Is Islam true?.

[total relism]

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]

New debate



sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: Is Islam a Threat to Society?
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

[LeftEyeNine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Sharia in the UK
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012...ing+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]

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]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

Who would eat a pizza with extra pineapple without any ham on it, easy

[Brenus]

“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…

[Fragony]

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]

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]

“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/showt...eist-morallity

[The Stranger]

“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?

[Fragony]

I am sure somoene sees it as such a thing

[The Stranger]

nice cryptic post as always frag...

[Hax]

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.

[The Stranger]

well yes you are right, i phrased myself a bit unlucky there.

[Hax]

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]

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.

[Brenus]

“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.

“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.