By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The Debate About Religion Topic

 

Has this topic influenced you at all?

I was a non-believer, and... 2 12.50%
 
I was a non-believer, and I still am. 7 43.75%
 
I was a non-believer, but... 0 0%
 
I was a non-believer, but now I believe. 3 18.75%
 
I was a believer, and now I don't believe. 1 6.25%
 
I was a believer, but thi... 0 0%
 
I was a believer, and I still am. 3 18.75%
 
I was a believer, and now... 0 0%
 
I am agnostic, and this t... 0 0%
 
I am agnostic, and this t... 0 0%
 
Total:16
hatmoza said:
generic-user-1 said:
hatmoza said:

I don't need to google what I practice. That said anyone who claims to be muslim and justifies killings of innocent people is violating a very fundemental rule of Islam and is therfore not a representative of Islam.

so the highest sunni clerics arent a representative of islam?
or maybe you just pick the parts of islam for you that a sane human beeing could live with?


If they think killing innocents is okay, then yes. You're German. Are you a nazi? Were you for the killing of innocent jews?

1.thats not the same, you choosed to be a moslem, i was never asked if i wanna be a german or not.

2. i dont remember that time anymore, pervitin is a bitch...



Around the Network
generic-user-1 said:
hatmoza said:
generic-user-1 said:
hatmoza said:

I don't need to google what I practice. That said anyone who claims to be muslim and justifies killings of innocent people is violating a very fundemental rule of Islam and is therfore not a representative of Islam.

so the highest sunni clerics arent a representative of islam?
or maybe you just pick the parts of islam for you that a sane human beeing could live with?


If they think killing innocents is okay, then yes. You're German. Are you a nazi? Were you for the killing of innocent jews?

1.thats not the same, you choosed to be a moslem, i was never asked if i wanna be a german or not.

2. i dont remember that time anymore, pervitin is a bitch...

 

Same or not my point stands. You can't paint a broad brush on someone because of their race or religion.  Given youmany opportunities to show a little more tolerance in your opinion but it is obvious you have no intention of being rational. Especially after using the derogatory "moslem" instead of muslim.

Also you won't think back less than a decade ago about the horrific acts of the Holocaust but you're quick to jump on a  religion revealed 1436 years ago?

I don't know what you mean by "pervertin bitch" but judging by your tone so far it's not a nice thing to be calling me.



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

hatmoza said:
generic-user-1 said:
hatmoza said:
generic-user-1 said:
hatmoza said:

I don't need to google what I practice. That said anyone who claims to be muslim and justifies killings of innocent people is violating a very fundemental rule of Islam and is therfore not a representative of Islam.

so the highest sunni clerics arent a representative of islam?
or maybe you just pick the parts of islam for you that a sane human beeing could live with?


If they think killing innocents is okay, then yes. You're German. Are you a nazi? Were you for the killing of innocent jews?

1.thats not the same, you choosed to be a moslem, i was never asked if i wanna be a german or not.

2. i dont remember that time anymore, pervitin is a bitch...

 

Same or not my point stands. You can't paint a broad brush on someone because of their race or religion.  Given youmany opportunities to show a little more tolerance in your opinion but it is obvious you have no intention of being rational. Especially after using the derogatory "moslem" instead of muslim.

Also you won't think back less than a decade ago about the horrific acts of the Holocaust but you're quick to jump on a  religion revealed 1436 years ago?

I don't know what you mean by "pervertin bitch" but judging by your tone so far it's not a nice thing to be calling me.


The difference here is that being German in and of itself does not carry any beliefs.  German simply means he was born in Germany.  Muslim means you ascribe to certain values, although I'm not going to get into whether or not those values are.  Race really tells you nothing about someone's thoughts and ideas.  Religion tells you at least something about what they believe.

I've seen Muslim and Moslem used interchangably.  I had a conversation with one of my former classmates who explained something about Moslem translating a bit differently in Urdu than it is in Arabic, and being considered offensive to Bengali and Pakastani Mulsims who speak Urdu.  I don't think he meant any offense by it.

As for pervitin (not pervertin) that is a drug.  I think it's crystal meth, or similar to it.  Allegedly, it's something that the German army used to keep their soldiers alert.  I don't think he was calling you anything.

 

I jumped in because I think you're taking things offensively which aren't meant to be that way.  Chill. 

Edit: I did a bit of reading, and apparently the shift away from the word Moslem was a relatively recent thing.  It began to be an issue after 9/11, and in the 90s and before Moslem and Muslim were used interchangeably.  I don't know if Muslims were offended by that usage, but I don't believe that most westerners were aware that it might be offensive.  



@jweincom
You jumped to his defense to get back at me for pointing out your unprepare -ness to debate qurani versions of biblical stories :p
I'm joking obviously. And if you knew me in my earlier days you'd know I'm very laid back. No need to tell me too chill. Unless I'm on fire!

As for generic, he's obviously not a fan of muslims.



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

I'm glad I saw your edit before responding further. Moslem is derogatory. And as muslim I can assure its never used unintentionally. Especially when you hear it in person :(



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

Around the Network
hatmoza said:
generic-user-1 said:
hatmoza said:

 

 

1.thats not the same, you choosed to be a moslem, i was never asked if i wanna be a german or not.

2. i dont remember that time anymore, pervitin is a bitch...

 

Same or not my point stands. You can't paint a broad brush on someone because of their race or religion.  Given youmany opportunities to show a little more tolerance in your opinion but it is obvious you have no intention of being rational. Especially after using the derogatory "moslem" instead of muslim.

Also you won't think back less than a decade ago about the horrific acts of the Holocaust but you're quick to jump on a  religion revealed 1436 years ago?

I don't know what you mean by "pervertin bitch" but judging by your tone so far it's not a nice thing to be calling me.


1. religion and race is not the same, you choose your religion, but you dont choose your race.

 

2. you are the one thats not rational, sure the truth that the highest ranged islam scholars are all insane people who have are in favour of violence hurts, but its not my fault. i dont doubt that you are a good guy with good values, but you have those values because you are a decent human beeing, not because you beliefe the common modern interpretation of sunni islam.

3. im sry there is no difference between muslim and moslem in german

4. thats not the same... i like the most germans dont like what hitler said and did, i dont believe in the same things as the nazis and i will not defend him in anyway.   you on the other hand believe in the same things that the first muslims believed in, you have just a more humanistic interpretation than the majority then and now.

5. that was a joke and i didnt called you a bitch.  pervitin is the name the nazis used for (chrystal) meth. and they consumed it a lot.



hatmoza said:
I'm glad I saw your edit before responding further. Moslem is derogatory. And as muslim I can assure its never used unintentionally. Especially when you hear it in person :(


I mean, I'll definitely not use the word myself if it offends people, but honestly, I had no idea that it was considered offensive for the majority of my life.  I could have easily used it without knowing.  I'm not saying that some people don't use it offensively, but I don't believe it is common knowledge.



generic-use

 

Same or not my point stands. You can't paint a broad brush on someone because of their race or religion.  Given youmany opportunities to show a little more tolerance in your opinion but it is obvious you have no intention of being rational. Especially after using the derogatory "moslem" instead of muslim.

Also you won't think back less than a decade ago about the horrific acts of the Holocaust but you're quick to jump on a  religion revealed 1436 years ago?

I don't know what you mean by "pervertin bitch" but judging by your tone so far it's not a nice thing to be calling me.


1. religion and race is not the same, you choose your religion, but you dont choose your race.

 

2. you are the one thats not rational, sure the truth that the highest ranged islam scholars are all insane people who have are in favour of violence hurts, but its not my fault. i dont doubt that you are a good guy with good values, but you have those values because you are a decent human beeing, not because you beliefe the common modern interpretation of sunni islam.

3. im sry there is no difference between muslim and moslem in german

4. thats not the same... i like the most germans dont like what hitler said and did, i dont believe in the same things as the nazis and i will not defend him in anyway.   you on the other hand believe in the same things that the first muslims believed in, you have just a more humanistic interpretation than the majority then and now.

5. that was a joke and i didnt called you a bitch.  pervitin is the name the nazis used for (chrystal) meth. and they consumed it a lot.

Hurts? Me? Lol. Clearly you weren't paying attention. 

Majority? Lol the people in India Pakistan and Malaysia aren't gonna be thrilled with that. Last I checked most muslims I know we're feeding thousands of orphans for ramadan. Those damn heartless bastards haha.

Any who I'm glad you finally drew a distinction between extremist and peace loving muslims. That was my main bone to pick. I hate broad generalizations. 

And finally. Regardless of choice. Intolerance is not cool. Just as being racist is not cool. 



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

hatmoza said:
generic-use


1. religion and race is not the same, you choose your religion, but you dont choose your race.

 

2. you are the one thats not rational, sure the truth that the highest ranged islam scholars are all insane people who have are in favour of violence hurts, but its not my fault. i dont doubt that you are a good guy with good values, but you have those values because you are a decent human beeing, not because you beliefe the common modern interpretation of sunni islam.

3. im sry there is no difference between muslim and moslem in german

4. thats not the same... i like the most germans dont like what hitler said and did, i dont believe in the same things as the nazis and i will not defend him in anyway.   you on the other hand believe in the same things that the first muslims believed in, you have just a more humanistic interpretation than the majority then and now.

5. that was a joke and i didnt called you a bitch.  pervitin is the name the nazis used for (chrystal) meth. and they consumed it a lot.

Hurts? Me? Lol. Clearly you weren't paying attention. 

Majority? Lol the people in India Pakistan and Malaysia aren't gonna be thrilled with that. Last I checked most muslims I know we're feeding thousands of orphans for ramadan. Those damn heartless bastards haha.

Any who I'm glad you finally drew a distinction between extremist and peace loving muslims. That was my main bone to pick. I hate broad generalizations. 

And finally. Regardless of choice. Intolerance is not cool. Just as being racist is not cool. 

the same malaysia were the government used homosexuality as a reason to put the an opposition leader?

the same pakistan were thousands of women run around with acid burned faces because of a medival understanding of islam?

india isnt better, but thats not the fault of the muslims.

that wouldnt happen if the majority of muslims wouldnt be okay with that.  all those states are democratic, the people could change things without beeing harmed in anyway.



JWeinCom said:
Esiar said:

The Universe thing kinda goes into the fine tuning argument. Which, I think simplified, would sound like: It's extremely unlikely for life like Earth's to come about by mere chance, since there are tons of different variables that if altered a tiny bit, make it impossible. With it being hugely unlikely to come by chance, it makes more sense to conclude that it was deliberate. And a deliberate effect implies a will, and a will implies that a personal being caused it.

But the Bible definitely does not go that in-depth, and says "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". So there's really not much I should say on the subject, since I believe that you know God exists in your conscience, but for whatever reason you are denying it (The root is the love of sin, but how that manifests is different)

And for the Cosmological Argument, I think one of the points you made is flawed. The first premise says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not that everything that exists has a cause, so God would not apply under that premise, since God is the creator of time (Genesis 1:1 mentions a beginning, meaning an absolute start), he would need to exist outside of it, meaning there is no beginning for him, meaning he didn't begin to exist. So does not require a cause. If one were to say that, if time had an absolute beginning, and that the cause of it doesn't exist outside of the boundaries of time, that would be saying that time existed before time.

As for whether the Universe had a beginning, I did find an answer once, but I don't remember, so I'd have to look into it again.


The Universe thing kinda goes into the fine tuning argument. Which, I think simplified, would sound like: It's extremely unlikely for life like Earth's to come about by mere chance, since there are tons of different variables that if altered a tiny bit, make it impossible. With it being hugely unlikely to come by chance, it makes more sense to conclude that it was deliberate. And a deliberate effect implies a will, and a will implies that a personal being caused it.

Fine tuned for what?  Humans?

The Earth's diameter is less than one trillionth of one light year.  The observable universe is about 13.8 billion light years.  

What this means is that the universe is several trillion times larger than it needed to be (even if we assume the Earth needsa bit of breathing room).   It's like if you were making a dog house, and you decided to make it the size of the Jupiter.  

Humans have existed on the planet Earth for 2.5 million years of its 13 billion year lifespan.  That's about .001% of the Earth's lifespan.

So, if God made the Earth specifically for humans, it is several trillion times too large, and the Earth has existed for several thousands times longer than it needed to.  This is hardly what I would consider fine tuning.

Of course, the fine tuning is from a human perspective.  If the universe was tuned differently, it's possible another form of life would have developed.  And, if that lifeform reached sentience, it would say "hey isn't it amazing how the universe was created in such a way that I can exist".  In other words, the universe only seems deliberate if you assume it was made specifically for humans.  It's a circular argument.  The size of the universe indicates it was not.

It's like if you won the lottery.  If you won, those numbers will be very significant to you, and it may seem miraculous that those numbers came up.  To anyone who didn't win, it was just a random sequence.

As for the odds, I'm not sure how it is determined that it is unlikely that humans could exist.  There are an estimated 200 billion galaxies in the universe.  Assuming the galaxies have the same number of stars as the milky way, there would be roughly 100 octillion stars.  If we assume the planet/star ratio is consistend throughout the universe, there would be about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe.  That's a lot of planets.  It doesn't seem incredibly unlikely. And of course, if God's purpose was to take a personal interest in the lies of one species which has existed for an exceptionally short length of time he made a comically large universe.  

As for the universe, we don't know if this is the only one.  I don't know enough about physics to speculate about the multiverse, but it's an idea that many physicists see as worthy of note.  So there could be many universes.  Some of which do and some of which are not appropriate for human life.

In other words the idea that it is unlikely is a determination that cannot have possibly been made with the amount of data we have.  The idea that the universe was created just for humans is extremely illogical considering the data we have.

But the Bible definitely does not go that in-depth, and says "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". So there's really not much I should say on the subject, since I believe that you know God exists in your conscience, but for whatever reason you are denying it (The root is the love of sin, but how that manifests is different)

So, you are calling me a liar and a sinner?  This is a personal attack, and I'm not going to stand for it.  Do not claim to know what is in my head.  And if you think you know what I believe because your magic book tells you, then you are a wonderful demonstration of the way religion can poison a mind and the dangers of taking the Bible literally.  Do not presume to know what I believe.  That level of arrogance is simply astounding.

Seriously, if you think you know what I think or feel DO NOT RESPOND any further.  Because any sort of rational conversation is impossible from that point.  If you already know what I think better than I do, than anything I say is irrelevant.  If you're going to just say "nuh uh you're a liar and you really love jeebus" then you have left the realm of rationality. I have been polite so far, and have tried my best to listen openly to what you've said.  If you are not willing to extend the same courtesy, we're done here.  I made this topic for discussion and debate.  If you want to preach nonsense and insult people, find somewhere else.

And for the Cosmological Argument, I think one of the points you made is flawed. The first premise says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not that everything that exists has a cause, so God would not apply under that premise, since God is the creator of time (Genesis 1:1 mentions a beginning, meaning an absolute start), he would need to exist outside of it, meaning there is no beginning for him, meaning he didn't begin to exist. So does not require a cause. If one were to say that, if time had an absolute beginning, and that the cause of it doesn't exist outside of the boundaries of time, that would be saying that time existed before time.

The argument has been presented in several ways.  The "begins to exist" was added later once the flaws I brought up were pointed out.  And you are again making a circular argument.  You are using the bible to prove god.  What it said in Genesis is irrelevant until you can prove that the bible is a valid source, and it is not. 
You cannot, with no good reason, exempt god from the restriction of beginning.  We do not have any evidence that it is possible for something to exist outside of time, and we have no good reason to believe it is possible.  Even adding "begins to exist" does not escape the problem.  
And why would you assume the cause is personal?  Why is your god the only god that could possibly exist outside of time?  Why can't multiple things exist out of time?  If your god can just exist outside of time, then why not other gods?  Why can't there be two?  Twenty?  A billion?  Why is this cause intelligent?  Even if the argument wasn't flawed, it does not take you to a theistic god, much less one that cares about what humans do.  
As I said in the beginning, and you agreed to, a deistic god is utterly uninteresting.  So, you have a long way to go before the cosmological argument proves anything either of us would care about.

As for whether the Universe had a beginning, I did find an answer once, but I don't remember, so I'd have to look into it again.

Uhhhhh... yeah... This would be a nobel prize winning discovery if someone could prove that the universe (or the matter in the pre bang singularity) had a definite beginning, that'd be kind of a big deal.  I'm fairly certain nobody has proven this yet.  Keep in mind that I'm using the word universe to mean all of the matter and energy that exists.  The "universe" as in the current configuration of this matter and energy (and dark matter and energy and all that) most likely did have a beginning.  However, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has been able to show or indicate that the matter and energy had not previously existed in another configuration, or that the stuff that makes up our universe had a beginning. 

You actually bring up some good points, which is good. If someone isn't an Atheist, but cannot even explain why they think that way, it makes no sense to be an Atheist. But I'll try to answer as best as I can. But, I kinda go all over the place here (I'm writing this sentence after I have written a lot).

I don't think I can say I believe that Earth was or wasn't specifically made for humans. With the huge size of the Universe, it's entirely possible that God could have created other intelligent life-forms. And, whether Earth would have existed far too long if the Biblical God exists, it depends; I could either say that 1) The Earth is actually 6,000 years old, and the Earth has not existed too much longer than people, and Earth was made for us, or 2) The Earth is billions of years old, and God made the Earth way before man for some undisclosed reason, and Earth was made for us, or 3) The gap theory. 

If you call 99.99% of people a liar and a sinner, you'd be right. But I don't think I was personally attacking you, it is just stating my belief. Generally, people can say how they themselves feel better than others can say about them, but I think this case is different, because I believe you are being ignorant wilfully. Like, a little kid not lifting up the blanket, because they don't want there to be a possibilty of a monster being there, and telling themself that there is no monster, even though they aren't looking up. Not that God is like a monster, or that God being here is just as likely as the monster, but the way the kid is not even going to look and see, is similar to an Atheist to me. Like, the kid does not want the monster to exist, so they won't even look. An Atheist doesn't want God to exist, so they won't consider it.

I'm not using the Bible to prove God, I am using a Biblical defintion of God, and showing that a God, as the way the Bible describes, could fit into the Cosmological Argument. But, why would adding the "begins to exist" not solve the problem? If the argument of the causation in the first premise is supposed to be like, "Cause = The builder is the cause of the building, the car maker is the cause of the car" rather than, "The cause of the things that the building is made up of is...", then the argument would make sense, putting the issues with the second premise aside (which I would say is the weak spot of the argument), with just acting as if it was proven that the Universe began to exist Scientifically without reasonable doubt. It would sound like, The buillding began to exist, the car began to exist, they all have causes, the Universe began to exist, so it has a cause). So, I don't think premise 1 has any problem, just premise 2, that the Universe began to exist. I believe it did have a beginning, but in terms of Science there is no way that is verifiable. 
I do not see how saying that we cannot confirm whether or not something can exist outside time/beginnings makes sense. Either way, something has to not be bound by beginnings, because of the first cause. If premise 1 was that everything, period, has a cause, then we'd have a Domino set that has no beginning, and thus no Dominos can fall (The Universe cannot exist), so either way, whether we say God exists, that he doesn't, or that we don't know or can't know, we'd still have to say that there has to be a first Domino for all of them to fall.
And, I don't think that the Christian God is the only one that could exist outside of time. The Cosmoligical argument simply narrows it down to an eternal God, which the Islamic God could also fit.


Can't wait for The Zelder Scrolls 3: Breath of The Wild Hunt!