Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A1 Sauce Mmmm M'ladies...dinner...is Served!


1AcceptingAThiest1

Recommended Posts

Here's some links for you to check out, A1.

 

https://sites.google.com/site/islamidawa/science-religion/universe-origin

http://www.missionislam.com/science/book.htm

http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

http://www.islamreligion.com/category/34/

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm

http://www.quranandscience.com/

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/870/miracles-of-the-qur%E2%80%99an

http://www.al-islam.org/authenticity-quran-shaykh-muslim-bhanji/scientific-miracle-qur%E2%80%99

http://www.scienceinquran.com/

http://kaheel7.com/eng/

http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/

http://quranproject.org/Scientific-Miracles-of-The-Quran-83

http://www.quran-m.com/firas/en1/index.php/universe.html

http://www.islamhouse.com/385799/en/ar/categories/Scientific_Miracles_in_the_Quran_and_Sunnah

http://www.ediscoverislam.com/understanding-holy-quran/scientific-miracle-quran-universe-black-hole

http://scienceislam.com/quran_miracles.php

https://archive.org/details/ScientificMiracleOfQuran

http://en.islamway.net/articles/category/16/scientific-miracles-of-the-quran

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7591091-scientific-miracles-of-the-qur-an-with-signs-of-allah-in-the-heavens-and

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/medmiraclesofquran/medmiracleseng.htm

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3923

http://www.slideshare.net/knowme123/scientific-miracles-in-the-quran

https://islamtomorrow.com/proofs/

http://www.madeenah.com/tafseer-of-the-quran-through-deduction-of-scientific-miracles-palindromes-and-modern-theories/

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/general/new-exhibition-shows-scientific-miracles-of-quran-1.1358567

http://www.discoveringislam.org/miracles_of_Islam.htm

http://debatewise.org/debates/229-there-is-a-mathematical-miracle-in-the-quran-that-proves-it-is-the-word-of-god/

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=745154

http://www.bsu.edu.eg/Quraan/E/Quraan.aspx

http://www.muslim-library.com/english/linguistic-historic-futuristic-and-scientific-miracles-of-the-quran/?lang=English

http://www.muhammad-pbuh.com/en/?cat=22

 

 

.

.

.

See what's happening...?  No?  Then I'll explain it to you.

 

Muslim fundamentalists have carefully searched thru their holy book, the Quran, looking for passages they can take out of context and then make bold (and false) claims about.  Then they set up fancy-looking websites to draw in gullible people who are tricked into believing that the Quran predicted (1,400 years ago) what science has recently discovered.

 

Sound familiar?  Yep!

That's exactly the same kind of bogus claim Christian fundys make about the Bible predicting what science has since discovered.  Same trick, different script.  And since..."there's a sucker born every minute"... people like you are all to ready to believe this crap, without even blinking.  Anyway, here's a video for you.

 

 

Enjoy!

 

BAA

 

 

interesting, thanks for the links i will look into it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's exactly the same kind of bogus claim Christian fundys make about the Bible predicting what science has since discovered.  Same trick, different script.  And since..."there's a sucker born every minute"... people like you are all to ready to believe this crap, without even blinking. 

 

A1, lots of people fall for it, you're not the only one.  I call people dumb who believe it, not because they're actually dumb, but because they're smart enough to know better.  Maybe you just haven't heard the truth until now.  But there's always still time to redeem yourself A1, not to us, but for yourself.

 

 

Aww thats so nice of you, earlier you were talking to me so differently, you were acting like you ate some bad steak, now you act like you had the Real deal with the Pure A1 Sauce. And thats somethng anyone can appreciate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Aww thats so nice of you, earlier you were talking to me so differently, you were acting like you ate some bad steak, now you act like you had the Real deal with the Pure A1 Sauce. And thats somethng anyone can appreciate

 

Proselytizing will often get a negative reaction, and especially at an ex-Christian website. Personally I see this as a place to help people who have suffered from or are currently suffering from dysfunctional religion.  Christians coming here trying to promote their religion seems extremely disrespectful and rude, so I agree that any kindness shown towards Christians certainly should be appreciated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

Aww thats so nice of you, earlier you were talking to me so differently, you were acting like you ate some bad steak, now you act like you had the Real deal with the Pure A1 Sauce. And thats somethng anyone can appreciate

 

Proselytizing will often get a negative reaction, and especially at an ex-Christian website. Personally I see this as a place to help people who have suffered from or are currently suffering from dysfunctional religion.  Christians coming here trying to promote their religion seems extremely disrespectful and rude, so I agree that any kindness shown towards Christians certainly should be appreciated.

 

I would say that the other forums are more geared toward recovery from religion.  The purpose of The Lion's Den, though, isn't recovery, per se.  This is a place where christians can come to promote their religion; which, in turn, allows us to demonstrate the flawed logic, faulty thinking, and, sometimes, downright stupidity of christian apologists.

 

It is important that we serve this function, as we never know who may be lurking.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me give a Summation. Please correct me if im wrong

 

 

Faith according to athiest is having a position without evidence

 

Not believing in something, can have evidence but doesnt require it but essentially you still *are without evidence*

which by the definition of faith is the same thing...

 

So...

 

I hear it all the time there is no evidence that the afterlife, no evidence of sin, no evidence of supernatural that exists so we dont believe it

Well this is a positive claim, and so evidence must be provided to say there is no evidence of afterlife, supernatural or sin

 

if you take the nuetral stance along the lines of not convinced or not sufficient criteria to belief in an afterlife,sin, supernatural

that is STILL.. a position without evidence...which again according to athiest the definition of faith** without evidene**

 

where am i misunderstanding, please help me correct this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

So let me give a Summation. Please correct me if im wrong

 

 

Faith according to athiest is having a position without evidence

 

Not believing in something, can have evidence but doesnt require it but essentially you still *are without evidence*

which by the definition of faith is the same thing...

 

So...

 

I hear it all the time there is no evidence that the afterlife, no evidence of sin, no evidence of supernatural that exists so we dont believe it

Well this is a positive claim, and so evidence must be provided to say there is no evidence of afterlife

 

if you take the nuetral stance along the lines of not convinced or not sufficient criteria to belief in an afterlife

that is STILL.. a position without evidence...which again according to athiest the definition of faith** without evidene**

 

where am i misunderstanding, please help me correct this

You are misunderstanding the fact that if there is no evidence to support a claim (i.e. "god exists", "there is an afterlife", etc.), then the claim can simply be disregarded as unsubstantiated.  It doesn't require faith to reject an unsubstantiated claim.

 

I thought I explained this earlier in this thread.  Are you not paying attention over the sound of your own voice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am listening.......

 

i gave two options

 

nuetral

and non nuetral stance

 

 

taking the NON Nuetral Stance

 

if you say....THERE is NO afterlife No sin NO supernatural

 

Thats a Claim  then the claim can simply be disregarded as unsubstantiated

 

This is the same as some claiming there IS SIN there IS afterlife there IS supernatural

Thats a Claim  then the claim can simply be disregarded as unsubstantiated

 

IF BOTH CLAIMS HAVE NO EVIDENCE...How are they different?

 

Both Stances According to you Have no evidence, one you say doesnt require it, but that doesnt change the fact it doesnt HAVE evidence, which again according to atheists is the definition of Faith **without evidence* whether there is a reason or no reason for not having evidence is irrelevant there is still no evidence which by your own definition of faith it meets the requirements to fullfill that definition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

i am listening.......

 

i gave two options

 

nuetral

and non nuetral stance

 

 

taking the NON Nuetral Stance

 

if you say....THERE is NO afterlife No sin NO supernatural

 

Thats a Claim  then the claim can simply be disregarded as unsubstantiated

 

This is the same as some claiming there IS SIN there IS afterlife there IS supernatural

Thats a Claim  then the claim can simply be disregarded as unsubstantiated

 

IF BOTH CLAIMS HAVE NO EVIDENCE...How are they different?

 

Both Stances According to you Have no evidence, one you say doesnt require it, but that doesnt change the fact it doesnt HAVE evidence, which again according to atheists is the definition of Faith **without evidence* whether a reason for not having it, is irrelevant there is still no evidence which by your own definition of faith it meets the requirements to fullfill that definition

You are committing the Strawman Fallacy.  You say:

 

if you say....THERE is NO afterlife No sin NO supernatural

 

Thats a Claim  then the claim can simply be disregarded as unsubstantiated

 

You present this as an argument that I, or some other member of this site might present.  And since you are the one presenting the "argument", you also have a very handy rebuttal.  I'm sure it makes you appear intelligent around your christian buddies; however, around here it makes you appear, and I mean no disrespect here, like a bungling idiot.

 

There is a huge difference between making the statement, "There is no afterlife"; and making the statement, "There is no evidence to support the claim that an afterlife exists."  It's a difference you obviously do not understand; otherwise your Strawman attempt must necessarily be dishonest and disingenuous.

 

Now, I have a particular problem with this portion of your post here:

 

 

Both Stances According to you Have no evidence, one you say doesnt require it, but that doesnt change the fact it doesnt HAVE evidence, which again according to atheists is the definition of Faith **without evidence* whether this a reason for not having it, is irrelevant there is still no evidence which by your own definition of faith it meets the requirements to fullfill that definition

Much like the Strawman Fallacy, it is easy to "win" an argument when you are putting words into the mouth of your counterlocutor.  However, you will find that I actually said none of the things you claim I said.  In making these accusations against me, you have demonstrated yourself as being dishonest.  If you have to stoop to dishonesty in order to "win" arguments, rather than relying on reason and logic, then your character is as deeply flawed as your intellect has proven to be.

 

You should really try refuting the points others make, rather than the ones you would like for them to make.  You'll get a lot more mileage here in The Den, without having to stoop to such dishonest and disingenuous tactics.

 

However, being able to highlight your particular errors does immeasurable good for those lurkers who might still have leanings towards christianity.  You should feel proud.  This might be the very post that causes someone struggling with their faith to finally let it go and see the light of reason; and you got to be a part of it--a soul-winner, indeed!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i present arguments that have only been stated here, not from myself i can copy and paste onyl their words exactl.

 

i was speaking in general terms addressing everyone. hence why i said  "If you say" which is a hypothetical not an accusatory

 

but if you want i wll quote members who have said what i said and that it is not strawman it is coming from people here themelf

 

some here are taking the NON Nuetral stance and some are take the Nuetral stance.. maybe you missed that part.

 

i will brb with all quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee A1 did you not pay attention to a single word I wrote?

 

How can everything ever discovered by all of archeology and anthropology = nothing?

 

Thousands of museums and libraries are full of this evidence.  It represents millions of hours of work.  And you call it nothing?

 

We know that humans invented gods and the afterlife because we have found a massive level of evidence.  Hundreds of human cultures have been documented.

 

 

 

 

It is not nothing.  If you want to see something unsubstantiated read the Bible.  However the Bible itself is part of the evidence that humans create gods and afterlife stories.  It looks to me like you are not listening.  One side has no evidence and the other has a very high level of evidence.  These two ideas are not equal.

 

 

Are you paying attention A1?  Almost 4,000 years ago the Sumer culture created the Epic of Gilgamesh that is just filled with all kinds of gods and goddesses.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

 

That was thousands of years before Hebrews stole ideas from Egypt and Babalon to created the Old Testament.  Almost all human cultures create gods.  Almost all of these god stories contradict each other.  Humans create gods.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible is a book - actually a collection of books of collected myth, legend, poetry, philosophy, traditions, a little history, a little geography, a little political machinations… the scientific community mostly takes it for what it really is…a textual resource, like pottery shards, engravings and any other archaeological artefact. BY ITSELF it is just a clue.. one of many about the past. It is on par with the Pyramid Texts, the Quran, the Ugartic texts, the Veda's… stele's from many cultures..etc…ancient buried cities, IT IS NOT HISTORY. This has been proven by many scholars… yes, even bible scholars.. unfortunately this doesn't seem to trickle down to the pastors.

 

We are not saying the Bible has absolutely no merit… just putting it where it belongs in the entire picture of our past.

 

 

If I say, "I don't see enough evidence to convince me that ______________ is true." I am NOT saying "_____________ is false" (a positive statement) 

 

If I say, "I don't believe in _____________ because there is not enough evidence of it's veracity", I am not saying "_____________ doesn't exist. I am saying there isn't enough evidence for me to believe in _______________. It's not a positive claim. I don't need to 'prove' that.. you can't prove a negative.

 

"Holder of the burden
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning. Proving a negative When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".[10]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

 

 

 

Let me introduce you to Bertram Russell, a philosopher. And his hypothetical Teapot.   :D

 

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

 

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]"

 

~ Bertram Russell

 

 

Let me put it to you this way. "I don't believe in pink unicorns." Do you now expect me to prove there are no pink unicorns?  Why or why not?

 

 

Now, if I say, "God does not exist".. although that is a negative statement it is a positive claim.. the burden would shift to me to prove it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee A1 did you not pay attention to a single word I wrote?

 

How can everything ever discovered by all of archeology and anthropology = nothing?

 

Thousands of museums and libraries are full of this evidence. It represents millions of hours of work. And you call it nothing?

 

We know that humans invented gods and the afterlife because we have found a massive level of evidence. Hundreds of human cultures have been documented.

 

 

 

 

It is not nothing. If you want to see something unsubstantiated read the Bible. However the Bible itself is part of the evidence that humans create gods and afterlife stories. It looks to me like you are not listening. One side has no evidence and the other has a very high level of evidence. These two ideas are not equal.

 

 

Are you paying attention A1? Almost 4,000 years ago the Sumer culture created the Epic of Gilgamesh that is just filled with all kinds of gods and goddesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

 

That was thousands of years before Hebrews stole ideas from Egypt and Babalon to created the Old Testament. Almost all human cultures create gods. Almost all of these god stories contradict each other. Humans create gods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see what you mean, obvious fraudulent/fictional accounts should make us doubt such claims, but they don't disprove the whole thing.

That is like saying that the existence of nigerian scam artists is evidence that it is impossible to have rich deceased relatives.

 

that is a fallacious argument. It may seem reasonable that if you find 1000 accounts of fake afterlifes, and no genuine ones that this implies the whole thing is fake... but you have not proved it.

 

 

Just because someone makes something up about does not erase eradicate eliminate destroy the actual existence of afterlife. Its not evidence at all its just it makes you less likely to believe but belief does not erase existence and lack of belief does not take away reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ravenstar thanks for the post I will respond shortly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

So...

 

I hear it all the time there is no evidence that the afterlife, no evidence of sin, no evidence of supernatural that exists so we dont believe it

Well this is a positive claim, and so evidence must be provided to say there is no evidence of afterlife, supernatural or sin

 

if you take the nuetral stance along the lines of not convinced or not sufficient criteria to belief in an afterlife,sin, supernatural

that is STILL.. a position without evidence...which again according to athiest the definition of faith** without evidene**

 

where am i misunderstanding, please help me correct this

 

No. You have been given explanations and examples countless times and you either mentally incapable of understanding or you are simply a troll. Stop pretending you want to understand because obviously you do not.

 

This thread is closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.