Is Islam true?.

[CrossLOPER]

I would be convinced that this guy is an alt-nick of frag's, if not for the fact this guy seems to know how to run a spell check.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The OP seems to be mainly attacking Islam on the grounds that it is pagan, violent and mysogenistic.

Now, I'm guessing from the OP's signature that he is a Christian. So I'm pretty sure that he will himself believe in a lot of pagan mythology. And the Bible is violent too. Granted, Christians aren't called to violence (that's to be left to God), but if you read the book literally then you should approve of the massacres in the Old Testament. And as for how it treats women, remember women are forbidden from speaking at meetings, are told to cover their heads in them, are said to be rebelling against God if they cut their hair short, and of course were created for Adam's pleasure from one of his ribs.

tbh, I don't expect any ancient religion to fit with modern values.

[Hax]

Nah, I've seen him on twc, too.

And Frags isn't like him. Frags got style.

[total relism]

The OP seems to be mainly attacking Islam on the grounds that it is pagan, violent and mysogenistic.

Now, I'm guessing from the OP's signature that he is a Christian. So I'm pretty sure that he will himself believe in a lot of pagan mythology. And the Bible is violent too. Granted, Christians aren't called to violence (that's to be left to God), but if you read the book literally then you should approve of the massacres in the Old Testament. And as for how it treats women, remember women are forbidden from speaking at meetings, are told to cover their heads in them, are said to be rebelling against God if they cut their hair short, and of course were created for Adam's pleasure from one of his ribs.

tbh, I don't expect any ancient religion to fit with modern values.

I would be attacking it on the grounds mostly of the arguments in those debates on OP. Someone brought up violence/unbelievers woman so I responded. I do not believe in any pagan mythology, please create a thread with claiming this I will join. I do approve of the conquest, sorry "massacre"[it was none of the sort] of Canaan, were believers [OT jews] were indeed commanded to destroy Canaanite towns. 3 in fact. This is a topic I love to discus, perhaps on another thread as it has nothing to do with this thread. There is much info that needs to be understood, that very well may give you a very different outlook on the conquest.But because threads get off topic so easy, I hope we can do this another thread/time. I certainly will be bringing it up on these forums as I have on twc multiple times.


woman first I suggest reading this book http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-B.../dp/0830838260
od Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?


I have to disagree with your intepritation of what is going on with the chruch at Corinth.

In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).
This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.
So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
gen 1.27





Modern morality
I agree the bible disagrees with much of modern morality,if it feels good do it, no marriage, sex with any partner and multiple partners , kill millions of innocent babies through abortion, homosexuality,slap on wrist for criminals,guilty run free, harder on Innocent, racism etc. But I have to ask, what makes you moral? is not the modern thought you refer to atheism? there can be no morals in a atheistic society.


morality

"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.

Nah, I've seen him on twc, too.

And Frags isn't like him. Frags got style.

Who are you over there? have you seen my thread on islam?.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553

[SoFarSoGood]

In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.

That's not quite 'true' itself: Murder is the illegal killing of someone as opposed to the numerous other times when killing is perfectly legal; same for rape which basicly means 'illegal sex'. The law - and human society of which the law is now more than standardised reflection - dictates the definitions and not 'chemical reactions'.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You're branching off into all sorts of topics here, which seems to be 95% copypasta, I can only handle so much in one sitting.

My point with bringing Christianity into things was to show that first of all it's easy to pull passages from holy books out of context, and secondly it's not that 'progressive' (horrible term) anyway.

If you want a separate thread for Christianity, I will make one.

[Montmorency]

In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.

Why do you say that the chemical reactions are random? Anyway, there are some electrical ones as well.

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good

He didn't believe murder as a principle or in general was a good. He believed in eliminating threats and furthering the prosperity and security of his Volk. His ideas didn't hit the mark...

what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.

We could ask the same of you. That leaves us at an impasse. The first to kill the other wins, I suppose.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We could ask the same of you. That leaves us at an impasse. The first to kill the other wins, I suppose.

When it comes to these sorts of situations, there's only one way to find out...

[total relism]

First Rhyfhylwyr is right, we are branching off topic. Something that is easy and that I dont want to happen. So lets please stay on topic.

That's not quite 'true' itself: Murder is the illegal killing of someone as opposed to the numerous other times when killing is perfectly legal; same for rape which basicly means 'illegal sex'. The law - and human society of which the law is now more than standardised reflection - dictates the definitions and not 'chemical reactions'.

I was not saying laws are based on chemical reactions, I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

You're branching off into all sorts of topics here, which seems to be 95% copypasta, I can only handle so much in one sitting.

My point with bringing Christianity into things was to show that first of all it's easy to pull passages from holy books out of context, and secondly it's not that 'progressive' (horrible term) anyway.

If you want a separate thread for Christianity, I will make one.

I was under the impression that you thought Christianity was pagan mythology, I would love you to start that thread if willing. I will gladly soon start a thread on all the major objections to the bible/Christianity, as I have done on twc including the conquest of Canaan.

I agree you are correct, passages can be pulled out of context, in fact I have done so with the koran on at least 2 occasions and been corrected. That is for people to show not assume. Also if you watch debates i posted, you than can see 2 intepritations of many passages be debated.

As far as 'progressive', i would like to argue the bible is not 'progressive', I see this as a very bad thing. Progress usually means allow anything, no one is wrong. This is very bad idea that can easily be shown false and to lead to people such as hitler.

Why do you say that the chemical reactions are random? Anyway, there are some electrical ones as well.



He didn't believe murder as a principle or in general was a good. He believed in eliminating threats and furthering the prosperity and security of his Volk. His ideas didn't hit the mark...



We could ask the same of you. That leaves us at an impasse. The first to kill the other wins, I suppose.

The human brain [if atheism is true] is just random chemical reactions, random matter united.


Agree with second part, But what do you mean did not hit the mark? It hit the mark perfect atheism. Survival of the fittest etc. Why are you correct and him wrong?.


“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003



Agreed fully, proving my point.


Speaking of hitler

Hitler--> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness....”(A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)

[Montmorency]

In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

Which belies your condemnation of Islam...

Agree with second part, But what do you mean did not hit the mark? It hit the mark perfect atheism. Survival of the fittest etc. Why are you correct and him wrong?.

How did his ideas and policies further the prosperity and security of his people? He didn't even come close to eliminating the subhuman threats to his country....

The human brain [if atheism is true] is just random chemical reactions,

But why random? Do you believe that your response to me, and mine to you, are necessarily random? They have nothing to do with each other?

And why "if atheism is true"? Why can't causality obtain without a higher power?

[Sir Moody]

I was not saying laws are based on chemical reactions, I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

wow you clearly read/watched too much of the garbage you are linking too - Atheists believe the law and moral codes are a product of society and not handed down by a great sky wizard - that chemical reaction garbage is tossed around generally by Fundamentalist groups of all faiths when arguing that Atheism is "immoral" - no Atheists actually believe that morality or law should be handled by chemical impulses .. hell we would all be in one hell of a state if we did...

I was under the impression that you thought Christianity was pagan mythology, I would love you to start that thread if willing. I will gladly soon start a thread on all the major objections to the bible/Christianity, as I have done on twc including the conquest of Canaan.

no Christianity is no more Pagan than Islam - they both however adopted a rather large number of traditions and/or festivals from Paganism however - part of this was to make it "easier" for the newly converted

I agree you are correct, passages can be pulled out of context, in fact I have done so with the koran on at least 2 occasions and been corrected. That is for people to show not assume. Also if you watch debates i posted, you than can see 2 intepritations of many passages be debated.

As far as 'progressive', i would like to argue the bible is not 'progressive', I see this as a very bad thing. Progress usually means allow anything, no one is wrong. This is very bad idea that can easily be shown false and to lead to people such as hitler.

wow ... just wow...

Definition of progressiveadjective

• 1happening or developing gradually or in stages:a progressive decline in popularity
  
• (of a medical condition) increasing in severity:progressive liver failure
  
• (of taxation or a tax) increasing as a proportion of the sum taxed as that sum increases:steeply progressive income taxes
  

• 2(of a person or idea) favouring social reform:a relatively progressive Minister of Education
  
• favouring change or innovation:the most progressive art school in Britain
  
• relating to or denoting a style of rock music popular especially in the 1970s and characterized by classical influences, the use of keyboard instruments, and lengthy compositions.
  

• 3 Grammar denoting an aspect or tense of a verb that expresses an action in progress, e.g. am writing, was writing. Also called continuous.
  

• 4(of a card game or dance) involving a series of sections for which participants successively change place or relative position.
  

• 5 archaic engaging in or constituting forward motion.
  

To be progressive means to adapt to changes in society/technology not to allow anything (seriously where did you pick that one up...)

Most religions have been very slow to adapt to the new world (hence the rise of Atheism)- their Bronze age ideals are less and less relevant in an age where Men and Woman are (almost) equal and the free transfer of ideas happens instantly via the internet

Thankfully several are trying - The Church of England allows woman vicars (and hopefully soon bishops as well) and there is even a movement within the Papacy to allow the same for Roman Catholics (whether they will succeed is another matter) - if they don't adapt they will over time simply lose any relevance

The human brain [if atheism is true] is just random chemical reactions, random matter united.

seriously you cant even get basic science right - if a Human brain was only "random" chemical reactions we would all be utterly unpredictable - hell we wouldn't even be able to predict what our bodies would be doing - your very personality is controlled by your brain and while no two people are the same there is nothing "Random" about the pattern of Chemical and Electrical reactions

Agree with second part, But what do you mean did not hit the mark? It hit the mark perfect atheism. Survival of the fittest etc. Why are you correct and him wrong?.

... your thinking of Darwin who incidentally enough was Christian - Survival of the Fittest is part of the Theory of Evolution (and is often abused by people who have no real understanding of it) - it has NOTHING to do with Atheism - Atheism is LITERALLY not believing in sky wizards - that is it

“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003

oh good we are breaking out Hitler - one of the worlds most evil CHRISTIANS - incidentally he never understood Survival of the Fittest either

[total relism]

Please stay on topic.

Which belies your condemnation of Islam...



How did his ideas and policies further the prosperity and security of his people? He didn't even come close to eliminating the subhuman threats to his country....



But why random? Do you believe that your response to me, and mine to you, are necessarily random? They have nothing to do with each other?

And why "if atheism is true"? Why can't causality obtain without a higher power?

Agreed 100%, but did you not notice I disagree with the atheist asumtions? I do not think we are just chemical reactions. So I have reson to object to what i see as "bad" killing murder rape etc.


You said "further the prosperity and security of his people? He didn't even come close to eliminating the subhuman threats to his country...."
ok I agree, kind of, as he eliminated many "sub human" from Germany Holocaust. What I thought you were saying is you disagree with him. But I have to ask if you agree with him, what makes the two of you right, or if you dont, what makes him wrong.


Because our brains are completely random matter and chemical reactions if atheism is true. No guided direction or higher power. I do not believe this is so at all. I am not atheist, but it is so if atheism is true.

[Sir Moody]

Because our brains are completely random matter and chemical reactions if atheism is true. No guided direction or higher power. I do not believe this is so at all. I am not atheist, but it is so if atheism is true.

Yes Atheists believe there is no Higher power but there is most certainly guided direction - Atheists believe we guide our own direction as a society moving towards common goals

you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Atheism - which means you probably don't really understand the original topic of Islam either

[total relism]

Please all stay on topic You also have made many clearly false claims/misunderstanding below.

wow you clearly read/watched too much of the garbage you are linking too - Atheists believe the law and moral codes are a product of society and not handed down by a great sky wizard - that chemical reaction garbage is tossed around generally by Fundamentalist groups of all faiths when arguing that Atheism is "immoral" - no Atheists actually believe that morality or law should be handled by chemical impulses .. hell we would all be in one hell of a state if we did...



no Christianity is no more Pagan than Islam - they both however adopted a rather large number of traditions and/or festivals from Paganism however - part of this was to make it "easier" for the newly converted



wow ... just wow...



To be progressive means to adapt to changes in society/technology not to allow anything (seriously where did you pick that one up...)

Most religions have been very slow to adapt to the new world (hence the rise of Atheism)- their Bronze age ideals are less and less relevant in an age where Men and Woman are (almost) equal and the free transfer of ideas happens instantly via the internet

Thankfully several are trying - The Church of England allows woman vicars (and hopefully soon bishops as well) and there is even a movement within the Papacy to allow the same for Roman Catholics (whether they will succeed is another matter) - if they don't adapt they will over time simply lose any relevance



seriously you cant even get basic science right - if a Human brain was only "random" chemical reactions we would all be utterly unpredictable - hell we wouldn't even be able to predict what our bodies would be doing - your very personality is controlled by your brain and while no two people are the same there is nothing "Random" about the pattern of Chemical and Electrical reactions




... your thinking of Darwin who incidentally enough was Christian - Survival of the Fittest is part of the Theory of Evolution (and is often abused by people who have no real understanding of it) - it has NOTHING to do with Atheism - Atheism is LITERALLY not believing in sky wizards - that is it




oh good we are breaking out Hitler - one of the worlds most evil CHRISTIANS - incidentally he never understood Survival of the Fittest either

You misunderstand, I will post my original point and we can take it from there. I in no way am saying atheist think there are no morals or that there should be no moral laws.


"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.




As I said, please start a thread on this, I assure you 100% the bible does no such thing, if you mean chritmas, Easter etc I would love to talk on those as well,please start separate thread.



Misunderstand again, I said the tendency of "progressive" social change is for allow anything, no one is wrong, etc. I agree that chritanity luckily does not adapt to your new atheism, such as killing millions of innocent babies through abortion. You than commit a logical fallacies called 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
I would say the bible is very relevant to today. You than claim that woman are not equal in bible somehow, I am not sure how at all. But as atheist why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.

For example why is darwin wrong in your eye?
Darwin listed the advantages of marrying, which included: ". . . constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house . . ." (Darwin, 1958:232,233).

Darwin reasoned that as a married man he would be a "poor slave, . . . worse than a Negro," but then reminisces that, "one cannot live the solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless ... and childless staring in one's face...." Darwin concludes his discussion on the philosophical note, "there is many a happy slave" and shortly thereafter, married (1958:234).


, "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (Kevles, 1986:8). Many anthropologists contemporary to Darwin concluded that "women's brains were analogous to those of animals," which had "overdeveloped" sense organs "to the detriment of the brain" (Fee, 1979:418). Carl Vogt, a University of Geneva natural history professor who accepted many of "the conclusions of England's great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin," argued that "the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellect and nature of the "grown up Negro" (1863:192). Many of Darwin's followers accepted this reasoning, including George Romanes, who concluded that evolution caused females to become, as Kevles postulated:

One reason nineteenth century biologists argued for women's inferiority was because Darwin believed that
[progressive idea woman rights] threatened to produce a perturbance of the races" and to "divert the orderly process of evolution" (Fee, 1979:415).


. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).
Darwin, Charles. 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York: D. Appleton and Company.




The creation of our brain was just what happened to gather, random is key word. So our beliefs are random and have no authority. I disagree with this asumtion of atheism. I was pointing out that atheist not chrsitianity demands this.


Missed point, what I said was how can anyone claim hitler was wrong, as he was just doing the law of nature or survival of the fittest. You claim to know about evolution and darwin, it should amuse to to know he was not christian, not after evolution.

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003


A great claim here that hitler was a christian lol


Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

13th December, 1941, midnight:



Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)

From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

[total relism]

Yes Atheists believe there is no Higher power but there is most certainly guided direction - Atheists believe we guide our own direction as a society moving towards common goals

you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Atheism - which means you probably don't really understand the original topic of Islam either

You misunderstand my entire point, but given I have explained this many times, just go over to this thread as it will be brought up there.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...l-State-of-Man

[Rhyfelwyr]

TR why are you going on this murderous rampage against strawmen?

Just because Darwin developed some concept of evolution doesn't mean his word on every topic has canonical status for atheists, the theory of evolution has evolved immensely since his time. Its proponents are also overwhelmingly not racist nowadays.

[Sir Moody]

morality

"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

Hogwash - society already had law and a moral code long before Christianity was born - The Ancient Egyptians had them, the Babylonians hand them and I wouldn't be surprised to learn we had them even further back than that

Morals are a product of HUMANITY and can be found where ever Humans call home - no matter if Religion or lack of Religion hold sway

We as a society shape the Moral code - this is precisely why different societies have different Moral's

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

... please for the sake of your Sky Wizard would you please READ MY POSTS - Atheists don't believe morals or the law are derived from chemical impulses - and those very chemical impulses you keep brining up are NOT random at all

As I said, please start a thread on this, I assure you 100% the bible does no such thing, if you mean chritmas, Easter etc I would love to talk on those as well,please start separate thread.

your clearly misinformed then - I suggest you talk it over with someone who cares

oh and no I will keep posting in this thread - I would rather keep this garbage in one place so, when the Admins get around to closing it, it doesn't spread like a cancer through the backroom

Misunderstand again, I said the tendency of "progressive" social change is for allow anything, no one is wrong, etc. I agree that chritanity luckily does not adapt to your new atheism, such as killing millions of innocent babies through abortion. You than commit a logical fallacies called 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
I would say the bible is very relevant to today. You than claim that woman are not equal in bible somehow, I am not sure how at all. But as atheist why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.

Women are human beings - all human beings (White, Black, Men or Women) deserve to be treated as equals - it has nothing to do with a Sky Wizard or what ever image they were "made in" - it is Empathy pure and simple

The very fact women until very recently (in historical terms) didn't share the same rights as men is a product of the Christian and other churches - go re-read your bible its riddled with Woman being subjected

A great claim here that hitler was a christian lol

Hitler WAS Christian - he was born Catholic - he followed Catholic teachings - early on he actively encouraged his followers to be Christian - later after the German Church distanced itself from him and actively criticised him he "lost faith" in Christianity and actively blamed them for his failures - he never stoped believing in god however and instead created his own church

It is a historical fact he was Christian - accept it and move on - that doesn't mean Christianity bares the brunt blame for Hitler - that lies on the shoulders of Fascism

Now clearly you are a member of the "Christian Taliban" so I don't expect you to actually accept this and frankly I am done argueing with a brick wall - at least for tonight

[total relism]

TR why are you going on this murderous rampage against strawmen?

Just because Darwin developed some concept of evolution doesn't mean his word on every topic has canonical status for atheists, the theory of evolution has evolved immensely since his time. Its proponents are also overwhelmingly not racist nowadays.

I could ask the same thing, as people are missing what I am saying over and over. For example what you just posted.

My point with darwin, was not that because he was racist sexist that atheist must be, my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong" in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.

Hogwash - society already had law and a moral code long before Christianity was born - The Ancient Egyptians had them, the Babylonians hand them and I wouldn't be surprised to learn we had them even further back than that

Morals are a product of HUMANITY and can be found where ever Humans call home - no matter if Religion or lack of Religion hold sway

We as a society shape the Moral code - this is precisely why different societies have different Moral's



... please for the sake of your Sky Wizard would you please READ MY POSTS - Atheists don't believe morals or the law are derived from chemical impulses - and those very chemical impulses you keep brining up are NOT random at all



your clearly misinformed then - I suggest you talk it over with someone who cares

oh and no I will keep posting in this thread - I would rather keep this garbage in one place so, when the Admins get around to closing it, it doesn't spread like a cancer through the backroom



Women are human beings - all human beings (White, Black, Men or Women) deserve to be treated as equals - it has nothing to do with a Sky Wizard or what ever image they were "made in" - it is Empathy pure and simple

The very fact women until very recently (in historical terms) didn't share the same rights as men is a product of the Christian and other churches - go re-read your bible its riddled with Woman being subjected



Hitler WAS Christian - he was born Catholic - he followed Catholic teachings - early on he actively encouraged his followers to be Christian - later after the German Church distanced itself from him and actively criticised him he "lost faith" in Christianity and actively blamed them for his failures - he never stoped believing in god however and instead created his own church

It is a historical fact he was Christian - accept it and move on - that doesn't mean Christianity bares the brunt blame for Hitler - that lies on the shoulders of Fascism

Now clearly you are a member of the "Christian Taliban" so I don't expect you to actually accept this and frankly I am done argueing with a brick wall - at least for tonight

I will reply to you over here, I included your above response.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053493625

I started new thread to try to keep this on topic. Titled was hitler a christian/atheistic morality.

Post over there or I will report you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yep. Totally true

[total relism]

To get back on topic Islamic heaven


no one can speak with god in haven 78 37-38
sin seems to continue in heaven 47.12-16
believers will mock unbelievers in hell, as they recline apone there couches 83.35
these to me do not seem like a ideal haven people wish to go to.
7 heavens 23. 15-17
only Muslims go to haven 84,24-25


forgery in koran
Jesus made a bird from clay and preached from the cradle 5 109-111
Jesus preaching from cradle 3.46
Jesus speaking as baby 19.30-37 clay bird to life by Jesus 3.49-52
These come from the infancy gospel of Thomas, that noone non-muslim sees as authoritative, but a forgery written in local Arabia


the satanic verses
pretty funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v20VvP19kCI
here is debate on it
Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "The Satanic Verses: Fabricated or Authentic?"
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008...d-satanic.html

[Lemur]

Could a BR mod please merge this with the Drunkards' Thread?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I could ask the same thing, as people are missing what I am saying over and over. For example what you just posted.

My point with darwin, was not that because he was racist sexist that atheist must be, my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong" in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.

Nobody has missed your point, you just keep flipping from topic to topic. For example, flying from "Darwin is racist and therefore immoral" to "atheists can't believe in morality anyway" as soon as atheists tell you that they are not racist.

Address one point at a time. Atheists should tell you what they believe, not the other way around.

[Montmorency]

Because our brains are completely random matter and chemical reactions if atheism is true. No guided direction or higher power. I do not believe this is so at all. I am not atheist, but it is so if atheism is true.

That doesn't really follow. In fact, you appear to be putting forth a lot of premises, and heaping further premises upon them, without anything to support the initial premises.

And why do you insist on the "random matter" angle? How did you come to the conclusion that atheism = no causality?

How about: 'if materialism is valid, then humans must be the sum of their material components mediating external material stimuli'?

Or: 'without a higher force exerting influence on the universe, fluctuations of energy and matter can not be "intentional"'?

I believe those are the core claims you are trying to make.

[total relism]

Nobody has missed your point, you just keep flipping from topic to topic. For example, flying from "Darwin is racist and therefore immoral" to "atheists can't believe in morality anyway" as soon as atheists tell you that they are not racist.

Address one point at a time. Atheists should tell you what they believe, not the other way around.

I gota say you have done it once again, but there is new thread for this subject here.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...eist-morallity

This is islam.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If you didn't want to talk about it here you shouldn't have slapped down several walls of copypasta text about it.

[Fragony]

Nah, I've seen him on twc, too.

And Frags isn't like him. Frags got style.

That's nice of you Haxie

[total relism]

That doesn't really follow. In fact, you appear to be putting forth a lot of premises, and heaping further premises upon them, without anything to support the initial premises.

And why do you insist on the "random matter" angle? How did you come to the conclusion that atheism = no causality?

How about: 'if materialism is valid, then humans must be the sum of their material components mediating external material stimuli'?

Or: 'without a higher force exerting influence on the universe, fluctuations of energy and matter can not be "intentional"'?

I believe those are the core claims you are trying to make.

Glad to discuss it over here, please read my op here slowly, than post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...eist-morallity

If you didn't want to talk about it here you shouldn't have slapped down several walls of copypasta text about it.

Good point

[total relism]

Back on topic if possible? anyone want to talk of atheistic morality post here.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...eist-morallity


As I outlined here in OP.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531553

I see the morality of god of bible and jesus as far above and beyond Allah of koran and Muhammad. I got the idea from this debate and built apone it.
Concept of God in Christianity and Islam craig vs alley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=741gF4A_k3A


Also how do Muslims reconcile contradictions between koran and bible when Muhammad and the koran say the bible was 100% true in 600AD? The same bible we have today.

Also were is the evidence of Muslim faith in either the OT Jews or NT christian, there is no historical evidence for Muslim type faith, yet the koran claims it is true.

[total relism]

More on woman and islam


Muslim men can have sex with captures slaves and wives.
#The Qur’an permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves (i.e. those "whom their right hands possess"). As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from God to guide them in their treatment of their female captives:
Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (Eventually) win through—Those who humble themselves In their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds Of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined To them in the marriage bond, Or (the captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (in their case) they are Free from blame.

Qur'an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted To Prayer—Those who remain steadfast To their prayer; And those in whose wealth Is a recognized right For the (needy) who asks And him who is prevented (For some reason from asking); And those who hold To the truth of the Day Of Judgement; And those who fear The displeasure of their Lord—For their Lord’s displeasure Is the opposite of Peace And Tranquility—And those who guard Their chastity, Except with their wives And the (captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (then) they are not To be blamed.

Sahih Muslim 3432—Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (4:24)" (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda period came to an end).

Sahih Muslim 3371—We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sahih Al-Bukhari 4138—We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the invasion of Bun Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus [same as "azl" above]. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said: "How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us? We asked (him) about it and he said: "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul till the Day of Resurrection is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Sahih Muslim 3384—Jabir bin Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: I have a slave-girl and I practice azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.


woman often not smart enough to get to haven
Sahih Muslim 142—[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense.

Sahih Al-Bukhari 1462—[Muhammad said], "O women! Give to charity, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women." The women asked, "O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He said: "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious man astray."

However, even if these women were to stop cursing and to start thanking their husbands, their prospects for the afterlife would still leave much to be desired. According to Muhammad, Muslim women can look forward to an eternity of standing in corners, waiting for men to come and have sex with them:

Sahih Al-Bukhari 4879—Allah’s Apostle said: "In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them."

[Fragony]

What do you want to achieve these are mostly old texts. I don't think I am going to be accused of apoligising anything of it very soon here but there IS a context in which it was said most of the time, some just don't understand these times are over. Example, it's not true that muslims aren't allowed to have non-muslims as friends, it really says 'protectors' in arab and that sits perfectly well with the situation at the time being.