Is Islam true?.

[total relism]

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]

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.

[total relism]

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?.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[drone]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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]

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]

What's a heterodoxy?

[Fragony]

What's a heterodoxy?

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM

[Hax]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's a heterodoxy?

Heresy.

[Papewaio]

So Homodoxy is the truth not a ladyboy?