View Full Version : Is Islam true?.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-26-2012, 16:24
I shall ask for any evidence for your claims, I have asked over and over and over for evidence the bible john/revaluations has been mistranslated or messed with. You have provided none, As I claimed all evidence is that the authors wrote the books they said they did. I suggest watching these videos
Going back to Genesis - Joseph is picked up by a caravan of camels, but there were no camels in the Levant at this date.
An anachronism introduced by later writers.
End of revaluations, that is because it is the end of the bible. Last book, last written no more added [Islam,mormaism etc] none taken away. jesus last the end, as jesus said in gospels.
And here you show fundamental ignorance - Revelations is the "last" book of the Bible only because Saint Jerome put it there, and for no other reason. Prior to the formation of the Vulgate there was no commonly agreed sequence for the Books, and prior to the Council of Carthage there was much controversy surrounding the inclusion of Certain Books, including Revelations.
as I sated before, "Plus I garentee 100%, you cannot point out why my arguments fail that I have made against islam, as you have not even read any."
so my statement proves true. Muhammad and koran both claim to be 100%, and yes Muhammad said bible is 100% true at his time 600ad the bible we have today. But you would know that and the koranic passages they say so, because you have read all my arguments correct? lol. You are showing yourself up here. Hax has not challenged this because he knows it to be true.
That is because I have no interest in your views on Islam, or much interest in Islam in general. Being a Christian I do not consider the religion at all relevent unless there's a Muslim horde knocking at my gates, in which case the question become how best to kill them. Thankfully, we are largely past that now.
You here claim bible does not say jesus was the Incarnation, this is clearly false.
That is correct - it says he is the Messiah, the Son of Go, the Lamb of God, the Son of Man, nowhere does it say "He is the Incarnation of God Almighty Himself."
I would be glad to show so. Are you jahovas witness? please tell me clearly what you believe so I can respond. Yet a few responses later.you say he is below.
I said that the Bible does not say he is the Incarnation, not that he Is not.
NIV is not mine, I never made it up. i use many, what do you use may I ask?. Matt 4 and John 1 as stated are diffident times/places, this is clearly true.
There is no evidence that they are separate temporal events, or that both occurred. Matthew presents the meeting by the shore as the first time Peter and Andrew have met Jesus.
Or why peter,get up and follow jesus, someone he knows nothing about?
It's called "Divine Intervention".
The first john 1 is when andrew goes finds peter and tells him of jesus. Than later in matt 4 they become dipicles of jesus for good. It is clear from reading them in context.
Reading them in context means reading them as individual works by individuals who likely never met - the Canonical New Testament is a later invention.
I would say not a chance, unless the disciples had no choice to follow him, they did. There is no free will as well. I say the sick gut up and walked because they were healed, the disciples followed jesus because of johns testimony john 1 and what they saw/herd from him. Otherwise jesus could tell anyone follow me and they all would, all would follow/believe in him.
Give me an example of when Jesus asks someone to do something and they don't do it.
What I said was john was original disciple there from beginning. You claimed otherwise. Please reference what you are referring to about john and the 11 disciples.
Read John 21 - nowhere is the identity of the beloved disciple mentioned, it NEVER happens - read John 20 as well, there is a conscious effort not to name this disciple, but John is named. There is someone who is referred to a beloved of Jesus - and that is Lazarus, but he is not one of the 12 Apostles and so he is not counted as a disciple.
John is not the "original" disciple according to the Gospels, Peter comes first in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
I will ask again, you like to make claims. I wish you would back up claims please. Please provide evidence, the bible has not been acuratley translated.
Easy - translations differ. Jerome's translation was flawed, he uses "Inn" to translate "Upper Room", for example.
14.26
but they will have perfect knowledge of all things, so when they rite them down, it is without error.
Perfect?
Will they have perfect powers of expression? It does not say this, and in any case it does not say they will write anything down.
15.25
read john 20 30-31 john did testify about jesus and things he saw from the beginning. That is his gospel. But notice again, john was there from beginning.
It does not say that the person who wrote John saw these things - it merely says Jesus did things which are not written in John. Indeed, this is an admission that "John" is not a complete account of His life.
16.13
as I said, holy spirit leads apostles to writer gospels.
No - it leads them to testify. Others wrote that testimony down, this we know because they wrote after the Apostles died.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
2 Timothy 3:16
1. This refers to the Hebrew Scripture, as that was all the Scripture Paul knew.
2. It does not say the Scripture is infallible, merely that it is useful, one use for the contradictions and mistakes in scripture is to teach that God's word cannot be accurately expressed by living men.
you than claim somehow with ablsoulety no evidence
"None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves."
The Gospels are flawed - they cannot be the direct product of the Divine.
the fact is it applies to all NT writings and all apostles writings.
Paul was writing before the Gospels were written down, so it cannot refer to them, nor can it refer to the Epistles because Paul clearly did not see himself as a transmitter of Divine Will of a Prophet - his writings make clear that he saw himself as a fallen and flawed creature held up only by the Grace of God.
so your claim the bible is untrustworthy is not backed by any evidence in or outside the bible. Nor your claims john was not written by john or that he was not one of original disciples.
Yes it is, but you are willfully blind to it.
Some light reading to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels
you than claim amazingly.
John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact,
Jesus talks - he doesn't write.
as I have said over and over to you, please back up with evidence. This thread is not about your baseless opinions on who wrote the gospels, but a thread on Islam. I will be starting a thread on biblical translation later [largely because of you.].
I have provided exegesis and scholarly opinion on the origin of the Gospels - nobody else here is in any doubt about the evidence I have presented.
As it is said, the heretic often feels persecuted, ignores reason, sees himself as inerrant and believes only he has access to the Truth.
This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul.
This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul.
Or a professional internet troll... I fear we are being tolled.
The logic behind. "See, it says on the title page here that this is the writing of John - ERGO this is the writing of John" is just mind boggling backwards. Let's use the thing we are trying to prove as the final proof and conclusion. Ever heard of Petitio Principii?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-27-2012, 01:02
Or a professional internet troll... I fear we are being tolled.
The logic behind. "See, it says on the title page here that this is the writing of John - ERGO this is the writing of John" is just mind boggling backwards. Let's use the thing we are trying to prove as the final proof and conclusion. Ever heard of Petitio Principii?
Maybe - but this guy is really an example of why people started burning Protestants at the stake - he just can't be reasoned with.
a completely inoffensive name
11-27-2012, 03:12
Or a professional internet troll... I fear we are being tolled.
At last.....they see.
Kadagar_AV
11-27-2012, 03:19
One step up from a bot.
Still not capable of any sort of two way communication of course, but can react to simpler phrases and refer from a pre-set list of answers.
total relism
11-27-2012, 19:55
Going back to Genesis - Joseph is picked up by a caravan of camels, but there were no camels in the Levant at this date.
An anachronism introduced by later writers.
And here you show fundamental ignorance - Revelations is the "last" book of the Bible only because Saint Jerome put it there, and for no other reason. Prior to the formation of the Vulgate there was no commonly agreed sequence for the Books, and prior to the Council of Carthage there was much controversy surrounding the inclusion of Certain Books, including Revelations.
That is because I have no interest in your views on Islam, or much interest in Islam in general. Being a Christian I do not consider the religion at all relevent unless there's a Muslim horde knocking at my gates, in which case the question become how best to kill them. Thankfully, we are largely past that now.
That is correct - it says he is the Messiah, the Son of Go, the Lamb of God, the Son of Man, nowhere does it say "He is the Incarnation of God Almighty Himself."
[/B]
I said that the Bible does not say he is the Incarnation, not that he Is not.
There is no evidence that they are separate temporal events, or that both occurred. Matthew presents the meeting by the shore as the first time Peter and Andrew have met Jesus.
It's called "Divine Intervention".
Reading them in context means reading them as individual works by individuals who likely never met - the Canonical New Testament is a later invention.
Give me an example of when Jesus asks someone to do something and they don't do it.
Read John 21 - nowhere is the identity of the beloved disciple mentioned, it NEVER happens - read John 20 as well, there is a conscious effort not to name this disciple, but John is named. There is someone who is referred to a beloved of Jesus - and that is Lazarus, but he is not one of the 12 Apostles and so he is not counted as a disciple.
John is not the "original" disciple according to the Gospels, Peter comes first in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Easy - translations differ. Jerome's translation was flawed, he uses "Inn" to translate "Upper Room", for example.
Perfect?
Will they have perfect powers of expression? It does not say this, and in any case it does not say they will write anything down.
It does not say that the person who wrote John saw these things - it merely says Jesus did things which are not written in John. Indeed, this is an admission that "John" is not a complete account of His life.
No - it leads them to testify. Others wrote that testimony down, this we know because they wrote after the Apostles died.
1. This refers to the Hebrew Scripture, as that was all the Scripture Paul knew.
2. It does not say the Scripture is infallible, merely that it is useful, one use for the contradictions and mistakes in scripture is to teach that God's word cannot be accurately expressed by living men.
The Gospels are flawed - they cannot be the direct product of the Divine.
Paul was writing before the Gospels were written down, so it cannot refer to them, nor can it refer to the Epistles because Paul clearly did not see himself as a transmitter of Divine Will of a Prophet - his writings make clear that he saw himself as a fallen and flawed creature held up only by the Grace of God.
Yes it is, but you are willfully blind to it.
Some light reading to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels
[B]
Jesus talks - he doesn't write.
I have provided exegesis and scholarly opinion on the origin of the Gospels - nobody else here is in any doubt about the evidence I have presented.
As it is said, the heretic often feels persecuted, ignores reason, sees himself as inerrant and believes only he has access to the Truth.
This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul.
How desperate can you get? I ask for evidence of you claim john was not written by john, or nt not by the apostles and you say there were no camels at the time of Abraham?. Give me evidence of lions in isreal, we know they lived there, give me evidence. You wont find it. In archaeology absence of evidence is not evidence against. But here you go anyways.
The almost unanimous opinion of Biblical scholars is that mention of domesticated camels in the Patriarchal narratives (Gn 12:16; 24:10; 30:43) constitutes an anachronism. Camels, they say, were not domesticated until late in the second millennium BC, centuries after the Patriarchs were supposed to have lived. Even the great William F. Albright, well known for his support of the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, concluded that references to camel domestication in the book of Genesis were incorrect (1964: 153, n. 2).
Recent discoveries, however, have shown that this dismissal is unwarranted. Excavations in eastern Arabia, an area once believed to be a cultural backwater unworthy of archaeological investigation, have turned up evidence that camels were first domesticated by Semites before the time of Abraham. Much of this evidence has been examined by M. C. A. MacDonald of the Oriental Faculty at the University of Oxford and an epigraphist specializing in ancient North Arabian and Aramaic inscriptions. He wrote:
Recent research has suggested that domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [BC]. Originally, it was probably bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent (1995: 1357).
for more
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/02/19/Patriarchal-Wealth-and-Early-Domestication-of-the-Camel.aspx#Article
your ignorance of bible not mine. As the books are, revaluation was last written book by any apostle, by john around 95 AD. Last in theology [future jesus second coming] It is last in everyway. I dont care were it is placed in bible [it just happens to be last were it fits.]
So you admit to lying and claiming to have read my posts, that is what I wanted to point out. Perhaps not kill, but learn there religion and discus.? such as i try to. Also if your christian why do you lie so much?.
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen
Romans 9.5
#1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
john 1.1,18
God[a] was manifested in the flesh,
######Justified in the Spirit,
######Seen by angels,
######Preached among the Gentiles,
######Believed on in the world,
######Received up in glory.
1 timothy 3.16
he is called Emmanuel [god with us] matt 1.23
Luke 4.2 Jesus is being tempted by the devil, 4 9-11 Jesus reply 4.12
Just a few of the passages that could be cited.
so were do you get the idea from?
There is no evidence to suggest they are the same account, and much to say they are not. You are creating this, not the bible. Read side by side its clear.
That what you call would be against the bible, as god could control people to do what he wants. But he wants all to be saved, yet many are not. Well here is just one example
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
matt 23.37
I read them as god breathed as they claim to be, reading them side by side or together still, no contradiction you hoped for.
I have read I dont know what your argument is, john the disciple , author of the gospel of john is a original [not first] disciple, one of the twelve. As i pointed out with many passages.
and? I never said every translation ever made is 100%. I said provide evidence today's bible has been mistranslated and the original has been mistranslated. Were does it effect doctrine? as far as I am aware inn and upper room come can both be translated from same word.
but the claim is when they write down they have this knowledge. This is clear from bible.
I was referring to other john passage showing he was a original disciple.
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
circular reasoning, with no evidence to back up at all.
1] peter refers to pauls letters as scriture, paul refers to luke as scripture.
2] God-breathed is what we were looking for, god is the author. problem being you cant show one contradiction.
By all means show evidence why.
agreed, but has nothing to do with the claims in john and others that the holy spirit led them to write down what god wanted, as paul said.
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
1 peter 19-21
"not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
1 Corinthians 2:13
In this verse Paul says, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
1 Corinthians 14:37
When Paul speaks as an apostle of Jesus Christ to the churches it is "Christ that speaketh" in him (2 Cor. 13:3).
Paul did not learn his gospel at the feet of men but rather received it "through revelations of Jesus Christ," Gal. 1:12, some of which were "exceeding great" (2 Cor. 12:7).
my friend,you need to leave Jehovah witness and come to the truth.
I will respond to wiki last response below.
and?
I love this the most of all your responses so i will bold.
"I have provided exegesis and scholarly opinion on the origin of the Gospels - nobody else here is in any doubt about the evidence I have presented.
As it is said, the heretic often feels persecuted, ignores reason, sees himself as inerrant and believes only he has access to the Truth.
This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul."
So to support your claims with "scholarly opinion". You posted a wiki article. I have posted from actual 4 scholars with references that disagree with your wiki article. You claim wiki is "scholarly". can you show me in one debate on the translation of the bible, were a scholar quotes or refers to wiki? Yet you will see them refer to my quotes I posted and video references. I have asked from beginning for actual evidence of how the bible has been corrupted, you have provided nothing but your baseless opinion and baseless opinions on wiki with no evidence to support any of them. I can find you biblical scholars that say the bible talks about and saw aliens in Ezekiel, or that the bible teaches evolution. You can find liberal scholars that will claim anything you can imagine. I want evidence,not baseless claims. Do you truly believe I have not herd all the "theories" about how the gospels were written? I have watched hours of debate on subject. The problem is when you start with a worldview that demands the bible to be false, apostles to not have written books, than you must come up with some evolutionary process of how the bible was written/rewritten over time. because we know jesus was not really god, he did not really do miracles, he did not really rise from the dead. So these must be stories that grew over time, or invented to trick people into following there new religion etc etc. For example, the book of matt must have been written after 70 ad because it predicts the temple to fall, and since prophecy does not happen, we know matt was written after 70 ad. I dont care about people bias against god/divine author/bible miracles etc. I care about facts, what facts do you have the gospels were not written by the original apostles or Paul?. I highly suggest you watch some debates on the subject, with a conservative scholar there to defend the bible. As the quote I wrote before said, if these were secular documents, no one would question the authority of them, but because they talk of a man, who did miracles,claimed to be god, rose from dead, they must be imaginative written after events, not a eye witness account. If you watch my link with james white, this is why he asked Bart Ehrman [who attacks bible translation more than any] in the debate, does the bible misquote jesus, what has more evidence in all history to its authenticity than the NT, he replied nothing does.
historians have no trouble accepting :
There are two generally reliable accounts of Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing the Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after the actual event.7 Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote of Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after the actual event
Another famous event in history was Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC without disbanding his army.9 Suetonius (c. 69/75 – after 130), a Roman historian, wrote his historical account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event,10 and it is considered to be generally reliable. In addition, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death.11 And these biographies are considered to be generally trustworthy.
F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”
He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).
total relism
11-27-2012, 20:08
Or a professional internet troll... I fear we are being tolled.
The logic behind. "See, it says on the title page here that this is the writing of John - ERGO this is the writing of John" is just mind boggling backwards. Let's use the thing we are trying to prove as the final proof and conclusion. Ever heard of Petitio Principii?
Great you recognized circular reasoning. You should see it clear and over and over in Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla post.
However a good historian, you begin with what the books say, eternal evidence and what other at time after agree who wrote john. Do you have any reason/evidence to reject his authorship? The NT has more support than any ancient writing by far, yet we dont doubt who wrote other books from time period. Reasons being in the last post I gave read below.
So to support your claims with "scholarly opinion". You posted a wiki article. I have posted from actual 4 scholars with references that disagree with your wiki article. You claim wiki is "scholarly". can you show me in one debate on the translation of the bible, were a scholar quotes or refers to wiki? Yet you will see them refer to my quotes I posted and video references. I have asked from beginning for actual evidence of how the bible has been corrupted, you have provided nothing but your baseless opinion and baseless opinions on wiki with no evidence to support any of them. I can find you biblical scholars that say the bible talks about and saw aliens in Ezekiel, or that the bible teaches evolution. You can find liberal scholars that will claim anything you can imagine. I want evidence,not baseless claims. Do you truly believe I have not herd all the "theories" about how the gospels were written? I have watched hours of debate on subject. The problem is when you start with a worldview that demands the bible to be false, apostles to not have written books, than you must come up with some evolutionary process of how the bible was written/rewritten over time. because we know jesus was not really god, he did not really do miracles, he did not really rise from the dead. So these must be stories that grew over time, or invented to trick people into following there new religion etc etc. For example, the book of matt must have been written after 70 ad because it predicts the temple to fall, and since prophecy does not happen, we know matt was written after 70 ad. I dont care about people bias against god/divine author/bible miracles etc. I care about facts, what facts do you have the gospels were not written by the original apostles or Paul?. I highly suggest you watch some debates on the subject, with a conservative scholar there to defend the bible. As the quote I wrote before said, if these were secular documents, no one would question the authority of them, but because they talk of a man, who did miracles,claimed to be god, rose from dead, they must be imaginative written after events, not a eye witness account. If you watch my link with james white, this is why he asked Bart Ehrman [who attacks bible translation more than any] in the debate, does the bible misquote jesus, what has more evidence in all history to its authenticity than the NT, he replied nothing does.
historians have no trouble accepting :
There are two generally reliable accounts of Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing the Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after the actual event.7 Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote of Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after the actual event
Another famous event in history was Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC without disbanding his army.9 Suetonius (c. 69/75 – after 130), a Roman historian, wrote his historical account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event,10 and it is considered to be generally reliable. In addition, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death.11 And these biographies are considered to be generally trustworthy.
F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”
He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).
Maybe - but this guy is really an example of why people started burning Protestants at the stake - he just can't be reasoned with.
I believe i can, please tell me what you think has been shown that i should accept? what evidence has been given to support something I dont accept.
One step up from a bot.
Still not capable of any sort of two way communication of course, but can react to simpler phrases and refer from a pre-set list of answers.
especially when they only offer the above.
ad hominem
attack on person not argument
total relism
11-27-2012, 20:19
To get maybe back on topic
scary a bit, how Muslims view those that leave the faith, debate among Muslims.
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5322
Ibn Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.” Al-Bukhary (number 6922)
Abd-Allah ibn Masood said: The Messenger of Allah said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases: a soul (in case of murder); a married person who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of Muslims.” Sahih Al Bukhary number 6484 and Sahih Muslim number 1676
total relism
11-27-2012, 20:30
New debate
Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: The Message of Jesus and Muhammad
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-27-2012, 23:50
Totum Realism, In Nomine Dei Patri, Filiae et Spiritus Sancti, te maledicto!*
*Total Realism, I curse you in the Name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
Now - let us look at the calling of the first Disciples again.
We shall begin John:
The sequence begins at 1.35 and ends at 51 - sequence goes like this:
35. John stand with his disciples
36. John sees Jesus
37. John's disciples hear him exclaim and decide to follow IHC
38. IHC confronts them, they ask where he is staying.
39. They go with Jesus, they stay with him that afternoon.
40. One is Simon's brother, Andrew
41. He proclaims the Messiah to his brother, Simon.
42. He takes Simon to IHC and IHC declares him a rock.
43. The next day Jesus decides to go to Galilee. There he finds Philip, he tells Philip to follow him.
44. Philip is from the same city as Andre and Peter, Bethsaida.
45-51 Nathanael is called and Jesus proclaims he will do great signs.
This is clearly the callings of the first disciples, crucially, Peter and Andrew are in the city during the day, and so far as we can see they follow Jesus immediately Jesus goes to Galilee the next day and implication is that he takes Andrew and Peter with him, because he next calls Philip. The key point is that they are not already in Galilee - and if they had day jobs they have given them up.
Now, lets compare that to the (older) account in Matthew:
The relevant part is Matthew 4.12-22
12. John is arrested - IHC goes to Galilee.
13. Specifically, he settles in Capernaum
14-16. The prophecy is fulfilled.
17. IHC begins to preach (over a period of time, not just on a day).
18. Jesus sees Peter and Andrew at work (anybody who knows about lake-fishermen knows they'd have to work every day to survive, so this is clearly different to them being disciples of John. We know Peter was a disciple of John in John because like Andrew he was waiting for IHC.
19. IHC calls them to follow.
20. They immidiately do.
21. IHC sees James and John - so if John's Gospel claims "John" was there from the beginning, he is not the same John who is one of the 12.
22. They follow him also.
The differences are striking - principally, the difference is that John presents a coherent narrative, where the first two disciples come to Jesus and follow him of their own volition into Galilee whereas in Matthew Jesus flees to Galilee after John is captured by the Temple, he then begins to preach and there he finds Peter and Andrew together at work. There is not enough time for John to fit within the narrative of Matthew, because in John 2. Jesus already has his disciples with him when he goes to the Wedding, but he has not yet begun to preach, while in Matthew he has begun to preach and wander through Galilee before he calls any of his disciples.
The fact that Peter is being called to be IHC's disciple in John 1 is made very clear in the latter part of that chapter by the way Philip and then Nathanael are called - and even if you support the "two callings" argument you can't account for the discrepancy over whether Jesus already has disciples when he begins to preach.
So, one of the Gospels is wrong and John is the most likely culprit because it is later and because it presents Peter, by then the Crucified head of the Church (we know Peter is dead by the time John is written because it tells us so) as a more proactive figure who is already waiting for IHC's arrival, rather than as a passive fisherman, a simple man from a simple background called to great work.
Kadagar_AV
11-27-2012, 23:55
Wrote stuff.
I'm not sure that's very convincing. Care to back it up with a film title? Pretty much any DVD release will do.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-28-2012, 00:15
I'm not sure that's very convincing. Care to back it up with a film title? Pretty much any DVD release will do.
I promise I'll get to that thread on how Norse Paganism is awesome - stop bugging me man!
The Stranger
11-28-2012, 00:31
blabla
passion of the christ.
(this total relism guy must be horrible if even Kadagar cant stand him :O)
Kadagar_AV
11-28-2012, 01:47
I promise I'll get to that thread on how Norse Paganism is awesome - stop bugging me man!
The Christian God supposedly fight evil. Odin fight frost giants.
I don't see any frost giants around.
passion of the christ.
(this total relism guy must be horrible if even Kadagar cant stand him :O)
But the Swedish ski instructor is such a ball of charm
total relism
11-28-2012, 19:01
Totum Realism, In Nomine Dei Patri, Filiae et Spiritus Sancti, te maledicto!*
*Total Realism, I curse you in the Name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
Now - let us look at the calling of the first Disciples again.
We shall begin John:
The sequence begins at 1.35 and ends at 51 - sequence goes like this:
35. John stand with his disciples
36. John sees Jesus
37. John's disciples hear him exclaim and decide to follow IHC
38. IHC confronts them, they ask where he is staying.
39. They go with Jesus, they stay with him that afternoon.
40. One is Simon's brother, Andrew
41. He proclaims the Messiah to his brother, Simon.
42. He takes Simon to IHC and IHC declares him a rock.
43. The next day Jesus decides to go to Galilee. There he finds Philip, he tells Philip to follow him.
44. Philip is from the same city as Andre and Peter, Bethsaida.
45-51 Nathanael is called and Jesus proclaims he will do great signs.
This is clearly the callings of the first disciples, crucially, Peter and Andrew are in the city during the day, and so far as we can see they follow Jesus immediately Jesus goes to Galilee the next day and implication is that he takes Andrew and Peter with him, because he next calls Philip. The key point is that they are not already in Galilee - and if they had day jobs they have given them up.
Now, lets compare that to the (older) account in Matthew:
The relevant part is Matthew 4.12-22
12. John is arrested - IHC goes to Galilee.
13. Specifically, he settles in Capernaum
14-16. The prophecy is fulfilled.
17. IHC begins to preach (over a period of time, not just on a day).
18. Jesus sees Peter and Andrew at work (anybody who knows about lake-fishermen knows they'd have to work every day to survive, so this is clearly different to them being disciples of John. We know Peter was a disciple of John in John because like Andrew he was waiting for IHC.
19. IHC calls them to follow.
20. They immidiately do.
21. IHC sees James and John - so if John's Gospel claims "John" was there from the beginning, he is not the same John who is one of the 12.
22. They follow him also.
The differences are striking - principally, the difference is that John presents a coherent narrative, where the first two disciples come to Jesus and follow him of their own volition into Galilee whereas in Matthew Jesus flees to Galilee after John is captured by the Temple, he then begins to preach and there he finds Peter and Andrew together at work. There is not enough time for John to fit within the narrative of Matthew, because in John 2. Jesus already has his disciples with him when he goes to the Wedding, but he has not yet begun to preach, while in Matthew he has begun to preach and wander through Galilee before he calls any of his disciples.
The fact that Peter is being called to be IHC's disciple in John 1 is made very clear in the latter part of that chapter by the way Philip and then Nathanael are called - and even if you support the "two callings" argument you can't account for the discrepancy over whether Jesus already has disciples when he begins to preach.
So, one of the Gospels is wrong and John is the most likely culprit because it is later and because it presents Peter, by then the Crucified head of the Church (we know Peter is dead by the time John is written because it tells us so) as a more proactive figure who is already waiting for IHC's arrival, rather than as a passive fisherman, a simple man from a simple background called to great work.
I disagree for the reasons I stated before, I shall again.
John 1
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV
matt 4
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4&version=NIV
Notice it never says peter follows jesus, just that andrew and another disciple andrew with jesus. Than andrew goes and gets peter by himself in v 41 brings him to jesus, all jesus says to peter is you will be called Cephas. It says nothing of him following jesus as a disciple,nothing of him fishing etc Plus you would have to explain why the disciples [peter] just up and followed jesus in matt when fishing, if they had no prior knowledge of him. He becomes disciple later fully in matt 4. As far as being a fisherman, he was and a disciple of Jesus the same time. Just as paul who did more than any disciple worked full time. You were not paid to follow a teacher [jesus] you had to work. The disciples worked the entire time.
Or it could just be, that they were already disciples from john 1 [I dont agree] and did not levee fishing/business until matt 4.
1. The Beginning of Christ’s Public Ministry
a. Jesus baptized in the Jordan (Mark 1:9-11, Matt 3:13-17, Luke 3:21-23)
b. Christ Tempted in the Wilderness (Mark1:12-13, Matt 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13)
c. John the Baptist testifies of Christ (John 1:19-34)
d. Calling of the first Disciples (John 1:35-51)
e. First Miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11)
f. First cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13-22)
g. Meeting with Nicodemus (John 2:23-3:21)
h. Christ leaves Judea (Mark 1:14, Matt 4:12, John 4:1-4, Luke 3:19-20; 4:14)
i. Jesus goes to Jacob’s Well in Samaria and in Sychar (John 4:5-42)
j. Christ goes to Galilee (John 4:43-45)
2. The Galilean Ministry
a. Healing in Cana (John 4:46-54)
b. First rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-31)
c. New home in Capernaum (Matt 4:13-16)
d. Christ calls four fishers of men (Mark 1:16-20, Matt 4:18-22, Luke 5:1-11)
here is a site I found that agrees with me
The reason for the disparities in these stories is not because they are contradictory (as Paul Carson alleged in his 1995 article, “New Testament Contradictions”), but because John is describing a totally separate incident from the one the synoptists describe. John places Andrew, Peter, and the unnamed disciple (who very likely was John himself; see McGarvey, n.d., p. 109) in Judea (cf. John 1:19,28), whereas the synoptists describe an event that took place in Galilee (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16; Luke 5:1). What’s more, the call for Peter, Andrew, James, and John to become “fishers of men” (i.e., apostles) in the synoptics is absent in John 1. As Luther noted: “John’s theme is not the calling of the apostles into office; it is there congenial association with Christ” (as quoted in Morris, 1995, p. 136). In John, “[t]he disciples of John [the Baptizer—EL] recognize the Messiah and spontaneously attach themselves to him” (Morris, p. 136). In the synoptics, the disciples clearly were called to begin a life of service as apostles (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17; Luke 5:10). At least two other differences in these accounts are evident: (1) In John 1, Andrew is with an unnamed disciple, not Peter (whom he later finds and informs that he had “found” the Messiah), whereas in the synoptics, Peter and Andrew are called together; (2) James and John are called together in the synoptics, whereas in John 1, James is nowhere mentioned, while John is likely the unnamed disciple (John 1:37).
The skeptic’s charge that John contradicts Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ calling of the apostles is unwarranted. John actually referred to a different circumstance altogether. John records Peter and Andrew’s first meeting with the Christ. The synoptists, however, testify of a later meeting, when Jesus called them at the Sea of Galilee to become “fishers of men.” Once again, the problem is not with the Bible writers, but with the Bible critic.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=513
here is more in depth response
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/disciples_chrono.htm
My friend, I have shown all your claims false, I wish to offer you a 1v1 debate on a topic such as we discus here. This thread is on islam. Would you be willing to debate me 1v1? what topic would you like?.
HoreTore
11-28-2012, 19:31
What on earth is this fascination with "1v1 debate"....?
total relism
11-28-2012, 21:10
What on earth is this fascination with "1v1 debate"....?
I dont now, I love them. I can focus 100% on topic of debate, and only have one person to respond to. Also it gives a clear answer to who is correct, as on forums with many posters, you often dont get to see responses right after what is said/claimed. There is nowhere to run in other words. I do so often, I can no longer get anyone on twcenter forums to debate 1v1 with me. So I need to come here or other places lol. Mosley just to keep on one topic, every atheist/liberal wants to post there internet reasons why they object to bible every time i make a thread [even on Islam] so I have to respond to much off topic. Also getting a constant poster off topic such as here, to debate 1v1. Than hopefully the thread can get back on topic.
Kadagar_AV
11-28-2012, 21:21
I dont now, I love them. I can focus 100% on topic of debate, and only have one person to respond to. Also it gives a clear answer to who is correct, as on forums with many posters, you often dont get to see responses right after what is said/claimed. There is nowhere to run in other words. I do so often, I can no longer get anyone on twcenter forums to debate 1v1 with me. So I need to come here or other places lol. Mosley just to keep on one topic, every atheist/liberal wants to post there internet reasons why they object to bible every time i make a thread [even on Islam] so I have to respond to much off topic. Also getting a constant poster off topic such as here, to debate 1v1. Than hopefully the thread can get back on topic.
Do you argue in the same way when you 1v1?
IE, no thinking of your own, no listening in to the other person, and a bombardment of questionable sources?
You have only been here a short while, and you have already on at least two separate occasions mixed up who you are addressing and why! This, if anything, made it completely obvious to me that you purely are interested in using these boards to get HEARD, but you have no interest what so ever to learn anything about the world or the people that inhibit it.
I for one find such a person uninteresting to debate with.
HoreTore
11-28-2012, 23:21
I dont now, I love them. I can focus 100% on topic of debate, and only have one person to respond to. Also it gives a clear answer to who is correct, as on forums with many posters, you often dont get to see responses right after what is said/claimed. There is nowhere to run in other words. I do so often, I can no longer get anyone on twcenter forums to debate 1v1 with me. So I need to come here or other places lol. Mosley just to keep on one topic, every atheist/liberal wants to post there internet reasons why they object to bible every time i make a thread [even on Islam] so I have to respond to much off topic. Also getting a constant poster off topic such as here, to debate 1v1. Than hopefully the thread can get back on topic.
The bolded sentence is contradictory.
In order to establish "who is correct", one cannot simply rely on two individuals. The more people you include, the closer you can get to "correct".
If you meant to say "who can post the most convincing argument", then you would be correct. But in that case, getting close to the truth is irrelevant, and it's no more than a pissing contest. While pissing contests can be fun to watch, I certainly hope this forum does not devolve into it. We need more meaningful discussions here, not measurements of the posters e-penises.
As for derailing, that's a cherished feature of this forum(see the israel-turned-viking-thread). It has its upsides and its downsides, and is really just something you need to adopt to. It will happen, learn ways to focus your attention on the topics you find interesting. It really isn't very hard.
As for derailing, that's a cherished feature of this forum(see the israel-turned-viking-thread). It has its upsides and its downsides, and is really just something you need to adopt to. It will happen, learn ways to focus your attention on the topics you find interesting. It really isn't very hard.
I don't really think the thread has been derailed. The OP is about Islam not being the one true religion, and the Bible is being used as proof to that theory. The validity of the Bible is thus open to dispute.
HoreTore
11-29-2012, 00:30
I don't really think the thread has been derailed. The OP is about Islam not being the one true religion, and the Bible is being used as proof to that theory. The validity of the Bible is thus open to dispute.
Of course, related subjects don't count as derailing. Posting a thread doesn't make you "evil nazi overlord" of said thread... I was talking generally, not about this specific thread(which I haven't read very carefully, except for PVC's posts).
total relism
11-29-2012, 01:12
Do you argue in the same way when you 1v1?
IE, no thinking of your own, no listening in to the other person, and a bombardment of questionable sources?
You have only been here a short while, and you have already on at least two separate occasions mixed up who you are addressing and why! This, if anything, made it completely obvious to me that you purely are interested in using these boards to get HEARD, but you have no interest what so ever to learn anything about the world or the people that inhibit it.
I for one find such a person uninteresting to debate with.
If you see koran/bible as questionable sources than I can do nothing, after all this is thread on Islam turned bible. The sources used against my posts, wiki. I have quoted scholars as well, but it matters not, the content and information matters more than a logical fallacies attacking what some arbitrarily see as a bad source.
What makes you think I dont think on my own? in fact if i did not, would I not automatically agree with anyone with different opinion? If I could not think on my own than I would agree with all post. No its that I have studied deeply, that all the common o objections I respond to. I do care to learn what others think/believe, that does not mean I have to agree with them. I dont share same bias/presupisitions/worldview. so I will not agree with them. But if you feel there has been evidence presented i ignore, let me now please. This questions may seem off topic but, what are your opinions on islam/Muhammad?.
total relism
11-29-2012, 01:14
The bolded sentence is contradictory.
In order to establish "who is correct", one cannot simply rely on two individuals. The more people you include, the closer you can get to "correct".
If you meant to say "who can post the most convincing argument", then you would be correct. But in that case, getting close to the truth is irrelevant, and it's no more than a pissing contest. While pissing contests can be fun to watch, I certainly hope this forum does not devolve into it. We need more meaningful discussions here, not measurements of the posters e-penises.
As for derailing, that's a cherished feature of this forum(see the israel-turned-viking-thread). It has its upsides and its downsides, and is really just something you need to adopt to. It will happen, learn ways to focus your attention on the topics you find interesting. It really isn't very hard.
Certain claims, such as john 1 and matt 4 contradict, can be shown true by 2 people who disagree on it, I believe. I care mostly only for truth claims, is islam true etc. These things should be discussed debated. I dont care if I "win" a argument, I care about truth.
HoreTore
11-29-2012, 01:37
Certain claims, such as john 1 and matt 4 contradict, can be shown true by 2 people who disagree on it, I believe. I care mostly only for truth claims, is islam true etc. These things should be discussed debated. I dont care if I "win" a argument, I care about truth.
If you do care about the "truth", then you will drop the "1v1"-thing. All it does is limit the number of possible viewpoints down to 2, as well as limiting the amount of knowledge in those viewpoints. If two people discuss, the maximum amount of knowledge is the sum of the knowledge those two persons have. Add a third, and you've expanded that sum by 50%, assuming all three are at about the same level of knowledge. Add a fourth, and you have twice as much knowledge available as in your "1v"1-consept.
You made another interesting claim earlier though: I got the feeling that you believed your message had hit home when others reacted in a certain way. I believe it was anger, disbelief and general uninterest... Anyway, such reactions does not mean "his points are valid", rather they mean "this discussion is too dumb for me to waste my time on it". Quite the opposite, eh? If people continue to offer rebuttals, however, it may indicate that they are taking your opinions into account and are considering them. That's a big "may" though, the other poster might very well still disregard your posting as rubbish.
If people stop responding to your arguments, your conclusion should not be "he's considering what I'm saying", it shiuld rather be "I haven't presented my argument well enough for the other guy to even consider". I've ran my share of debates into the ground on this forum, and when the person I'm debating stops posting, that's a sure sign my argument is either 1) plain wrong or 2) badly presented.
If you want to check if other posters are taking your opinions into consideration, you will have to follow them over time, and look for sliding changes in opinion. If you see signs of that happening, you can pet yourself on the back and think "jolly well done old sport!" to yourself.
Kadagar_AV
11-29-2012, 01:42
If you see koran/bible as questionable sources than I can do nothing, after all this is thread on Islam turned bible. The sources used against my posts, wiki. I have quoted scholars as well, but it matters not, the content and information matters more than a logical fallacies attacking what some arbitrarily see as a bad source.
What makes you think I dont think on my own? in fact if i did not, would I not automatically agree with anyone with different opinion? If I could not think on my own than I would agree with all post. No its that I have studied deeply, that all the common o objections I respond to. I do care to learn what others think/believe, that does not mean I have to agree with them. I dont share same bias/presupisitions/worldview. so I will not agree with them. But if you feel there has been evidence presented i ignore, let me now please. This questions may seem off topic but, what are your opinions on islam/Muhammad?.
My view on Mohammad is that he viewed from the perspective of his time was delusional, and that he from a modern perspective are a child molester.
My view on Islam is that it is a set of fables, created by a half civilized desert people a long time ago.
My view on your stance towards evidence, is that I envy your world view. Must be a much easier place to live in. Too bad it can only be considered delusional.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-29-2012, 03:18
FYI - I can't debate with TR any more because I've excommunicated him from myself for his gross, and frankly dangerous, heterodoxy.
Would someone mind explaining that to him, please?
Kadagar_AV
11-29-2012, 03:45
TotalRelism, FYI - PVC can't debate with You any more because he has excommunicated You from Himself for Your gross, and frankly dangerous, heterodoxy.
Sarmatian
11-29-2012, 09:53
What's a heterodoxy?
What's a heterodoxy?
RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM
My view on Islam is that it is a set of fables, created by a half civilized desert people a long time ago.
Then it's not Islamophobic, simply Arabophobic.
In any case, I think that cultural practices in that area of the world in this particular time were not less civilised than practices in any other part of the world. You're saying silly things.
Kadagar_AV
11-29-2012, 11:51
Then it's not Islamophobic, simply Arabophobic.
In any case, I think that cultural practices in that area of the world in this particular time were not less civilised than practices in any other part of the world. You're saying silly things.
Sorry Hax, I think you read to much islamophobia into things.
Do you think I would rate the contemporary Viking civilization any higher? The Arabic world at that time was a shining beacon that held on to knowledge throughout the western dark ages.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-29-2012, 11:55
What's a heterodoxy?
Heresy.
Papewaio
11-29-2012, 13:08
So Homodoxy is the truth not a ladyboy? :smoking:
Sorry Hax, I think you read to much islamophobia into things.
Yeah, because all my posts are about I really love Islam, right? Did you even read my post? I was talking about you making a racist, rather than an Islamophobic statement. Unless of course, you extend that same notion of "half civilised" to other civilisations of the time.
EDIT: My bad, you just did that.
Couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread. I imagine that someone has already said that most modern "Islamic" beliefs are not based on the Koran but on Arab custom and folklore cobbled together hundreds of years after. The Koran only mentions muhammad twice, doesn't mention Mecca once... Etc.
total relism
11-29-2012, 20:13
If you do care about the "truth", then you will drop the "1v1"-thing. All it does is limit the number of possible viewpoints down to 2, as well as limiting the amount of knowledge in those viewpoints. If two people discuss, the maximum amount of knowledge is the sum of the knowledge those two persons have. Add a third, and you've expanded that sum by 50%, assuming all three are at about the same level of knowledge. Add a fourth, and you have twice as much knowledge available as in your "1v"1-consept.
You made another interesting claim earlier though: I got the feeling that you believed your message had hit home when others reacted in a certain way. I believe it was anger, disbelief and general uninterest... Anyway, such reactions does not mean "his points are valid", rather they mean "this discussion is too dumb for me to waste my time on it". Quite the opposite, eh? If people continue to offer rebuttals, however, it may indicate that they are taking your opinions into account and are considering them. That's a big "may" though, the other poster might very well still disregard your posting as rubbish.
If people stop responding to your arguments, your conclusion should not be "he's considering what I'm saying", it shiuld rather be "I haven't presented my argument well enough for the other guy to even consider". I've ran my share of debates into the ground on this forum, and when the person I'm debating stops posting, that's a sure sign my argument is either 1) plain wrong or 2) badly presented.
If you want to check if other posters are taking your opinions into consideration, you will have to follow them over time, and look for sliding changes in opinion. If you see signs of that happening, you can pet yourself on the back and think "jolly well done old sport!" to yourself.
I can see what your saying sure, but when it is a 1v1 than those 2 people can focus 1005 on the topic, that is what I enjoy.
you could be very right in second paragraph, but i think if you go back and read the back and forth's, you will see why the objections have slowly dwindled from certain persons. That is why I believe [this happens all the time on many forums] they bounce around from one objection to another, trying to get one to stick. They never really objected for these reasons, they are excuses.
Thank you for the advice. Nice post. Just wondering, what are your opinions on Islam?.
My view on your stance towards evidence, is that I envy your world view. Must be a much easier place to live in. Too bad it can only be considered delusional.
I feel the same way, there is no better time in history to be atheist, have sex with multiple woman, easy, meet online etc drink/drugs easily and cheep. Than to imagine there is no right and wrong no sin, i dont have to answer to anyone for my thoughts/actions, just die and that is the end. But again, I cannot given the evidence follow that worldview, care to debate me 1v1? what does the evidence support, chirtianity or atheism?.
RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM
Then it's not Islamophobic, simply Arabophobic.
In any case, I think that cultural practices in that area of the world in this particular time were not less civilised than practices in any other part of the world. You're saying silly things.
It is generally called
you have committed the logical fallacy known as chronological snobbery by assuming the age of an idea demonstrates its truth or falsity. The age of the biblical record does not invalidate its witness or render it irrelevant.
people tend to think they are better than others simply because they were born later, and building on what those that came before them created [Muslims included].
total relism
11-29-2012, 20:17
Couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread. I imagine that someone has already said that most modern "Islamic" beliefs are not based on the Koran but on Arab custom and folklore cobbled together hundreds of years after. The Koran only mentions muhammad twice, doesn't mention Mecca once... Etc.
This may be true to some extant, but often these customs etc are just the result o following the koran or a "holy" book.But I do disagree on koran only mentioning Muhammad twice, it does often. Mecca is good question 1 sec. Here are some reasons Muslims see mecca as important [posted b-4].
Muhammad was born in mecca
mecca was center of worship before Islam, 360 tribal deities tribes in Arabia made the pilgrimage to mecca before Islam.
week long pilgrimage to mecca pillar number 5
In mecca is the ka'bah a black cubed shape building, they march around it 7 times believing this is were Abraham offered Ishmael as a sacrifice on the alter,they believe Abraham built it. Than they go to 3 pillars to stone it believing they are stoning satan, and freeing themselves from sin for the year. Than they go to the cave they believe Mohammad received revaluations to form Koran
walking around ka'bah at mecca 2.124-130
mecca is called the mother city 6.92-93
pilgrimage to sacred house-shaving heads 2.196
no meat during pilgrimage 5 1-3
pilgrimage to mecca 3.95-100
circling of mosque made for Abraham on pilgrimage 22.25-30
mecca center of islam
only Muslims can enter mecca
on the pilgrimage Muslims go to a place adam and eve found each other outside eden, and spot of final sermon of Muhammad.
Couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread. I imagine that someone has already said that most modern "Islamic" beliefs are not based on the Koran but on Arab custom and folklore cobbled together hundreds of years after. The Koran only mentions muhammad twice, doesn't mention Mecca once... Etc.
Still, Koran all on its own is filled with plenty of hate.
you have committed the logical fallacy known as chronological snobbery by assuming the age of an idea demonstrates its truth or falsity. The age of the biblical record does not invalidate its witness or render it irrelevant.
Where the hell did you get the idea that I was saying anything about truth? I'm not even remotely interested in that, and as a matter of fact, the Qur'an and the Bible as well as the Torah are right next to Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings and other works of fiction.
Still, Koran all on its own is filled with plenty of hate.
Not particularly. It's a fairly moderate book, generally just advising and suggesting the wisest course.
Not particularly. It's a fairly moderate book, generally just advising and suggesting the wisest course.
This is just plain false. It's filled with hatred towards Jews and Christians. Loaded with it.
This may be true to some extant, but often these customs etc are just the result o following the koran or a "holy" book.But I do disagree on koran only mentioning Muhammad twice, it does often. Mecca is good question 1 sec. Here are some reasons Muslims see mecca as important [posted b-4].
Muhammad was born in mecca
mecca was center of worship before Islam, 360 tribal deities tribes in Arabia made the pilgrimage to mecca before Islam.
week long pilgrimage to mecca pillar number 5
In mecca is the ka'bah a black cubed shape building, they march around it 7 times believing this is were Abraham offered Ishmael as a sacrifice on the alter,they believe Abraham built it. Than they go to 3 pillars to stone it believing they are stoning satan, and freeing themselves from sin for the year. Than they go to the cave they believe Mohammad received revaluations to form Koran
walking around ka'bah at mecca 2.124-130
mecca is called the mother city 6.92-93
pilgrimage to sacred house-shaving heads 2.196
no meat during pilgrimage 5 1-3
pilgrimage to mecca 3.95-100
circling of mosque made for Abraham on pilgrimage 22.25-30
mecca center of islam
only Muslims can enter mecca
on the pilgrimage Muslims go to a place adam and eve found each other outside eden, and spot of final sermon of Muhammad.
I made a mistake. Muhammed is mentioned 5 times and jesus 25 times in the Koran. Mecca is not mentioned. A place called Bacca is referred to. It's a site that modern historians think is probably near the dead sea. Mecca was nowheresville back then.
This is just plain false. It's filled with hatred towards Jews and Christians. Loaded with it.
Possibly lots of criticism of Christianity, but not Judaism. It's a Jewish repost to Christianity.
Possibly lots of criticism of Christianity, but not Judaism.
Yes Judaism. It hates them equally and usually bundles them together when referencing them.
total relism
11-29-2012, 21:51
Where the hell did you get the idea that I was saying anything about truth? I'm not even remotely interested in that, and as a matter of fact, the Qur'an and the Bible as well as the Torah are right next to Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings and other works of fiction.
I was just pointing out his logical fallacie, that he believes he is better than Muslims who lived back at time of Muhammad just because he is born now.
I made a mistake. Muhammed is mentioned 5 times and jesus 25 times in the Koran. Mecca is not mentioned. A place called Bacca is referred to. It's a site that modern historians think is probably near the dead sea. Mecca was nowheresville back then.
mecca and bacca are same thing, koran not written in english. also meeca is mentioned 48:24 And He it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He had given you victory over them; and Allah is Seeing what you do.
But there is no question to the importance of the city/reasons why for Muslims. also, mecca was leading worship/pilgarmaige place for pre islamic arabia pagans.
Possibly lots of criticism of Christianity, but not Judaism. It's a Jewish repost to Christianity.
both, look to post 20 and 23.
Here's a link to a site which has selectively chosen and highlighted what it takes to be the most divisive and anti Jewish and Christian passages specifically to further an agenda:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/koranjews.html
I have to say that if that is as bad as it gets when presented in as bad a context as possible then it doesn't amount to much. The worst of it is just saying that God will judge the Jews and Christians and that anyone else who is an unbeliever will feel the wrath. Slightly more tolerant than Christianity really. No one but the inner circle get on the guest list there.
Idaho, you been readin' Tom Holland?
No mecca is mecca. Bacca was somewhere else.
Idaho, you been readin' Tom Holland?
Yeah I read that. I read a few Bible histories too.
Here's a link to a site which has selectively chosen and highlighted what it takes to be the most divisive and anti Jewish and Christian passages specifically to further an agenda:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/koranjews.html
I have to say that if that is as bad as it gets when presented in as bad a context as possible then it doesn't amount to much. The worst of it is just saying that God will judge the Jews and Christians and that anyone else who is an unbeliever will feel the wrath. Slightly more tolerant than Christianity really. No one but the inner circle get on the guest list there.
This (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm) is a nice rundown...
Koran 5:51 basically says it all. No comments needed.
Let's whip out the old Arabic Quran:
"yâ ayyuha alladina 'âmanu la-tattahidu-lyahûda wa-nnasârâ awliyâ'a"
Now, I am far from an expert on Arabic or Qur'anic exegesis, but I'd translate it something like
"Oh, you who believe, do not take the Jews or the Christians [as] governors". Now, the word here probably doesn't mean governor, but looking up the word "wali" in the dictionaries, we find things such as:
manager of a thing or of the affairs of another (Msb.:) the guardian, or manager of the affairs and maintainer, of an orphan: the guardian of a woman, who affiances her, and independently of whom marriage cannot be contracted by her.
There are a lot of different meanings to the word "wali" (awliya being a plural form). This does not mean that the Qur'an is saying that Christians are really cool, but it might mean something different.
EDIT: Also this notion of "no comments needed" is relatively silly. You have no ideas about how difficult it is to render Arabic into English or Dutch, for example. I have problems translating modern literature into understandeable (and meaningful) Dutch, let alone poetry or religious text.
You shouldn't get trolled... This TR is just posting slightly related texts he finds on the internet as answers to your posts.
It took me a little while to get it, but you can clearly see quality changes many times over in his posts. The stuff he actually produces has very bad grammar and is near unintelligible, but then he put something in as a direct answer to something you wrote and you go.. huh?
It is intelligible, but slightly off, and usually mentions something you didn't claim.
If you take that exact text and google it, you'll find it somewhere else, usually on a Christian apologetic site like answersingenesis.
total relism
11-29-2012, 23:07
Here's a link to a site which has selectively chosen and highlighted what it takes to be the most divisive and anti Jewish and Christian passages specifically to further an agenda:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/koranjews.html
I have to say that if that is as bad as it gets when presented in as bad a context as possible then it doesn't amount to much. The worst of it is just saying that God will judge the Jews and Christians and that anyone else who is an unbeliever will feel the wrath. Slightly more tolerant than Christianity really. No one but the inner circle get on the guest list there.
I would say it gets much worse and clearer in koran, post 20-23. My guess,you will never even read the passages or koran.
You shouldn't get trolled... This TR is just posting slightly related texts he finds on the internet as answers to your posts.
It took me a little while to get it, but you can clearly see quality changes many times over in his posts. The stuff he actually produces has very bad grammar and is near unintelligible, but then he put something in as a direct answer to something you wrote and you go.. huh?
It is intelligible, but slightly off, and usually mentions something you didn't claim.
If you take that exact text and google it, you'll find it somewhere else, usually on a Christian apologetic site like answersingenesis.
So because i have bad grammar? I will wait for support for the rest, to point out logical fallacies and how arbitrary you are. But by all means, never debate content lol.
total relism
11-29-2012, 23:08
New debate
Zakir Hussain vs. David Wood: Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and the Covenant
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
Kadagar_AV
11-30-2012, 00:30
New debate
Zakir Hussain vs. David Wood: Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and the Covenant
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
I think it's important with the basics.
Abraham is clearly significant in the formation of Islam; he is found in 25 suras of the Koran. He is a prophet, one who received revelation, the example of pure faith, who paid his debt in full, and a strict monotheist who struggled with idol worshipers. Islam is said to be an expression of the religion of Abraham, the friend of God; and Abraham is considered a prototype of Mohammed.
The Koran is said to have been given by revelation to the illiterate Mohammed by dictation. But it is certain that was made from several sources chosen because they fit the ideas of Mohammed: (1) pre-Islamic traditional beliefs in poetic form, (2) Talmudic legends from Jews in Arabia, (3) misinformation from heretical Christian sects, (4) eastern ideas from Persia and India (Arabia was under Persian control), and (5) ideas from his friends who were seeking truth. The most frequent source is the material from the Jewish Talmud.
Mohammed appears to have made several changes in the traditions. First, people would now face Mecca to pray, and not Jerusalem. Second, Abraham and Ishmael are said to have built the Kaaba, the black structure in the middle of the shrine in Mecca (originally housing many gods), and rivals Solomon’s building of the temple. Third, Ishmael comes to prominence as the “chosen of God.”
Ishmael then becomes recognized as a prophet (even though he came to prominence late in the Koran--early on he is not mentioned, only Isaac and Jacob).
But later Mohammed taught that Abraham went to Mecca to sacrifice his son (who is not named)--that son came to be identified as Ishmael. Mohammed also believed that Abraham accompanied Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca before returning home to Sarah. Ishmael married a South Arabian; Abraham came to visit him and together they built the black stone shrine. Islam heralds God as the “God of Abraham, Ishmael, and Mohammed.”
And in the traditions Ishmael is in strife to inherit the promises to Abraham (Genesis 16, 17, 21 form a paradigm of the conflict). At the center is Jerusalem, which becomes another holy spot for Islam (the third in order after Mecca and Medina), for the tradition is that Abraham built it, Mohammed’s flight and descent were located there, and Arabs possessed it. Jerusalem is not important in the Koran.
Christians need to know more about these kinds of traditions in Islam, because right or wrong they are traditions deeply rooted in religion and politics. In dealing with Islamic people Christians should focus more on God’s grace in choosing a disobedient people rather than giving the impression that Israel was God’s favorite over all other nations.
The Stranger
11-30-2012, 02:37
What on earth is this fascination with "1v1 debate"....?
Duh, he is more skilled in 1v1, PVC is a teamplayer, everyone knows 1v1 is way harder and 1v1 players rape teamplayers. Every now and then teamplayers need to be put in their place by 1v1 players to make clear the natural order of things. It has been so since the dawn of e-sports and it will be so untill the dusk of times.
Don't forget to say GG NO RE after the 1v1 debate and egopost the result on reddit, facebook and twitter.
a completely inoffensive name
11-30-2012, 03:55
Duh, he is more skilled in 1v1, PVC is a teamplayer, everyone knows 1v1 is way harder and 1v1 players rape teamplayers. Every now and then teamplayers need to be put in their place by 1v1 players to make clear the natural order of things. It has been so since the dawn of e-sports and it will be so untill the dusk of times.
Don't forget to say GG NO RE after the 1v1 debate and egopost the result on reddit, facebook and twitter.
For the love of god, play me 1v1 in StarCraft 2 you scrub.
The Stranger
11-30-2012, 04:57
For the love of god, play me 1v1 in StarCraft 2 you scrub.
I'm an AoE3 player but I could actually own you in SC2 because AoE3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SC2.
(on a sidenote I actually play both games tbh, it would be fun to play you if you want :D ah i forgot about the server thing =_= i hope for you you are not on the EU server or I will still have to kick ur ass XD)
a completely inoffensive name
11-30-2012, 08:02
I'm an AoE3 player but I could actually own you in SC2 because AoE3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SC2.
(on a sidenote I actually play both games tbh, it would be fun to play you if you want :D ah i forgot about the server thing =_= i hope for you you are not on the EU server or I will still have to kick ur ass XD)
What league bro? Also, Heart of the Swarm will have cross server play.
This (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm) is a nice rundown...
Koran 5:51 basically says it all. No comments needed.
That page has conflated unbelievers with non Muslims and then quoted texts about both.
I thought all you god botherers were down on unbelievers?
So because i have bad grammar? I will wait for support for the rest, to point out logical fallacies and how arbitrary you are. But by all means, never debate content lol.
Sorry M8, your content is all over the place and hard to follow, besides it introduces a lot of strawmen because you blatantly plagiarize other people's stuff - which are really answers to comments that we didn't make.
I could just load my auto text generator with Argumentum ad Ignorantium, Argumentum ad Lapidem, Argumentum ad Verecundiam (some authority persons in your links aren't really authority figures on those subjects), Ignoratio Elenchi (for your copy paste of other's remarks), Reductio ad absurdum (to prove a document’s originality despite its non-existence), Various Strawmen and finally Argumentum ad Neuseam.
If by chance you would actually write the stuff you debate, this would be interesting. Right now, this is not much more than a bot – selecting random relevant stuff on the web as answers to our comments. It displays a bit of disrespect for the person you debate, and show that you don’t really read or possibly understand what is being discussed.
LeftEyeNine
11-30-2012, 11:12
Hello there,
For forewords, I could be counted a not-really-much-practicing Muslim who is, as most of other believers are, Muslim (or christian or jew etc.) from birth due to the social surrounding I was raised in. I am not fond of religious people -at least of those in Turkey- who are generally imposing their beliefs and practices upon you from under the shield called "Islam".
So, here is the bottomline (of my post that does not really have any serious context already):
If one argues a celestial religion to be better than the other, he/she is archaic. His/her thoughts need to be discarded ASAP for all he could ignite is either fanaticism among his friends, or anger towards whom he/she dissents religiously. No compromise has EVER been yielded from "my x is longer than yours" kind of approach. Therefore, if one pursues such ideal, he/she should be shown the door, or the window for a better view.
Should some Muslim with the alias DudeI'mTotallyAllahuAkbarred come around and inquire the "truth of Christianism" over a pro-Islamic agenda, copy/paste what I've written upon his face too. We have far worse problems already that is threatening our welfare, peace and environment. Thank you with your Arabic/Arahmic/blablaic babblings however I got better things to do -I should have got better things to do.
Let "faith" be shelved up to where it belongs -between you and your God- not in front of anybody's nose.
The Stranger
11-30-2012, 14:40
on topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugeylMqwZZE
uh... i dont get it, did i say something wrong huh? what? potatoes patatoes?
off topic about sc2
What league bro? Also, Heart of the Swarm will have cross server play.
heart of the swarm isnt out for ages :P but from that comment i take it you are not on the eu server?
im platinum but i barely play the game. i should be able to get into diamond, perhaps master if i really try. i was already in master for team but like i said, team games are usually easier and they are a complete joke on sc2 XD
I thought all you god botherers were down on unbelievers?
What's a god botherer?
What's a god botherer?
Someone who won't stop pestering the Almighty with invocations and demands. You know, the sort of person who believes that Yaweh has nothing better to do than help your football team win.
What's a god botherer?
One who believes you can petition the Lord with prayer.
[/Church of the Supremely Indifferent]
Besides, football is haram (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/oct/31/sport.comment1).
Besides, football is haram (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/oct/31/sport.comment1).
Fatwas are awesome.
Fatwas are awesome.
It's a problem when you draw your reality from faith. You tend to come to the wrong conclusions. Logic and reason have no place in temples, mosques and churches. As a courtesy, we ask that god botherers keep their faith out of law, government, health care, and most of the stuff that matters.
As a courtesy, we ask that god botherers keep their faith out of law, government, health care, and most of the stuff that matters.
How'd that go?
total relism
11-30-2012, 17:56
I think it's important with the basics.
Abraham is clearly significant in the formation of Islam; he is found in 25 suras of the Koran. He is a prophet, one who received revelation, the example of pure faith, who paid his debt in full, and a strict monotheist who struggled with idol worshipers. Islam is said to be an expression of the religion of Abraham, the friend of God; and Abraham is considered a prototype of Mohammed.
The Koran is said to have been given by revelation to the illiterate Mohammed by dictation. But it is certain that was made from several sources chosen because they fit the ideas of Mohammed: (1) pre-Islamic traditional beliefs in poetic form, (2) Talmudic legends from Jews in Arabia, (3) misinformation from heretical Christian sects, (4) eastern ideas from Persia and India (Arabia was under Persian control), and (5) ideas from his friends who were seeking truth. The most frequent source is the material from the Jewish Talmud.
Mohammed appears to have made several changes in the traditions. First, people would now face Mecca to pray, and not Jerusalem. Second, Abraham and Ishmael are said to have built the Kaaba, the black structure in the middle of the shrine in Mecca (originally housing many gods), and rivals Solomon’s building of the temple. Third, Ishmael comes to prominence as the “chosen of God.”
Ishmael then becomes recognized as a prophet (even though he came to prominence late in the Koran--early on he is not mentioned, only Isaac and Jacob).
But later Mohammed taught that Abraham went to Mecca to sacrifice his son (who is not named)--that son came to be identified as Ishmael. Mohammed also believed that Abraham accompanied Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca before returning home to Sarah. Ishmael married a South Arabian; Abraham came to visit him and together they built the black stone shrine. Islam heralds God as the “God of Abraham, Ishmael, and Mohammed.”
And in the traditions Ishmael is in strife to inherit the promises to Abraham (Genesis 16, 17, 21 form a paradigm of the conflict). At the center is Jerusalem, which becomes another holy spot for Islam (the third in order after Mecca and Medina), for the tradition is that Abraham built it, Mohammed’s flight and descent were located there, and Arabs possessed it. Jerusalem is not important in the Koran.
Christians need to know more about these kinds of traditions in Islam, because right or wrong they are traditions deeply rooted in religion and politics. In dealing with Islamic people Christians should focus more on God’s grace in choosing a disobedient people rather than giving the impression that Israel was God’s favorite over all other nations.
Kadagar_AV;2053499728
Great on topic post thank you. dont forget about Abraham
A book on this subject, that compares people in koran vs same people in bible is here
http://www.audible.com/pd?asin=B0036I72CW&source_code=GO1DG9048SH080912&mkwid=titles&gclid=CO2a1LCU97MCFUid4AodPkkAkQ
from a christian perspective.
total relism
11-30-2012, 17:58
Sorry M8, your content is all over the place and hard to follow, besides it introduces a lot of strawmen because you blatantly plagiarize other people's stuff - which are really answers to comments that we didn't make.
I could just load my auto text generator with Argumentum ad Ignorantium, Argumentum ad Lapidem, Argumentum ad Verecundiam (some authority persons in your links aren't really authority figures on those subjects), Ignoratio Elenchi (for your copy paste of other's remarks), Reductio ad absurdum (to prove a document’s originality despite its non-existence), Various Strawmen and finally Argumentum ad Neuseam.
If by chance you would actually write the stuff you debate, this would be interesting. Right now, this is not much more than a bot – selecting random relevant stuff on the web as answers to our comments. It displays a bit of disrespect for the person you debate, and show that you don’t really read or possibly understand what is being discussed.
Again, I will wait for examples to reply. Whenever i use anything off web, I leave link right there.
total relism
11-30-2012, 18:12
Hello there,
For forewords, I could be counted a not-really-much-practicing Muslim who is, as most of other believers are, Muslim (or christian or jew etc.) from birth due to the social surrounding I was raised in. I am not fond of religious people -at least of those in Turkey- who are generally imposing their beliefs and practices upon you from under the shield called "Islam".
So, here is the bottomline (of my post that does not really have any serious context already):
If one argues a celestial religion to be better than the other, he/she is archaic. His/her thoughts need to be discarded ASAP for all he could ignite is either fanaticism among his friends, or anger towards whom he/she dissents religiously. No compromise has EVER been yielded from "my x is longer than yours" kind of approach. Therefore, if one pursues such ideal, he/she should be shown the door, or the window for a better view.
Should some Muslim with the alias DudeI'mTotallyAllahuAkbarred come around and inquire the "truth of Christianism" over a pro-Islamic agenda, copy/paste what I've written upon his face too. We have far worse problems already that is threatening our welfare, peace and environment. Thank you with your Arabic/Arahmic/blablaic babblings however I got better things to do -I should have got better things to do.
Let "faith" be shelved up to where it belongs -between you and your God- not in front of anybody's nose.
I cant help but notice, you seem to be sure that anyone who aparentley believes there beliefs to be true [me christian] are dangerous and should not have those beliefs. yet you yourself carry the belief that you are correct that no one belief is true. So you therefore should according to you, disregard your belief [that no one true belief is true] as soon as possible.
But I have to ask you, what makes two contradictory beliefs equally true? koran/bible? I say logically that is impossible, they can both not be true, or one can be, but they both cannot be. Neither can they be equally untrue, one has to be more untrue that the other. Also why is "anger" and "fanaticism " bad in your view? you seem more unwilling to change your opinion, than any Muslim i have met on forums. But you seem to offer a "better view" I would love to here this better view of yours, I will than show you only think it better based solely on your beliefs.
I dont see any reason why a Muslim should not start a thread attacking Christianity and i am christian you are not, yet you see problem. My guess you dont think there is such a thing a truth, well some of us do and we want to believe what is true, not what "feels good" or makes us happy.
I like these quotes off a christian site that has 100 of debates christian/Muslim.
"Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." ~Hubert Humphrey
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." ~Joseph Joubert
"For in the absence of debate unrestricted utterance leads to the degradation of opinion. By a kind of Greshams law the more rational is overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained merely by objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting debate." ~Walter Lippmann
Let your beliefs you have been posted be between you and your liberal friends. No just kidding I like decent/debate. Thoe i find your post illogical and self contradictory.
total relism
11-30-2012, 18:16
It's a problem when you draw your reality from faith. You tend to come to the wrong conclusions. Logic and reason have no place in temples, mosques and churches. As a courtesy, we ask that god botherers keep their faith out of law, government, health care, and most of the stuff that matters.
Would you debate me 1v1 who has faith atheist or christian? also who can defend there position logically christian or atheist. Or even, what government would be better atheist or christian.
Kadagar_AV
11-30-2012, 18:34
Kadagar_AV;2053499728
Great on topic post thank you. dont forget about Abraham
A book on this subject, that compares people in koran vs same people in bible is here
http://www.audible.com/pd?asin=B0036I72CW&source_code=GO1DG9048SH080912&mkwid=titles&gclid=CO2a1LCU97MCFUid4AodPkkAkQ
from a christian perspective.
It wasn't a great on topic post, it was spam. You just can't tell the difference.
total relism
11-30-2012, 18:47
It wasn't a great on topic post, it was spam. You just can't tell the difference.
I guess not, I loved it, first on topic post in awhile. Made me think for a min people care about talking about islam.
The Stranger
11-30-2012, 18:53
you definitely need a lesson skepticism 101... then a crash course subjectivism vs objectivism
It wasn't a great on topic post, it was spam. You just can't tell the difference.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Abraham+is+clearly+significant+in+the+formation+of+Islam%3B+he+is+found+in+25+suras+of+the+Kora n.+He+is+a+prophet%2C+one+who+received+revelation%2C+the+example+of+pure+faith%2C+who+paid+his+debt+ in+full%2C+and+a+strict+monotheist+who+struggled+with+idol+worshipers.+Islam+is+said+to+be+an+expres sion+of+the+religion+of+Abraham%2C+the+friend+of+God%3B+and+Abraham+is+considered+a+prototype+of+Moh ammed.%22&gbv=2&oq=%22Abraham+is+clearly+significant+in+the+formation+of+Islam%3B+he+is+found+in+25+suras+of+the+Kor an.+He+is+a+prophet%2C+one+who+received+revelation%2C+the+example+of+pure+faith%2C+who+paid+his+debt +in+full%2C+and+a+strict+monotheist+who+struggled+with+idol+worshipers.+Islam+is+said+to+be+an+expre ssion+of+the+religion+of+Abraham%2C+the+friend+of+God%3B+and+Abraham+is+considered+a+prototype+of+Mo hammed.%22&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...22222.23859.0.25454.3.3.0.0.0.0.168.168.0j1.1.0...0.0...1c.1.X7ASie_P0kc
you naughty boy!
LeftEyeNine
11-30-2012, 21:02
I cant help but notice, you seem to be sure that anyone who aparentley believes there beliefs to be true [me christian] are dangerous and should not have those beliefs. yet you yourself carry the belief that you are correct that no one belief is true. So you therefore should according to you, disregard your belief [that no one true belief is true] as soon as possible.
Since the rest of your post relies on this false assertion of yours, I'll only be replying to that.
Stating, on the hard facts, that pro-xism implemented via doubting "y"ism is an archaic way of thinking which only leads to fanaticism among "x"ists or anger from the despised "y"ists is a fact. It's not something I "believe", it's something I can only see throughout world's past, or in the town I'm living in.
Believing Christianism/Xism/Yism to be true is..well..belief. No faith is true since one who believes tends to ignore the skeptic thinking behind the systematic in question. That's why it's not called "classic physics" or "2 as a consequence of 1 plus 1", it's in faith's nature to skip every other rationalist thought which eventually makes you feel better in a way you're obliged or found out yourself.
Facts and beliefs. I'm not here to argue in semantics.
total relism
11-30-2012, 23:20
Believing Christianism/Xism/Yism to be true is..well..belief. No faith is true since one who believes tends to ignore the skeptic thinking behind the systematic in question. That's why it's not called "classic physics" or "2 as a consequence of 1 plus 1", it's in faith's nature to skip every other rationalist thought which eventually makes you feel better in a way you're obliged or found out yourself.
Facts and beliefs. I'm not here to argue in semantics.
As i sated last post, everything you say/claim relies on christianity/Islam being false. I think that needs to be shown and not assumed. Do you truly believe the atheist does not ignore facts? or does not believe in thing that are not rational or even the unseen ? I can show you more than a few [assuming your atheist]. I would say from myself, the facts led me to belief in god and away from agnostic. But your first post I responded to, was more of why attack other beliefs etc. As I stated if truth is real, than people after truth should debate discuses different beliefs, in fact if they cared for others under false beliefs, they should try to help/show there beliefs false. Also that you are doing the very thing [in first post] you say people should not do, tell others what to or what they can cant do believe etc. Lastley I see many reasons a atheist would reject god to "feel" good, and many reasons to not want to believe in a god to "feel" good, as I once did.
total relism
11-30-2012, 23:21
New debate
sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: Is Islam a Threat to Society?
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
LeftEyeNine
12-01-2012, 00:43
As I said every belief HAS to have its flaws in terms of reasonability. An agnostic would argue that defying the existence of god, hence the very fundamental of atheism, is impossible for the existence or non-existence of such deity could not be determined.
Kadagar_AV
12-01-2012, 00:51
As I said every belief HAS to have its flaws in terms of reasonability. An agnostic would argue that defying the existence of god, hence the very fundamental of atheism, is impossible for the existence or non-existence of such deity could not be determined.
I think You got atheism wrong... We don't defy any God more than any other. Atheists are saying that there are no evidence for a God at large, and that the different religions of the world probably got things wrong.
If you are an atheist, You also accept that science might one day prove the existence of a deity.
It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too.
total relism
12-01-2012, 01:15
I think You got atheism wrong... We don't defy any God more than any other. Atheists are saying that there are no evidence for a God at large, and that the different religions of the world probably got things wrong.
If you are an atheist, You also accept that science might one day prove the existence of a deity.
It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too.
I now i complain about off topic alot, but would you 1v1 me on the topic, is there clear evidence for a creator vs is there clear evidence for atheism.
Kadagar_AV
12-01-2012, 01:51
I now i complain about off topic alot, but would you 1v1 me on the topic, is there clear evidence for a creator vs is there clear evidence for atheism.
I already agreed to do that. But as you aren't serious about your posts, and don't even remember things such as me already having agreed, I will instead lean back and let someone else school you.
If you start to contribute to the boards, however, I will gladly take up the challenge again.
EDIT: LOL @ "Clear evidence for atheism".
It's quotes like that, that makes me think you should read up some before you post on the subject.
The Stranger
12-01-2012, 01:58
I think You got atheism wrong... We don't defy any God more than any other. Atheists are saying that there are no evidence for a God at large, and that the different religions of the world probably got things wrong.
If you are an atheist, You also accept that science might one day prove the existence of a deity.
It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too.
that sounds more like agnosticism, tho its not even that really. atheism denies the existence of god, what you made of it is some sort of agnosticism based mixed with some science. and on a sidenote, my experience is that most athiests only accept that science will one day prove that god doesnt exist, not the other way around. that atheism doesnt defy any god more than any other is true, they defy/deny all gods equally.
edit: it kinda depends on how narrow you define atheism i guess
Kadagar_AV
12-01-2012, 02:06
that sounds more like agnosticism, tho its not even that really. atheism denies the existence of god, what you made of it is some sort of agnosticism based mixed with some science. and on a sidenote, my experience is that most athiests only accept that science will one day prove that god doesnt exist, not the other way around. that atheism doesnt defy any god more than any other is true, they defy/deny all gods equally.
edit: it kinda depends on how narrow you define atheism i guess
Well, I said an atheist have to accept that science might one day prove the existence of a deity. A proper atheist would however consider it HIGHLY unlikely that any of the now surviving religions have got it right.
Just like if someone would say that there is a huge Chinese ninja figure behind the moon. It's hard to prove him wrong, but you'd deem it highly unlikely that he was right.
But yeah, agnosticism and atheism is very close, and I'm not sure there is a definite line drawn between them.
The Stranger
12-01-2012, 02:12
well as I conceive it the line is that the atheist denies the existence of god (hardline) or denies that the belief in god is rationally justified (softline) while the agnost suspends judgment on the matter and simply says god may or may not exist while the believer ofcourse says God exists.
im not sure how far you have to leave the door open in order to go from atheist to agnost, but if there is a thin line between them i think your position is on it.
Kadagar_AV
12-01-2012, 02:18
well as I conceive it the line is that the atheist denies the existence of god (hardline) or denies that the belief in god is rationally justified (softline) while the agnost suspends judgment on the matter and simply says god may or may not exist while the believer ofcourse says God exists.
im not sure how far you have to leave the door open in order to go from atheist to agnost, but if there is a thin line between them i think your position is on it.
You might be right, I have always had a hard time with those two terms. I would find it strange if an atheist would say that there definitely is no God though, as comprehensible data enough for an analysis simply are missing.
From what I have got, atheists are open for the idea that there might be stuff we have no idea of. They do however attack hard when people start saying that they have an idea of what that stuff is, without sufficient evidence to back them up :)
The Stranger
12-01-2012, 02:23
i suppose there are different kind of atheists, just as there are different kind of believers. many atheists, call them radical or fanatical or militant atheists simply deny the existence of god (or close enough to make no matter) and often are as radical in their belief and faith in that their position is true as the religious believers they oppose. they often make the same baseless claims as well. and like i said, from my experience with them, many of these people believe that it is only a matter of time before science will prove everything, thus including that god doesnt exist.
it is my firm belief that the majority of the people i just described would be fanatically burning witches 300 years ago, in the name of god ofcourse.
Kadagar_AV
12-01-2012, 02:27
i suppose there are different kind of atheists, just as there are different kind of believers. many atheists, call them radical or fanatical or militant atheists simply deny the existence of god (or close enough to make no matter) and often are as radical in their belief and faith in that their position is true as the religious believers they oppose. they often make the same baseless claims as well. and like i said, from my experience with them, many of these people believe that it is only a matter of time before science will prove everything, thus including that god doesnt exist.
it is my firm belief that the majority of the people i just described would be fanatically burning witches 300 years ago, in the name of god ofcourse.
Oh, I agree with everything you say.
I have way more in common with a moderate of opposing beliefs than I have with fanatics of my own.
I know many an "atheist" who wouldn't say that it would be impossible for some "force" like... force... to exist... To use Star wars terminology. So I guess it also depends on the definition of God.
total relism
12-01-2012, 10:54
I already agreed to do that. But as you aren't serious about your posts, and don't even remember things such as me already having agreed, I will instead lean back and let someone else school you.
If you start to contribute to the boards, however, I will gladly take up the challenge again.
EDIT: LOL @ "Clear evidence for atheism".
It's quotes like that, that makes me think you should read up some before you post on the subject.
you asked me, I said yes, than you backed out because i said i needed Little time [had 7 thread going]. But I do forget sometimes who posted what, that as we now will not happen in a 1v1, as we will be only posters. As far as title, or ""Clear evidence for atheism"" I was just trying to make debate a even topic. If diest are suppose to provide evidence for a creator/ should not atheist provide evidence there is no creator?. I will gladly as you seem to hold "science" highly, debate with you also, does science support creation or atheism.
But why is on all threads, the ones that make great sweeping claims as you did
"It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too.".
than not back up in debate? maybe you feel this way as you dont debate the question, or allow evidence to be presented.
total relism
12-01-2012, 11:14
Sharia in the UK
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/11/sharia-in-uk.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+answeringmuslims%2FynNl+%28Answering+Muslims%29
allah is not all just, nor is he all loving
3 part debate
Concept of God in Christianity and Islam Shabir Ally vs Dr. William Lane Craig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=741gF4A_k3A
also here
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553
Kadagar_AV
12-01-2012, 11:34
If diest are suppose to provide evidence for a creator/ should not atheist provide evidence there is no creator?. I will gladly as you seem to hold "science" highly, debate with you also, does science support creation or atheism.
No, you got a very basic fact wrong:
If you claim something, the burden of proof is on you.
So if you claim there IS a God, and not only that there is a God, but you know what God and how he wants us to live our lives... Then you have the burden of proof. This is very basic logic, I'm surprised you'r not familiar with it.
IE:
You say: There is a God, and it is the Christian God.
I say: I have no idea if there is a God or not, but I have seen nothing pointing in the direction that there is.
How can you POSSIBLY think both sides have the burden of proof here?
If some psycho tell you that Mermaids swim at the bottom of the ocean, would you assume he would have to back it up, or would youy see it as your job to investigate it to see if he was right?
C'mon, think.
total relism
12-01-2012, 12:14
No, you got a very basic fact wrong:
If you claim something, the burden of proof is on you.
So if you claim there IS a God, and not only that there is a God, but you know what God and how he wants us to live our lives... Then you have the burden of proof. This is very basic logic, I'm surprised you'r not familiar with it.
IE:
You say: There is a God, and it is the Christian God.
I say: I have no idea if there is a God or not, but I have seen nothing pointing in the direction that there is.
How can you POSSIBLY think both sides have the burden of proof here?
If some psycho tell you that Mermaids swim at the bottom of the ocean, would you assume he would have to back it up, or would youy see it as your job to investigate it to see if he was right?
C'mon, think.
I thought you were atheist based on you saying you were atheist post 334. My debate offer in 1v1 with you was indeed I had to support evidence for a creator, as I intended to do. But your claim, the bible is false, you should have to support that claim as well. Your claim atheism [or so I thought] should equally have to be supported with evidence as well. After all, I could make same claim you have to reject christian by saying.
"It's just that all the guys trying to prove the existence of a deity has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too."
but I would say
"It's just that all the guys trying to prove there is no god has failed so far. Failed quite hard, too."
So the case in such a debate, should be evidence for both claims, deity vs no deity.
As far as mermaids, if I were to reject the idea of mermaids, I would provide evidence against mermaids. If I reject a claim there is mermaids, I than should provide evidence there is no mermaids. But all this matters not,as we are not debating.
Kadagar_AV
12-01-2012, 12:18
:wall:
EDIT: You want someone to prove that there are no evidence for something?
Again, YOU claim there is a God, and a specific one at that.
ATHEISTS claim you, and other believers, have no evidence for that assumption.
Sorry, but this really does come off as stupid.
Let's have a debate on this topic: I claim that somewhere in the universe there is a mighty fine Pizza (with extra cheese) orbiting a moon. Oh, and it has pepper on it instead of spice. And extra pineapple.
Now prove me wrong.
Who would eat a pizza with extra pineapple without any ham on it, easy
“the atheist denies the existence of god” Atheist don’t deny the existence of god(s). Atheists don’t believe in god(s). Atheism is not a religion, but our good Crusader TR doesn’t get it. I don’t have to prove a non-existence of Unicorns (yet, with Genetic Manipulation they might exist in a close future), fairies and Tak (the God who wrote the World, according to the Dwarves’ set of belief).
“and often are as radical in their belief and faith in that their position is true as the religious believers they oppose.” That is a very easy claim to do. However, I am still waiting to see Atheists Suicide Bombers who will die for the cause of “there is no reward after Death” or “I will be worm’s food. Well, what will be left of me. I mean”.
“they often make the same baseless claims as well” Like what?
“If I reject a claim there is mermaids, I than should provide evidence there is no mermaids.” So you believe in mermaids as well? What do you think of the belief in the Big Flying Spaghetti, creator of the World for the Tomatoes Sauce Original Can? Can you prove me it doesn’t exist, or do you accept it as a solid base for Debate?
Well, I give you that if you can believe in God, why not in Mermaids? There are a lot of books and movies about them…
the atheist denies the existence of god” Atheist don’t deny the existence of god(s). Atheists don’t believe in god(s). Atheism is not a religion
Exactement
total relism
12-01-2012, 15:48
:wall:
EDIT: You want someone to prove that there are no evidence for something?
Again, YOU claim there is a God, and a specific one at that.
ATHEISTS claim you, and other believers, have no evidence for that assumption.
Sorry, but this really does come off as stupid.
Let's have a debate on this topic: I claim that somewhere in the universe there is a mighty fine Pizza (with extra cheese) orbiting a moon. Oh, and it has pepper on it instead of spice. And extra pineapple.
Now prove me wrong.
Not surprisingly you misunderstand what I am saying [similar to Hitler thread]. I am fully aware I would present evidence for creation/bible. You if atheist [your not seemigley] would have to provide evidence for this, positive or simply admit there is none. Otherwise my belief in god, is just lack of belief you can show me there is no god.
I would indeed contest your pizza for a few reasons, but really your original statement was atheism is true, I would rather provide evidence that is wrong. But yet again, you would not accept me debate so why continue on what the topic should hypothetically be lol. I dont care to disuse this anymore unless you are willing to debate the subject.
total relism
12-01-2012, 15:49
“the atheist denies the existence of god” Atheist don’t deny the existence of god(s). Atheists don’t believe in god(s). Atheism is not a religion, but our good Crusader TR doesn’t get it. I don’t have to prove a non-existence of Unicorns (yet, with Genetic Manipulation they might exist in a close future), fairies and Tak (the God who wrote the World, according to the Dwarves’ set of belief).
“and often are as radical in their belief and faith in that their position is true as the religious believers they oppose.” That is a very easy claim to do. However, I am still waiting to see Atheists Suicide Bombers who will die for the cause of “there is no reward after Death” or “I will be worm’s food. Well, what will be left of me. I mean”.
“they often make the same baseless claims as well” Like what?
“If I reject a claim there is mermaids, I than should provide evidence there is no mermaids.” So you believe in mermaids as well? What do you think of the belief in the Big Flying Spaghetti, creator of the World for the Tomatoes Sauce Original Can? Can you prove me it doesn’t exist, or do you accept it as a solid base for Debate?
Well, I give you that if you can believe in God, why not in Mermaids? There are a lot of books and movies about them…
everything above can be placed and is disused here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity
The Stranger
12-01-2012, 16:20
“the atheist denies the existence of god” Atheist don’t deny the existence of god(s). Atheists don’t believe in god(s). Atheism is not a religion, but our good Crusader TR doesn’t get it. I don’t have to prove a non-existence of Unicorns (yet, with Genetic Manipulation they might exist in a close future), fairies and Tak (the God who wrote the World, according to the Dwarves’ set of belief).
“and often are as radical in their belief and faith in that their position is true as the religious believers they oppose.” That is a very easy claim to do. However, I am still waiting to see Atheists Suicide Bombers who will die for the cause of “there is no reward after Death” or “I will be worm’s food. Well, what will be left of me. I mean”.
“they often make the same baseless claims as well” Like what?
“If I reject a claim there is mermaids, I than should provide evidence there is no mermaids.” So you believe in mermaids as well? What do you think of the belief in the Big Flying Spaghetti, creator of the World for the Tomatoes Sauce Original Can? Can you prove me it doesn’t exist, or do you accept it as a solid base for Debate?
Well, I give you that if you can believe in God, why not in Mermaids? There are a lot of books and movies about them…
are you quoting me here? you are pulling my post out of context, that is not very fair of you to do. if you quote me then please quote all relevant parts. i was not simply talking about atheists i was talking about a specific kind of atheist, namely the radical/militant atheist, and i was talking about my experience with people like that. i was talking about the force with which they believe in their own beliefs, i meant that many of them are dogmatic in their beliefs. but, like i said before im talking about my experience of encounters with such people, it was in no way a universal statement. and anyway, just because someones faith does not compell him to suicide bomb does not mean that he cannot have the same radical level of belief. we have not seen orthodox jews suicide bomb themselves, yet i doubt it automatically means they have a less radical belief.
about the first part of your post, I made a difference between two kinds of atheists, there are atheists who deny the existence of god and on that ground do not believe in god, there are also people who do not make a claim about whether or not god exists, they simply do not believe in him, even if he would exist. i dont even see how you can argue with that, it is simple definition...
im not in the mood for a deep analysis so wikipedia will have to do...
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
an example of baseless claims they make is that religion is nothing but evil, that god does not exist is another one (it is as baseless as the opposite claim that god does exist, mind you), or claims such as it is only time before science will prove everything. you can argue that not every atheist or militant atheist will say so, and you will probably be right, but again i was not making a universal claim, i was talking about my own experience...
that last part is not aimed at me i take it?
I am sure somoene sees it as such a thing
The Stranger
12-01-2012, 17:07
nice cryptic post as always frag...
about the first part of your post, I made a difference between two kinds of atheists, there are atheists who deny the existence of god and on that ground do not believe in god, there are also people who do not make a claim about whether or not god exists, they simply do not believe in him, even if he would exist. i dont even see how you can argue with that, it is simple definition...
I have to say something about the last group of people you mentioned, as I reckon myself as one of them.
It wouldn't make much sense to say: "God might exist, but if he did, I still wouldn't believe in him". What I think you mean to say, and this is what I believe, is that the existence of God is completely irrelevant for our lives. It has a name, and it's called apatheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism).
The Stranger
12-01-2012, 17:43
well yes you are right, i phrased myself a bit unlucky there.
Still, there's merit to the idea. I think, at my young and foolish age of twenty years old, that I'd rather go to hell than to believe in a cruel God.
The Stranger
12-01-2012, 18:15
i suppose that you will have to distinguish between believing in its existence and having faith in its character aka worship it. if god would exist and we would be able to know he does, i suppose you will have to believe in his existence just as you would believe in your dog or neighbour to exist, but it doesnt mean you have to accept him as your saviour.
“everything above can be placed and is disused here” T.R,. it is amazing this need to try to control a debate. When you start a debate, as we (at least I am not) sheep we don’t follow. If you go in other debates, you will be astonished about how things can turn.
“I was talking about the force with which they believe in their own beliefs” I had a problem with your choice of words. Atheism is not a belief. It is a state of mind. It is not a rejection as such you can reject let says Buddhism or Communism or Religions. These things exist. I can reject an argument. I can reject the belief in the Bible as the book exists. God doesn’t. Nor I reject Unicorns or Tak.
So, when you use the word “belief” to qualify atheism, I have to go for it. Atheism is not a belief. It might be than some atheists are defending their convictions and arguments with conviction and what can be seen as dogmatism, but the fact is there is no dogma in atheism, as there are no prophets, no books, no rules and no rewards for it. I am not atheist because somebody taught me atheism; I am atheism because nobody taught me there is/are god(s). There is nothing. I never had to go in a Church or equivalent, I think I heard the first time of the concept, I was around 8. This is to say that the idea of god(s) is not natural, but cultural. When you are 8, you are not concerned by the afterlife. I was rise in a farm were death is something I could see each time my grandparents were killing chickens, rabbits, ducks and pigs. No questions about what happen after, as I knew it. It was how life goes. You born, you live, you die, and you are food somebody or something.:laugh4:
“that last part is not aimed at me I take it?” I do not aim at people. I like to debate, and I was just contesting your wording.:yes:
Would you debate me 1v1 who has faith atheist or christian? also who can defend there position logically christian or atheist. Or even, what government would be better atheist or christian.
To what end? I haven't seen any sign of you doing anything other than pushing your own set of beliefs. And within those beliefs I've seen little that appeals.
I think people are slightly mistaken as to what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, not that we just don't know.
I have yet to find a name for my own beliefs - that it appears to be irrelevant whether you believe or not.
The Stranger
12-01-2012, 19:55
“that last part is not aimed at me I take it?” I do not aim at people. I like to debate, and I was just contesting your wording.:yes:
it is just a bit confusing because you quote multiple people in your posts without really adressing them, you may contest the wording but you are debating with people. i did not say anything about unicorns therefor i said i take that part was not meant for me to answer, atleast not initially.
So, when you use the word “belief” to qualify atheism, I have to go for it. Atheism is not a belief. It is a state of mind
atheism is a belief, it is not a religious belief, but a belief nonetheless, ofcourse i use belief here in the broad sense of the word, related to knowledge and justification. in order to know something to be true it is generally assumed you also have to believe it to be true, hence the term belief. to avoid confusion we can call religious belief, faith.
the term state of mind is very vague and you will have to explain clearer what exactly you think that it entails. i am familiar with the use of the term in other areas of discussion but it is most commonly used in the cognition debate and i doubt your usage is the same.
i will react to the rest later.
total relism
12-01-2012, 22:02
To what end? I haven't seen any sign of you doing anything other than pushing your own set of beliefs. And within those beliefs I've seen little that appeals.
to see if your statement is true, you made a very big claim i feel, I want you to back it up in debate. The object would not be for me to agree with you, it would be to show your claims false. You would try to show them true.
Also I have seen nothing of your to support your claim, or any reason to think you wish to change your opinion, or even debate your statement. But in fact that is best, I like to show people [athiest] believe what they do in spite of the evidence.
Yeah, just go to Port-au-Prince or Somalia. Loads of evidence there.
“atheism is a belief”: Nope. It is contradiction in term. A non-smoker is not a smoker who smokes nothing. A dead is not a person who is not living. A belief is based on something, not of an absence of something. I do not believe there is no god because I have a book or something to tell me to do so. I don’t believe in a god because there is an absence of god(s). The sky or Hell is empty.
Atheism is a lack of belief. An atheist can perfectly doubt of the Bing Bang Theory or evolution, or how life came on Earth. He/she has just to say he/she hasn’t an answer for this. I even think than an atheist can believe in an afterlife if he/she wants, as this is still not a proof of god(s). If a thinking caterpillar asks to itself if there is a life after death, in this case, the answer is yes (well, the caterpillar is not really dead…). But god(s) has nothing to do with this, but evolution yes…
The distortion of words by the believers to put atheism as belief is just to try to equal the two processes. One (faith in god) is based on imagination and hope/fear. The other is based on the facts experimented on daily basis than there is no god(s). There are no acts of god(s). With or without god(s), Humans experiment the same things, bad or good. Atheist will survive cancer, believers not and vice versa, randomly.
Now, I believe in the Theory of Chaos. I believe because I have no logical explanation to back-up this. It is based on nothing, and it gives me comfort.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-02-2012, 00:06
I think people are slightly mistaken as to what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, not that we just don't know.
I have yet to find a name for my own beliefs - that it appears to be irrelevant whether you believe or not.
You are Apathetic - technically speaking.
The Stranger
12-02-2012, 04:23
“atheism is a belief”: Nope. It is contradiction in term. A non-smoker is not a smoker who smokes nothing. A dead is not a person who is not living. A belief is based on something, not of an absence of something. I do not believe there is no god because I have a book or something to tell me to do so. I don’t believe in a god because there is an absence of god(s). The sky or Hell is empty.
Atheism is a lack of belief. An atheist can perfectly doubt of the Bing Bang Theory or evolution, or how life came on Earth. He/she has just to say he/she hasn’t an answer for this. I even think than an atheist can believe in an afterlife if he/she wants, as this is still not a proof of god(s). If a thinking caterpillar asks to itself if there is a life after death, in this case, the answer is yes (well, the caterpillar is not really dead…). But god(s) has nothing to do with this, but evolution yes…
sigh... it is just semantics, you can say you believe there is no god and that is absence of belief and no belief, or you can say your belief is that no god exists. what you describe at best is not atheism but agnosticism, agnosticism suspends judgment, atheism does not, it is the judgment that god does not exist.
I don’t believe in a god because there is an absence of god(s). The sky or Hell is empty.
it is your belief that the sky or hell is empty, and you use that to come to the conclusion that there is no god, you may twist this all you want but it simply is an belief... and you believe it to be true, if you wouldnt you would suspend judgment and you would not be an atheist. atheism is not the lack of belief, that is agnosticism... the agnost lacks belief pro and contra regarding the question whether or not god exist, it is basically the sceptical position but now regarding religious matters. if you say truth exists and i say truth does not exist i do not lack a belief, i actually am of the conviction that there is no truth (you can ofcourse phrase this to look like it is a lack of belief, but a lack of belief can only be achieve by suspending judgment ,and that is what the true skeptic does)
to give a slightly better definition
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.
The distortion of words by the believers to put atheism as belief is just to try to equal the two processes. One (faith in god) is based on imagination and hope/fear. The other is based on the facts experimented on daily basis than there is no god(s). There are no acts of god(s). With or without god(s), Humans experiment the same things, bad or good. Atheist will survive cancer, believers not and vice versa, randomly.
and here come the baseless claims. 1) im not a believer. 2) theology has proof and arguments involved, you may not accept these but that does not mean they are not there. ofcourse they are not scientific proofs, but it is not a scientific debate. It is not in the area of physics so asking for experimental proof is per definition absurd.
i can succesfully argue that they are actually equally arbitrary but we will have to get very technical and it will be pointless since we cannot even get past this basic definition. even if your simplification about religion and atheism (which you seem to confuse with science for some reason) are true, you still have not given any justification for why one system should neccesarily be preferred over the other.
Now, I believe in the Theory of Chaos. I believe because I have no logical explanation to back-up this. It is based on nothing, and it gives me comfort.
it seems to me that you see belief as the substitute of knowledge, you believe in something in the absence of knowledge but this is not the case, you need belief to have knowlegde, belief is a component of knowlegde, there can be no knowledge without belief.
The Stranger
12-02-2012, 04:39
I think people are slightly mistaken as to what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, not that we just don't know.
I have yet to find a name for my own beliefs - that it appears to be irrelevant whether you believe or not.
yes it is basically skepticism. we cannot possible know and also it is the belief therefore one position should not be preferred over the other. some people that believe in god may also admit that we cannot know but still there would be sufficient reason to believe in god (pascals wager for example, even though some people might say that pascals wager is not true faith)
to see if your statement is true, you made a very big claim i feel, I want you to back it up in debate. The object would not be for me to agree with you, it would be to show your claims false. You would try to show them true.
Also I have seen nothing of your to support your claim, or any reason to think you wish to change your opinion, or even debate your statement. But in fact that is best, I like to show people [athiest] believe what they do in spite of the evidence.
You can't discover if a statement is true from debate. All you can do is discover if you are a convincing debater.
What was the statement you wanted to discuss Btw?
total relism
12-02-2012, 14:22
You can't discover if a statement is true from debate. All you can do is discover if you are a convincing debater.
What was the statement you wanted to discuss Btw?
we can discover if you can back up your own statement.
Originally Posted by Idaho
It's a problem when you draw your reality from faith. You tend to come to the wrong conclusions. Logic and reason have no place in temples, mosques and churches. As a courtesy, we ask that god botherers keep their faith out of law, government, health care, and most of the stuff that matters.
so I asked you
Would you debate me 1v1 who has faith atheist or christian? also who can defend there position logically christian or atheist. Or even, what government would be better atheist or christian.
Conradus
12-02-2012, 15:21
That should not even warrant a debate. Religion should be between man and his god (and his fellow believers). But when you let religion dictate your state you enforce everyone to follow one particular mindset. And that can't be.
we can discover if you can back up your own statement.
Originally Posted by Idaho
It's a problem when you draw your reality from faith. You tend to come to the wrong conclusions. Logic and reason have no place in temples, mosques and churches. As a courtesy, we ask that god botherers keep their faith out of law, government, health care, and most of the stuff that matters.
so I asked you
Would you debate me 1v1 who has faith atheist or christian? also who can defend there position logically christian or atheist. Or even, what government would be better atheist or christian.
The first requirements of any kind of discussion, is a clear statement or question. Above you have two comments that are halfway between statement and question, and neither very clear.
Secondly you need some rules to make it, quite honestly, enjoyable to participate in or read. These revolve around no lengthy cut and paste oddessys and no point by point, heels-dug-in, fight-on-all-fronts bor-a-thons.
Thirdly you need an arbiter to keep order and stop derails and point dodging.
Fourthly you need a judge or jury to decide. Perhaps a before and after vote just to prove that neither of us will change anyone's mind.
“sigh... it is just semantics”: Yes: It is definition of words. An empty box is not a box I believe is empty. I open the box, see nothing, it is empty. That is fact and you can twist the words as much you want. To say that it might have something in the box I can’t see is a mental construction, because you have to accommodate the physical reality to make it plausible, or to add magic: There is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus and only the believers can see it. Of course, you can’t see it as you don’t believe in it.
“what you describe at best is not atheism”: Atheism is the “position there are no deities” according Wikipedia… It is what I describe.
“theology has proof and arguments involved” If this was true, why there are a lot systems of belief on Earth? If theology has proof, we should have: 1) no atheists, 2) One religion fitting for everybody.
“you may not accept” That is impossible to deny or not accept facts. I may not like it, but when it is raining I can’t believe there is no rain. So, if I can in all honesty deny a fact, well, that means it is not a fact.
“which you seem to confuse with science for some reason”: What makes you believing this?
“belief is a component of knowledge, there can be no knowledge without belief.” Really? You may believe you can fly, but the laws of Physic will bring you back to Earth. It might be painful. There is no need to believe in the law of Physic, but a more or less careful observation would be enough. Knowledge comes from experience/experiments, in life as in Sciences. The difference is in life you can’t reproduce the same experiment again and again and having the same results.
“Contemporary analytic philosophers” Do you have names? Because the ones I had to study when in High School wouldn’t agree with them (i.e. Kant, Nietzsche). For me, this definition is better fitted to define illusion or delusion. A belief is based on a system, a representation of the reality. I see the sun coming out and the day starting (observation/facts), and I believe (interpretation/extrapolation) that the God of Light (“Insert a name”) chasing the God of Darkness (“Insert a name”).
“you see belief as the substitute of knowledge”: I wouldn't make this mistake. A belief is based on representation and interpretation when knowledge is based on facts or experience.
The first requirements of any kind of discussion, is a clear statement or question. Above you have two comments that are halfway between statement and question, and neither very clear.
https://i.imgur.com/hfmy8.jpg
Montmorency
12-02-2012, 18:42
Yes: It is definition of words. An empty box is not a box I believe is empty. I open the box, see nothing, it is empty. That is fact and you can twist the words as much you want. To say that it might have something in the box I can’t see is a mental construction, because you have to accommodate the physical reality to make it plausible, or to add magic: There is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus and only the believers can see it. Of course, you can’t see it as you don’t believe in it.
You must have faith in the validity of your sensory systems, surely. You must even have faith in the fact of your own existence in the first place. You take all that for granted?
That is impossible to deny or not accept facts.
Sure it is. I deny that there is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus. Don't you?
it seems to me that you see belief as the substitute of knowledge, you believe in something in the absence of knowledge but this is not the case, you need belief to have knowlegde, belief is a component of knowlegde, there can be no knowledge without belief.
It seems to me quite possible to reject the concept of belief as semantically and neurologically void while retaining a notion of "knowledge" as biologically-represented stored information that is accessed during cognition and informs sequences of complex motor action.
Yes, this is a troll-post. :wink:
“You take all that for granted”: Not always, not always Sometimes, I wife tells me something and I don’t know why, I heard something else. Or I failed to see the washing-up… Strange things happen…~:smoking:
“You must even have faith in the fact of your own existence in the first place.” Sometimes, when in the dark, doubts are coming...:shrug:
“I deny that there is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus. Don't you?” Weeelll, I can’t prove there is not, you see. As I don’t believe in it, I can’t see it…~D
total relism
12-02-2012, 20:01
That should not even warrant a debate. Religion should be between man and his god (and his fellow believers). But when you let religion dictate your state you enforce everyone to follow one particular mindset. And that can't be.
Somewhat like what my government does [usa] today, tries to get all to believe what is politically correct. But you misunderstand what I mean by christian government. Since way off topic I dont care to get into it.
The first requirements of any kind of discussion, is a clear statement or question. Above you have two comments that are halfway between statement and question, and neither very clear.
Secondly you need some rules to make it, quite honestly, enjoyable to participate in or read. These revolve around no lengthy cut and paste oddessys and no point by point, heels-dug-in, fight-on-all-fronts bor-a-thons.
Thirdly you need an arbiter to keep order and stop derails and point dodging.
Fourthly you need a judge or jury to decide. Perhaps a before and after vote just to prove that neither of us will change anyone's mind.
GL finding all that on this forum, I was thinking of twc forum fight club, were its 1v1.
TWO DEBATERS ENTER, ONE DEBATER LEAVES!
Somewhat like what my government does [usa] today, tries to get all to believe what is politically correct. But you misunderstand what I mean by christian government. Since way off topic I dont care to get into it.
GL finding all that on this forum, I was thinking of twc forum fight club, were its 1v1.
Never heard of it. How do you reach a conclusion? How can you tell who has "won" ?
The Stranger
12-02-2012, 20:26
“sigh... it is just semantics”: Yes: It is definition of words. An empty box is not a box I believe is empty. I open the box, see nothing, it is empty. That is fact and you can twist the words as much you want. To say that it might have something in the box I can’t see is a mental construction, because you have to accommodate the physical reality to make it plausible, or to add magic: There is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus and only the believers can see it. Of course, you can’t see it as you don’t believe in it.
you make a big mistake, there is an empty box and then there is your conception of that empty box. the empty box is seperate of your idea of that empty box, ofcourse, the box is empty, it is not empty because you believe to empty (unless you would be a subjective idealist). but in order for you to know that box is empty you must also believe the box to be empty, hence you are of the belief that the box is empty. Why is that? Because if you know that the box is empty but do not believe the box to be empty you what exactly does your knowledge come from? that you looked into the box? if you look into the box and see it empty you believe it to be empty, otherwise you would not think it empty... the facts might be independent of our interpretation but we can never have any idea of the facts without interpreting them and whenever we interpret something we have some sort of belief of them. you seem to seriously mess up concepts.
“what you describe at best is not atheism”: Atheism is the “position there are no deities” according Wikipedia… It is what I describe.
as long as you do not claim that we can never know whether there is or is no god (agnosticism, suspending of judgment) you make a positive claim, you just formulate it as a denial. i can also formulate the existence of god as a denial (¬¬God), this does not make it a negative claim.
“theology has proof and arguments involved” If this was true, why there are a lot systems of belief on Earth? If theology has proof, we should have: 1) no atheists, 2) One religion fitting for everybody. why? there indeed are alot of belief systems on earth, but i do not see that we should have no atheists or one religion for everyone if christianity for example had a proof for the existence of god (read aquino)? You seem to think that proof is always absolute and that no person can be of a different opinion. Science provides proof yet there are people who disagree with scientific conclusions and there are different theories of justificiation etc within science as well. You make a claim but do not really provide an argument for it, i simply do not see how 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof.
“you may not accept” That is impossible to deny or not accept facts. I may not like it, but when it is raining I can’t believe there is no rain. So, if I can in all honesty deny a fact, well, that means it is not a fact.
proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments, you may or may not accept their premises for example or you may or may not agree with their conclusion or try to prove that it is fallacious. can you please clarify what you conceive a fact to be?
“which you seem to confuse with science for some reason”: What makes you believing this?
Because you said atheism is based on experimental proof and facts, while that is not neccesarily true at all.
“belief is a component of knowledge, there can be no knowledge without belief.” Really? You may believe you can fly, but the laws of Physic will bring you back to Earth. It might be painful. There is no need to believe in the law of Physic, but a more or less careful observation would be enough. Knowledge comes from experience/experiments, in life as in Sciences. The difference is in life you can’t reproduce the same experiment again and again and having the same results.
it seems that this is pointless, i try to make clear that you mistake the meaning of belief and you deny that by making exactly the same mistake again... please tell me how one can have knowledge then, give me a definition of knowledge, a theory of justification that does not involve any sort of belief or is based on it. your examples arent good, belief is not the ONLY component of knowledge, i have never said that. belief is a neccesary component of knowledge not a sufficient component. you make some sort of magical leap from experience to knowledge without clarifying how one goes from experiencing something and then drawing apparantly obvious conclusions.
“Contemporary analytic philosophers” Do you have names? Because the ones I had to study when in High School wouldn’t agree with them (i.e. Kant, Nietzsche). For me, this definition is better fitted to define illusion or delusion. A belief is based on a system, a representation of the reality. I see the sun coming out and the day starting (observation/facts), and I believe (interpretation/extrapolation) that the God of Light (“Insert a name”) chasing the God of Darkness (“Insert a name”).
Kant and Nietzsche are not Analytic philosophers, neither are they contemporary... Also Kant would seriously disagree with you since he believes you cannot know the object an-sich (aka what the object is independent of us and our experience of them, what you seem to call facts). So far as I know Nietzsche has never really cared about this particular approach to the subject but also he would disagree with you because he was of the belief that truth is determined by power (very simply put). And yes you have a conception of belief that is not fitting for this discussion, we are basically talking about different things. A name for you is Nozick. Look up justified true belief, the most commonly used definition of knowledge, it is still a very problematic notion but it is still one of the most satisfying untill now.
“you see belief as the substitute of knowledge”: I wouldn't make this mistake. A belief is based on representation and interpretation when knowledge is based on facts or experience. this makes no sense to me, what does belief represent? facts? if it is based on representation, then why does any interpretation matter? How do you get to know these facts? Is anyone able to experience facts without any sort of interpretation? Is experience not already a form of interpretation given the phenomenon that people can experience the same event in different ways?
Ooops, an empty box is not empty… Of course, it is full of nothing…. I perhaps mess up concepts, but not facts. Do you grasp the concept of reality? Of course, there is no reality… This reminds me the conversation I had when I was 17, High School, calls of Philosophy… Definition of Reality, what is real, the reality we experiment is different for each individual… Great Time.
“I simply do not see how 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof.” Sorry, nothing I can do about it. I tried, and failed.:shame:
“can you please clarify what you conceive a fact to be?” When I drop a stone, it falls. Birds fly. Fish live in the water (mostly). Earth turns around the Sun… Is it enough?
“proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments” A long sentence to tell there are no proofs in theology.
“Because you said atheism is based on experimental proof and facts, while that is not necessarily true at all.” I didn’t, as I recognise to the atheists the right of irrationality…
“belief is a necessary component of knowledge” No. Belief is (most of the time) an obstacle to knowledge. Knowledge can lead to belief. I fall, I get hurt, so my belief is the next I will be hurt. I see a lightning and then I try to explain it with a belief. I don’t believe in a something before it happens. That was why it is always easier to predict a catastrophe after it happed (and really more precise).
“it is still one of the most satisfying until now.” Not for me.
“if it is based on representation, then why does any interpretation matter?” Because only the interpretation matters… It is the interpretation of the facts that creates the substance. Life on earth is fact. Religions interpretations need god(s). Then, because facts are what they are, the story becomes more complex, the Doctors of the Faith have to come up with new interpretation/explanations. Same in History: same events came give different interpretation. But not in sciences. Whatever you want or you believe, in the same conditions, the results are always the same.
“Is experience not already a form of interpretation given the phenomenon that people can experience the same event in different ways?” You are missing up subjectivity and interpretation. If a group of person fall, they all fall. Then, some will like it, some not. Some will be scared, some not. But the fact is they all fall.
The Stranger
12-02-2012, 23:50
can someone please pinch me? im not sure if i am going crazy or if something else is going on...
The Stranger
12-03-2012, 00:14
Ooops, an empty box is not empty… Of course, it is full of nothing…. I perhaps mess up concepts, but not facts. there is an empty box, this is a fact as you like to point out all the time, then there is a person which experiences that empty box. Now you can either say that this empty box and the experience are two different things, or you can say that they are the same (aka most likely that the box only exists as long as we experience it) many people find the latter conclusion absurd. please explain to me how we can know that the box is empty without also believing that the box is empty, because if we do not believe the box to be empty then we must believe the opposite, aka we must believe that the box is not empty (or we must suspend judgment) how can we know that the box is empty while we believe that the box is not empty and how can we know anything if we suspend judgment?
“I simply do not see how 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof.” Sorry, nothing I can do about it. I tried, and failed.:shame:
you didnt try at all, you said something strange and incomprehensive and i asked you to clarify that. you make alot of claims but provide no further arguments or justification for these claims. you said 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof you did not say WHY.
“can you please clarify what you conceive a fact to be?” When I drop a stone, it falls. Birds fly. Fish live in the water (mostly). Earth turns around the Sun… Is it enough?
do facts have truth value or do we assign this value to it?
“proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments” A long sentence to tell there are no proofs in theology. so there is no truth in mathematics either? or in logic? because thats basically the same format.
“Because you said atheism is based on experimental proof and facts, while that is not necessarily true at all.” I didn’t, as I recognise to the atheists the right of irrationality… =_= thats not what you said a few posts back but if both positions can be or are irrational why should we prefer one above the other?
“belief is a necessary component of knowledge” No. Belief is (most of the time) an obstacle to knowledge. Knowledge can lead to belief. I fall, I get hurt, so my belief is the next I will be hurt. I see a lightning and then I try to explain it with a belief. I don’t believe in a something before it happens. That was why it is always easier to predict a catastrophe after it happed (and really more precise).
again it becomes clear that you misunderstand what a belief is. if you reject the notion of justified true belief, and even more notable the idea that belief has anything to do with knowledge can you please give me a definition of knowledge and a theory of justification that does not make use of the concept of belief? how can we know something, how can we know that we know something and how can we be justified in thinking that we know that.
btw predicting something after it happens is no longer prediction... it reminds me of captain hindsight in southpark :P
“it is still one of the most satisfying until now.” Not for me. then please provide an alternative account.
“if it is based on representation, then why does any interpretation matter?” Because only the interpretation matters… It is the interpretation of the facts that creates the substance. Life on earth is fact. Religions interpretations need god(s). Then, because facts are what they are, the story becomes more complex, the Doctors of the Faith have to come up with new interpretation/explanations. Same in History: same events came give different interpretation. But not in sciences. Whatever you want or you believe, in the same conditions, the results are always the same.
first you said a belief was representation, i asked you a representation of what, you still havent answered that, please do. now you say only the interpretation matters, but its the interpretation of facts, but before you said belief and knowledge are different things, belief is about interpretation and representation and knowledge about facts and experience. now you claim that interpretation is also about facts, im starting to get confused, what exactly do you mean? same events, different interpretations, but not in science? cmon many events in science are interpreted in different ways, even within scientific disciplines events are interpreted in different ways, some scientists say global warming is caused by humans, other say its just normal climate changes, is that not a difference in interpretation?
“Is experience not already a form of interpretation given the phenomenon that people can experience the same event in different ways?” You are missing up subjectivity and interpretation. If a group of person fall, they all fall. Then, some will like it, some not. Some will be scared, some not. But the fact is they all fall.
im not messing up anything, the interpretation of these people, liking it, being scared etc is subjective, the fact that they fall would be objective. but the fact they fall is not the experience of falling, we were talking about experience, the experience of falling is interpretted by each of these people in different ways, how can you explain this? how can a seemingly subjective experience lead to objective knowledge.
there is an empty box, this is a fact as you like to point out all the time, then there is a person which experiences that empty box. Now you can either say that this empty box and the experience are two different things, or you can say that they are the same (aka most likely that the box only exists as long as we experience it) many people find the latter conclusion absurd. please explain to me how we can know that the box is empty without also believing that the box is empty, because if we do not believe the box to be empty then we must believe the opposite, aka we must believe that the box is not empty (or we must suspend judgment) how can we know that the box is empty while we believe that the box is not empty and how can we know anything if we suspend judgment?
You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time. :sneaky:
You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time. :sneaky:
With Schrodinger's Cat, there is the fundamental issue that the cat was put inside and we know this. It is not like an example where I randomly walk up to you, holding up a box saying "Is the cat inside of here dead or alive?"
How do you even know there is a cat in the box in the first place? And if you decide to believe me, I simply open the box and it is completely empty.
With Schrodinger's Cat, there is the fundamental issue that the cat was put inside and we know this. It is not like an example where I randomly walk up to you, holding up a box saying "Is the cat inside of here dead or alive?"
How do you even know there is a cat in the box in the first place? And if you decide to believe me, I simply open the box and it is completely empty. Damn... The cat was transported to that other dimension in the many worlds interpretation.
“there is an empty box, this is a fact as you like to point out all the time, then there is a person which experiences that empty box. Now you can either say that this empty box and the experience are two different things, or you can say that they are the same (aka most likely that the box only exists as long as we experience it) many people find the latter conclusion absurd”: I still don’t see what you try to say, sorry. There is an empty box. Point. If somebody says it not empty, he/she is delusional. Yes, you can say that things you don’t see don’t exist, but in the real world, you just go to check. And the box is still empty. I can deny China exist as I never see it. But I can go if I have deep doubt of China reality on the map.
“do facts have truth value or do we assign this value to it?” Facts are real.
“so there is no truth in mathematics either? or in logic? because thats basically the same format.”
A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there: Darwin. Joke apart, mathematics are based on axioms, (premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy)things you have to agree in order to the maths you operate works and theorems (statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments), things you can demonstrate.
“thats not what you said a few posts back but if both positions can be or are irrational why should we prefer one above the other?” Nope. What I said is atheism is based on observation and facts, but an atheist (as having no deities) can be irrational. I hope it is clearer.
“then please provide an alternative account”: I did
“you still havent answered that”: Stop to read only what you want. I did. Representation of a natural fact (remember, sun in the morning becoming the God of Light etc.). Pay attention please.
“cmon many events in science are interpreted in different ways, even within scientific disciplines events are interpreted in different ways, some scientists say global warming is caused by humans, other say its just normal climate changes, is that not a difference in interpretation”
Thanks to agree.
You finally get it. Global Warming happens: Fact. The interpretations from various researchers defer.
“the experience of falling is interpreted by each of these people in different ways, how can you explain this?” Yes, it is what I am saying. The facts (fall) is interpreted by the people. How I can explain, well, well, it is based on subjective matters. Some will like it, some not, so they will attach more or less negative to it. They attached value to a natural movement. They interpret a fact.
“how can a seemingly subjective experience lead to objective knowledge.” It is not a subjective experience. They fall. What might be subjective are the effects of the fall (can go for pleasant to really hurting). You mess up facts and effects. You can reproduce the fall each time you want; it will be always the same result if you have the same parameters (Kinetic energy).
“Damn... The cat was transported to that other dimension in the many worlds interpretation.” That is extrapolation, interpretation of unknown fact.
total relism
12-04-2012, 21:27
New debate found, was very good.
Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: Is Muhammad a Good Role Model for Society?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlcgbhvGRWE
Papewaio
12-05-2012, 07:31
You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time. :sneaky:
And when we observe it we can know which state it is in. God is even more elusive then the Higgs particle and with considerably less weight of evidence (geek pun fully intended).
And when we observe it we can know which state it is in. God is even more elusive then the Higgs particle and with considerably less weight of evidence (geek pun fully intended).
God - the lazy Higgs- I love it!
Quid
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.