126 replies to this topic

[Ally]

Please don't descend it in to a flame war or the thread will have to get closed.

[Joel]

Please don't descend it in to a flame war or the thread will have to get closed.

Closing the threads is just prevaricating the real problem. Ban Daron Malakian and andymckenzie!

[Dave]

i am not entirely sure how things got so out of hand we have a thread about this a lot and never have things got so heated

[John]

John, any chance of you explaining your agnostic theist viewpoint? I mean, is like "I believe in God but I don't know why and have no reasonable explanation"?

I beleive in God, whether God can be proven or not is not a problem for me, i simply believe God exists.

Many scientists do believe, due to the incredible unprobability that we should even be here, that there was some kind of divine intervention in it all. I, myself, cannot follow something blindly, and need evidence to prove it all, thus science is my 'following'.

But there are indeed facts and proof for FSM. <3

Edit: In response to eyecandy, I don't feel that the world is proof of there being "God". Deities are simply faith, and hope. They're not physical things that 'exist'. They're simply emotions, such as love and hope etc. In ancient times, religion was there so that even in the darkest of times, people had something to pray to, to feel that maybe not all is lost. And to me, religion is still that. I feel all these debates of whether deities are real or not are all moot point - religion isn't about whether there really is something up there, it's about having that feeling of hope and blind faith, that perhaps, as you've said eyecandy, nothing else can replace.

Either way, that's my two cents.

Exactly what i think, or there abouts





I have more to say but i am tired and cant read anymore lol

[Blondie]

i am not entirely sure how things got so out of hand we have a thread about this a lot and never have things got so heated

For the love of all that is good in this world, don't turn take this as a continuation of the flame war, but things get so heated in these subjects because religion and faith can be a very powerful thing to some people, wars have been started continuously in history because of a clash in beliefs, I suppose it's only natural.

Either way, flame war over, if we could *try* and resist insulting eachother while stating out view, that'd be great, thanks. <3

In response to Sodium_Ho: Yay! My posts aren't invisible!

[Joel]

For the love of all that is good in this world, don't turn take this as a continuation of the flame war, but things get so heated in these subjects because religion and faith can be a very powerful thing to some people, wars have been started continuously in history because of a clash in beliefs, I suppose it's only natural.

The flaming doesn't really have anything to do with the subject matter, it's just certain new members around here who think it is acceptable to insult people for no good reason. It's not just this subject matter that has turned into a flame war...

[George]

Wow, I went off to read the book that ad absurdum recommended, and I come back to find a couple of pages of tripe

Most of what was posted since my last post has been swiping at other members, so please let this post mark an official end to it.

I had a suspicion that this thread could get heated, because religious belief is such a personal thing. Maybe it was a mistake for me to post, since I'm meant to be impartial and all that, but I honestly don't think anything I posted was offensive

What I do object to is organised religion. To me, it just smacks of population control (as a lot of people have suggested already).

If people want to share their religious belief, and invent whimsical ways to worship a creator, that's fine. Just don't try to force it on me

Perhaps the choice of the word "whimsical" contributes to a slight mocking tone, so I'm sorry if that offends. What I'm really getting at is the fact that religious traditions are so arbitrary, and varied among organised religions.

I understand Islam has some pretty strict prayer rituals (from what I recall in RE, and what some earlier posters were saying about praying 5 times a day). Just the other day I watched Fiddler on the Roof, in which a community of Jews all wear hats and prayer shawls as part of their religious practice.

I just don't see how anyone can know for sure that such modes of worship will please their deity - surely it's just a tradition that's stuck with a particular community? Indeed, one of the big songs in Fiddler on the Roof is actually called 'Tradition', which is all about the traditional way of life in the community

In any case, I did say that it's fine by me for people to practice their religion using these means, if they want.

I also think it's entirely fair that nobody can expect such behaviour of me, or try to force it on me.

nobodys forcing anything on you so dont act so childish as though religions out to get you

I live in a country that claims to be predominantly Christian, with a head of state who is also the head of a major church, and state schools which are required by law to conduct a minimum level of religious worship. I fail to see how this is not religion being forced on me.

Of course, it shouldn't really bother me because as I said before, I just don't think I have that sort of faith in me. You might take my warning not to "try and force it on me" as a warning that you'll merely be wasting your time

If that's "entirely small-minded and apparently intent on ridiculing people's faith", then please excuse me

Oh great, yet another debate that's been reduced to ad hominem

*gives up all hope of a mature debate*

Let's just see

Incidentally, the book you recommended was very interesting and thought provoking. (I would second the recommendation to everyone else: http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf )

I'd be interested to know if you've read the sequel, and if so, is it a worthwhile read?

[eyecandy]

part of the Quran says 4 some ppl there is a wall in front, a wall behind and a wall on either side of a person and nothin u say can make them believe

Yes, and some people have a wall in front, a wall behind, walls either side, a floor under their feet and a roof over their head and nothing you say will ever make them realise how naive they sound.

She quoted to fuel her point. You quote to ridicule. I see no productivity in that. However I take your point that going all gung ho isn't the way to go about it.

yeah, ^ what he said. and i don't sound naive, its my opinion, I quoted from the Quran.. where's ur source of reference? i couldn't care less what u think

now now keep the head

There is nothing wrong with what george, steve, myself or anyone who isnt religous has said. However what i find is anyone who does go to church and truelly believes in all this react violently to any questioning of there beliefs. This i cannot understand because surely if you truelly believe than it wont be shaken by us non believers and it must be strong enough for you to ignore opinions of others and not feel you have silence all negative opinions

and watch your language swearing isnt big and it isnt clever

... so does that just count for all the christians then? coz im not violent... and my beliefs are Definitely not being questioned by members off a forum, my faith's a bit stronger than that.

And... for all u crazy scientists take a look at this....
Evidence from the Quran...

Dr.Tarig Al Swaidan discovered some verses in the
Holy Qur'an
That mention one thing is equal to another,
i.e. men are equal to women.
Although this makes sense grammatically,
the astonishing fact is that the number of
times the word man appears in
the Holy Qur'an
is 24 and number of times the word
woman appears is also 24,
therefore not only is this phrase correct in
the grammatical sense but also true mathematically,
i.e. 24 == 24.
Upon further analysis of various verses,
he discovered that this is consistent throughout the
whole
Holy Qur'an
where it says one thing is like another.
See below for astonishing result of
the words mentioned number of times in Arabic
Holy Qur'an
Dunia (one name for life) 115.
Aakhirat (one name for the life after this world) 115
Malaika (Angels) 88 . Shayteen (Satan) 88
Life 145 ...... Death 145
Benefit 50 . Corrupt 50
People 50 .. Messengers 50
Eblees (king of devils) 11 . Seek refuge from Eblees
11
Museebah (calamity) 75 . Thanks ! 75
Spending (Sadaqah) 73 . Satisfaction 73
People who are mislead 17 . Dead people 17
Muslimeen 41 . Jihad 41
Gold 8 . Easy life 8
Magic 60 . Fitnah (dissuasion, misleading) ! 60
Zakat (Taxes Muslims pay to the poor) 32 ...
Barakah (Increasing or blessings of wealth) 32
Mind 49 . Noor 49
Tongue 25 . Sermon 25
Desite 8 . Fear 8
Speaking publicly 18 . Publicising 18
Hardship 114 .... Patience 114
Muhammed 4 . Sharee'ah (Muhammed's teachings) 4
Man 24. Woman 24
And amazingly enough have a look how many times
the following words appear:
Salat 5, Month 12, Day 365,
Sea 32, Land 13
Sea + land == 32+13== 45
Sea == 32/45* 100 == 71.11111111%
Land == 13/45*100 == 28.88888889%
Modern science has only recently proven that the water
covers
71.111% of the
earth, while the land covers 28.889%.
Is this a coincidence? Question is that
Who taught Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) all this?

[ermd]

Perhaps I'm glad I left that thread for the last 3 pages. Really people, flaming is pointless and lands you in trouble - don't do it.

Ok, so back to the thread! I don't think anyone else questioned this:

I'm sure that everyone has wised up to this concept, there are other ways to make people behave and religion is favourable to oppression I would say.

Please tell me, how (if at all), are these two are different? The dogmatic view of life brought about by institutionalised religion has been a massive tool of opression throughout human history.

[ermd]

And amazingly enough have a look how many times
the following words appear:
Salat 5, Month 12, Day 365

I don't see how Salat is relevant here...the word prayer appeared 5 times right? So? Perhaps that is where the basis of praying 5 times a day came from. Cause and effect.

Sea 32, Land 13
Sea + land == 32+13== 45
Sea == 32/45* 100 == 71.11111111%
Land == 13/45*100 == 28.88888889%
Modern science has only recently proven that the water
covers
71.111% of the
earth, while the land covers 28.889%.
Is this a coincidence? Question is that
Who taught Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) all this?

Not even relevant...you're searching for hidden codes by counting the occurances of words. The Prophet knew nothing...those words were metioned that number of times - he didn't say "the world is 71.111% water and 28.889% land". If an almighty creator wished us to catch his message, would he send it through his Prophet (who could not himself read or write) as hidden codes for a text which would not be fully compiled from various sources until at least 18 years after his death?

Seems, at best, unlikely to me.

Edit: Looool. Edited for "beast".

[mystic]

42

[eyecandy]

it is relevant! God sent his message thru an Angel and the Prophet (pbuh) wrote it.. and yeah, he couldn't read or write. the point im making is its Not a silly coincidence, nothing is!! and he didnt want us to 'catch a message' as u so loosely put it, God wanted us to read and understand His message.
"hidden codes for a text which would not be fully compiled from various sources until at least 18 years after his death"
- where did u get that from? the Quran has Never been changed or edited in ANY way. in Arabic terms, if so much as the dot of an 'i' is removed it wouldn't make sense properly. have u seen the size of a Quran?

like i said, ur hearts might be sealed but u can't keep ignoring evidence like that as stupid coincidence or irrelevance.. coz we all know it aint!

[mystic]

but it could just be like the bible after all when it is read in italiean it means its oringal meanings but when henry 8th had it translated for his propose the text change ever so slightly for his own liking, so surely it could be the same here!
gizmo
xxx

[ad absurdum]

Incidentally, the book you recommended was very interesting and thought provoking. (I would second the recommendation to everyone else: http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf )

I'd be interested to know if you've read the sequel, and if so, is it a worthwhile read?

Thank you for reading that. I've not read the sequel yet, I only read that a couple of days before I posted it here and I usually spend a couple of days thinking about these kind of things before I go and read something new. I'm going to order it soon though.

Did you find anything in the book that you would like to discuss? I thought that the argument over the nature of free will was quite interesting, and of course the theory of the universe was too but I don't think that's something we can really discuss.

Please tell me, how (if at all), are these two are different? The dogmatic view of life brought about by institutionalised religion has been a massive tool of opression throughout human history.

I'm not trying to defend what religion has done in the past, that's impossible because there is no way to defend it. But, in the context of our modern society religion cannot be seen as all a bad thing when it comes to making people behave themselves. I think that the key difference lies in the fact that people who are oppressed are made to behave and if they do not they are killed. However, people choose to believe in religion, and people have the choice to go and live in the woods if they cannt accept a society that is based on religious ideals. So okay, you are allowed to think that religion is just a set of rules imposed to make sure people aren't naughty, and probably nothing I will say can change that - I personally don't believe this though and from a neutral strandpoint I can't see why people would choose oppression over religion.

it is relevant! God sent his message thru an Angel and the Prophet (pbuh) wrote it.. and yeah, he couldn't read or write. the point im making is its Not a silly coincidence, nothing is!! and he didnt want us to 'catch a message' as u so loosely put it, God wanted us to read and understand His message.
"hidden codes for a text which would not be fully compiled from various sources until at least 18 years after his death"
- where did u get that from? the Quran has Never been changed or edited in ANY way. in Arabic terms, if so much as the dot of an 'i' is removed it wouldn't make sense properly. have u seen the size of a Quran?

like i said, ur hearts might be sealed but u can't keep ignoring evidence like that as stupid coincidence or irrelevance.. coz we all know it aint!

I don't think that the world has always been 71% water 29% land though, has it?

[eyecandy]

have i ever said i was a scientist? No.

but that is a scientific fact, im sure, and it isn't a coincidence.

im not tryna convert u lot, just stating my facts and giving u reasons for my beliefs...

theres a reason for Islam being the fastest growing religion in the world..... but yeah........ Darwin all the way

[ermd]

"hidden codes for a text which would not be fully compiled from various sources until at least 18 years after his death"
- where did u get that from? the Quran has Never been changed or edited in ANY way. in Arabic terms, if so much as the dot of an 'i' is removed it wouldn't make sense properly. have u seen the size of a Quran?

He had at least 65 different scribes during his lifetime. The recorded work was not kept in one place. A lot of Qu'ranic verses were simply remembered by the Prophet's followers. According to Islamic scholars, when it was first attempted to collect all writings and memories together, the man charged with this task said:

"...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran. I said to both of them, 'How dare you do what the prophet has not done?' Abu Bakr said, 'By Allah, it's a good thing'... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men. I found with Khuzaima two verses of Surah Tauba which I had not found with anybody else..."

So, from that alone we can see that the materials of the Qu'ran were well spread out and not exactly a finished work. In order for a verse to be included in the first official version it had to either be written down or recalled from memory by two people. Does that sound like a solid, exactly recorded version of a historical text to you?

There is more of the same stuff in the wiki article on the development of the Qu'ran.

[KhalidBoussouara]

And... for all u crazy scientists take a look at this....
Evidence from the Quran...

Dr.Tarig Al Swaidan discovered some verses in the
Holy Qur'an ...

Interesting Numerical Findings in the Qur'an (or a hoax?): - A partial examination

[eyecandy]

Well, i have Never ever heard that in my life. I cant really debate on something that i don't know that much depth on but i don't believe things i read on the net (ie wikipedia) il do my own research and get back to u!

1 thing i can say for sure is, the Quran has Never been changed.

And... for all u crazy scientists take a look at this....
Evidence from the Quran...

Dr.Tarig Al Swaidan discovered some verses in the
Holy Qur'an ...

Interesting Numerical Findings in the Qur'an (or a hoax?): - A partial examination

Im not forcing any to believe it, just something i found interesting and made me think. But, if all that was a 'hoax' then whats not to say the link u sent me is also a 'hoax'?

Again.... i don't trust everything i read on the net, could be any1s opinion. it def aint changing mine!

[Steve]

part of the Quran says 4 some ppl there is a wall in front, a wall behind and a wall on either side of a person and nothin u say can make them believe

Yes, and some people have a wall in front, a wall behind, walls either side, a floor under their feet and a roof over their head and nothing you say will ever make them realise how naive they sound.

She quoted to fuel her point. You quote to ridicule. I see no productivity in that. However I take your point that going all gung ho isn't the way to go about it.

yeah, ^ what he said. and i don't sound naive, its my opinion, I quoted from the Quran.. where's ur source of reference? i couldn't care less what u think

My source of reference is my own opinion.

I apologise if I seemed to ridicule you, that was not my intention. I was simply pointing out that there are extremists on either side of an argument (of which I don't count myself).

There may very well be a creator or some sort, but I don't accept that He will judge us on whether or not we have worshipped Him. Surely our actions in life are more important than our beliefs?

[ermd]

I'm not trying to defend what religion has done in the past, that's impossible because there is no way to defend it. But, in the context of our modern society religion cannot be seen as all a bad thing when it comes to making people behave themselves.

In the past all that religion was doing was "making people behave themselves" though. You can't compare religion's actions in our society directly to religion's actions in, say, 13th-century Britain, because the historical and social contexts themselves are so different.

Religion (and its lasting legacy in our legal system) is, in my opinon, a negative aspect of our society. For example, in the field of genetics and cloning, archaic moral standpoints hold back scientists who could be advancing our knowledge and ability to treat disease.

I think that the key difference lies in the fact that people who are oppressed are made to behave and if they do not they are killed.

As we both know, institutionalised religion itself has been an instigator of mass killings and genocide though.

However, people choose to believe in religion...

Most religious people are brought up in religious families - they are taken to worship, made to follow their religion's set of rules by their family and peers. It is belief from the top.

I personally don't believe this though and from a neutral strandpoint I can't see why people would choose oppression over religion.

You already told us you were a Catholic...I don't think you can legitimately say that you are "neutral".

My contempt for institutionalised religion would equally be levied against ANY dogmatic system of belief - nationalism, fascism, imperialism, Soviet state-capitalism (especially the cult of personality built up around the leaders - little different to religion).