon up? Why would the Mayans make the Popul Vuh up?
Since religions are mutually exclusive (if one religion is true all others have to be false) either all of them made it up, or all of them minus one. If the latter is true, I wouldn't know which one to pick.
Well, I am not denying anything... but Muhammad wanted to gain support from the Jews and Christians in the beginning. He condemned the Christians and Jews when they refused to support Muhammad's cause.
That is not true at all that he condemned anyone, he simply stated that the is an update to God's comandements, he is the intermediary that is going to fulfill that update.
Christians and Jews were seen as co-religionists on a lower level, considering that Islam means submission to God, and both Christians and Jews do that as well.
And the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is qouted " study the Torah study the Bible, even though the Qu'ran should be sufficient."
How is that a condemnation?
There is a charter given to the monks at Sinai, that among giving them rights to maintain their Monastery, practice their faith, outlines some of the rules of interaction between Muslims and Christians, such as that a Muslim can not refrain his/her spouse from attending a Church and practinsing their faith.
Now if he had condemned it, why so tolerant of it then?
A question that I've always found relevent, is WHY would the apostles make it up?
Why would Muhammad make the Quran up? Why would Brigham Young (or whoever wrote it, im not really into the subject) make the book of Mormon up? Why would the Mayans make the Popul Vuh up?
Since religions are mutually exclusive (if one religion is true all others have to be false) either all of them made it up, or all of them minus one. If the latter is true, I wouldn't know which one to pick.
Actually according to Islamic theology/ thought there were numerous Prophets, as stated in the Qu'ran who were sent to various nations/tribes of the world at various times, so the Indians, the Native peoples of America, the Persians, etc all had various prophets...over time their message being corrupted by subesquent generations of believers, and a new set of prophecies arising to set the religion of God back on track, with Muhammad (pbuh) being the final messenger.
What pray tell is so inconsistent about the Abrahamic Religions?
I do not see what is inconsistent either, it is a set of beliefs, the scriptures themselves are full of methaphors, taking them literary leads to confusion, every act has a meaning behind it, it is that very meaning that counts.
Whenever one questions someting about your religion you com with explanations based your or other coreligionaries ideas regarding the meaning of some quotes or same actions.
Which is the same thing a scientist does when evolutionary theory is questioned. Everyone is supposed to support their claims with observed phenomena, religion is no different than any other belief or idea.
My opinion is that people are more important than God.
Which is utterly inconsistent with the concept of God, because the very definition of his nature is a being that has no equal or superior.
How would you put people, a rather feeble, not to mention young creation before God, the omnipotent, infinite? Various species have existed for far much longer than people, all of God's creations, are nothing compared to God. Evolution just proves God, as does Science, it is only mostly in Protestant countries that I notice a huge gap between science and religion due to the literal interpretation of the Bible ( World being 6000 years old and such). Science proves God, the Big Bang proves God, the two atoms that collided must have come from somewhere, out of them the universe had been created, actually the Qu'ran references to the Big Bang, the creation of Earth, Stars, among other things even the possibility of Space travel. The Qu'ran goes hand in hand with science, because that is how God chose to operate the universe, with physics, with chemistry, with mathematics, and we humans get to know that, and the true infinite power of God through science as well.
Tha fact that bothers me with religious people is that they are bound by their belief to give more consideration to an entity not to the people around them.
They are not bound by any belief you can either get to heaven on your own or with others, in fact Abrahamic religions have always been about people first, theology second.
True, the focus is one people, on communities, such as the value of helping others, and the value of progressing, of learning, of inventing for the sake of humanity's advancement.
Well, I am not denying anything... but Muhammad wanted to gain support from the Jews and Christians in the beginning. He condemned the Christians and Jews when they refused to support Muhammad's cause.
That is not true at all that he condemned anyone, he simply stated that the is an update to God's comandements, he is the intermediary that is going to fulfill that update. Christians and Jews were seen as co-religionists on a lower level, considering that Islam means submission to God, and both Christians and Jews do that as well. And the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is qouted " study the Torah study the Bible, even though the Qu'ran should be sufficient." How is that a condemnation?
There is a charter given to the monks at Sinai, that among giving them rights to maintain their Monastery, practice their faith, outlines some of the rules of interaction between Muslims and Christians, such as that a Muslim can not refrain his/her spouse from attending a Church and practinsing their faith.
Now if he had condemned it, why so tolerant of it then?
In the early days of Muhammeds preaching, he had expected that the Jews and Christians would recognise his prophethood, and help him. When the professional Jewish and Christian clergy rejected his message*, he was quite shocked and disappointed. Given that one of the meanings of condemn is
To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food.
. Pekau's statement is correct.
*This would have put them out of a job of course. The rejection of the clergy also didn't prevent the ordinary Jews & Christians of arabia from converting
Actually according to Islamic theology/ thought there were numerous Prophets, as stated in the Qu'ran who were sent to various nations/tribes of the world at various times, so the Indians, the Native peoples of America, the Persians, etc all had various prophets...over time their message being corrupted by subesquent generations of believers, and a new set of prophecies arising to set the religion of God back on track, with Muhammad (pbuh) being the final messenger.
But then how are we supposed to know which religion is the real one and which ones are the corruptions? Of course Muhammad said his religion was the real one, and the others are the corrupted version, but everybody could claim that and there's absolutely no way to decide who is right.
Actually according to Islamic theology/ thought there were numerous Prophets, as stated in the Qu'ran who were sent to various nations/tribes of the world at various times, so the Indians, the Native peoples of America, the Persians, etc all had various prophets...over time their message being corrupted by subesquent generations of believers, and a new set of prophecies arising to set the religion of God back on track, with Muhammad (pbuh) being the final messenger.
But then how are we supposed to know which religion is the real one and which ones are the corruptions? Of course Muhammad said his religion was the real one, and the others are the corrupted version, but everybody could claim that and there's absolutely no way to decide who is right.
That is why it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do/believe..... "There is no compulsion in religion" Qu'ran.
Also according to the Qu'ran it is not only "Muslims" who enter Heaven, but those who deserve it, wheter they be Muslims or not.
My opinion is that people are more important than God.
Which is utterly inconsistent with the concept of God, because the very definition of his nature is a being that has no equal or superior.
How would you put people, a rather feeble, not to mention young creation before God, the omnipotent, infinite?
For four reasons. One is that people undeniably and actually exist, whereas there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of anyone's particular concept of divine beings. Anything real is more important than anything imaginary.
The other three come into play if you accept the existence of divine beings.
The second is exactly what you say: people are weak, the divine beings strong. We should support the weak.
The third is that we ourselves are people and our highest allegiance must be to our own kind.
And the fourth is that God can look after himself. He doesn't need us. People do.
Originally posted by JanusRook
Since religions are mutually exclusive (if one religion is true all others have to be false)
Take that, Chinese who believe in Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism and Folk Religions simultaneously.
Or Japanese who are born Shinto, marry Christian and buried Buddhist.
I would agree the original statement went too far. Not all religions are mutually exclusive. However, e.g., Islam, Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, and Calvinism and Episcopalianism are mutually exclusive within Christianity.
But then how are we supposed to know which religion is the real one and which ones are the corruptions?
The one that survives the test of time is the real one, unfortunately we won't know in our lifetime, but we can try.
Yes you probably are the only one that sees it, because there isn't one. It can't be disproven. I never said 'After it had been disproven'. If I had said that it would have been a contradiction, but you just made it up.
No single-moment creationist theory can ever be disproven. That's all i've ever said. And it is because they cannot be disproven that they are useless.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by pekau
Exactly. Faith, by definition, is the ability to believe even though you cannot prove it.
Faith is the ability to go on believing in something after it has been disproven.
Right there. It's in this thread, on page 2. About half way down, you can't miss it. So yes, there's your contradiction. So could you please stop making stuff up, it's a sign of desperation.
Originally posted by gcle2003
What 'blatant attack on people of faith'?
Omar is a person of faith - are you claiming I made a blatant attack on him? Or are you for some reason maintaining that 'people of faith' should have some special privilege and be beyond criticism?
Originally posted by gcle2003
Faith is the ability to go on believing in something after it has already been disproven.
So unless you can comprehensively prove all religions false, as you have already claimed is impossible, that qualifies as an attack. It's a shame you have so little to back up your words.
Originally posted by gcle2003
It wasn't a 'personal' attack on Praetor, but an attack on his ability to present an argument properly and convincingly. I certainly don't think he is an idiot: he probably is intelligent but he unfortunately has obviously been badly educated. That's not his fault.
Ah well at least he's managed to keep his argument consistent, which is more than I can say for you.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: ? to all the people that believe in the b
