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

Forums - General - Why are we still fighting for equality in America. "Gay Marriage and Religion"

Player1x3 on 08 February 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Player1x3 said:

For every 1 bad thing theists have done in real world, there are at least 10 more good things they did as well. For every bad thing atheists have done on internet or real world...there are almost zero good things they did in real world or internet. Unless you count upvoting a page on reddit or a leftover starbucks change donation.

Never been to reddit, save a link or two. I'm confused what you think Atheists have done. Internet good/bad deeds? lol...right. 

Theism established morality ages ago - that was good. Community - good. Crusades - bad. Bigotry - bad. Seems pretty even to me.

Atheism...? 


Well you said how he used real world examples to prove how stupid theists are...so why not use both sides of the story. He intentionally picked only the bad sides, when its obvious that the good side outweights the bad (today at least, it wasnt always the case)



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 08 February 2013
Player1x3 said:

Is it irrational to believe that leprechauns or unicorns don't exist or the flying spaghetti monster? There is an abundance of evidence - open your eyes. Do you see a unicorn? Do you read about real life unicorns in the news? Do you see Unicorns at the zoo? Same is applicable to a God.

Becaue by definition, God would be in the news and in the zoos and it lives on our small insiginificant planet, right? Yeah thats a really nice comparison. If you're gonna resort to comparing a concept of higher power, something thats been recognized in logic, philisophy and orgin of universe as a likely existance to characters from stories from children, who can easly be disproved by using their own characteristics and background, then just tell me now so i can stop typing here. Also, please note I was referring to a deistic God/higher power, and not the one in the Bible and abrahamic religions

Agnostics don't believing in anything - they lack a belief entirely. Atheists don't necessarily deny the existence, merely disbelieve in it. For instance, an Atheist can be agnostic in regard to logic/philosophy and yet retain an atheistic belief. 

Same can be said for a theist really.

 

I would expect some evidence, no matter how insignificant. But there isn't any.

Stating that a higher power is a likely existence is completely inaccurate. Why do you state this as if it were true?

The point was that you falsely stated that atheists deny the existence of God - this is blatantly fallacious and slanderous to their viewpoint. (I agree, a theist can take an agnostic stance with logic/philosophy but I've never received experience with such a situation).

 

Player1x3 said:

Well you said how he used real world examples to prove how stupid theists are...so why not use both sides of the story. He intentionally picked only the bad sides, when its obvious that the good side outweights the bad (today at least, it wasnt always the case)

I never said stupid. Good outweighing bad doesn't make the bad go away and that is what he wanted to bring to your attention.



Roma on 08 February 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Roma said:

the guy is only piking the things that Hippocrates where correct on and removing the wrong things. he says that both the man and the women has sperm which is incorrect. the guy should add the entire list of the mistakes he made as well.

you see If it was copied by them then how could Mohammed (pbuh) know what was correct and removed that which was incorrect? how did Mohammed (pbuh) know what was correct and what wasn't?

the Quran says we bring them together and clothe them with flesh. it doesn't say the bones are created separately and then the flesh covers it after they are complete. that's simply him (the guy in the quote) misinterpreting the text



If the text is ambiguous enough to have to be interpreted it is completely worthless.

Ignoring that, I noticed you picked on Hippocrates but failed to address Aristotle. There is no differentiation between Aristotle and Qur'an Embryology in terms of stages. 

 

What are you interpreting flesh to mean? Skin? If it's muscles as is common medical terminology:

 

flesh

  noun ˈflesh
 

Definition of FLESH

: the soft parts of the body of an animal and especially of a vertebrate; especially : the parts composed chiefly of skeletal muscle as distinguished from visceral structures, bone, and integuments—see goose bumps, proud flesh

 

 

"Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh ..." (Al-Baqara 2:259)

Bones join and then are clothed with flesh (muscles, soft tissue). Explicitly clear here, at least to anyone with a modicum of understanding of medical terminology.

Again, not only does it borrow from existing knowledge of embryology, but it does so inaccurately.

 "A central part of Aristotle’s ideas on embryology was the concept of the menstrual blood coagulating to form the embryo. He regarded menstrual blood as a kind of semen, which required the male semen to initiate development of the embryo by spontaneous generation"

http://www.islamicwritings.org/quran/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology/

he also made mistakes that are not in the Quran

oh and btw when quoting from the Quran make sure you are quoting the right words as Al-baqara does not talk about human embryology. 

when someone picks something randomly from the Quran to prove their point it means they are just spreading lies!



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

dsgrue3 on 08 February 2013
Roma said:

 "A central part of Aristotle’s ideas on embryology was the concept of the menstrual blood coagulating to form the embryo. He regarded menstrual blood as a kind of semen, which required the male semen to initiate development of the embryo by spontaneous generation"

http://www.islamicwritings.org/quran/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology/

he also made mistakes that are not in the Quran

oh and btw when quoting from the Quran make sure you are quoting the right words as Al-baqara does not talk about human embryology. 

when someone picks something randomly from the Quran to prove their point it means they are just spreading lies!

Alright, I think you're missing the point here. You act like the Qur'an goes into intimate details of the process. This is embryology in its entirety in the Qur'an:

  • "He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."
  • "Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."
  • "Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."
  • "Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump."
  • "Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh." (Sura 23:14)
  • "Then We developed out of it another creature."
  • "And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."
  • "Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed."
  • "And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."

This isn't revolutionary at all - it's incredibly ambiguous and not distinct from knowledge of Embyology of the time - it isn't erroneous because there isn't enough detail/specifics to show errors. 

Example:

The Sun rises and falls in the sky. Not erroneous from human perspective, but completely fallacious in regard to knowledge of orbit/rotation/axis tilt.



Roma on 08 February 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Roma said:

 "A central part of Aristotle’s ideas on embryology was the concept of the menstrual blood coagulating to form the embryo. He regarded menstrual blood as a kind of semen, which required the male semen to initiate development of the embryo by spontaneous generation"

http://www.islamicwritings.org/quran/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology/

he also made mistakes that are not in the Quran

oh and btw when quoting from the Quran make sure you are quoting the right words as Al-baqara does not talk about human embryology. 

when someone picks something randomly from the Quran to prove their point it means they are just spreading lies!

Alright, I think you're missing the point here. You act like the Qur'an goes into intimate details of the process. This is embryology in its entirety in the Qur'an:

 

  • "He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."
  • "Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."
  • "Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."
  • "Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump."
  • "Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh." (Sura 23:14)
  • "Then We developed out of it another creature."
  • "And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."
  • "Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed."
  • "And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."

 

This isn't revolutionary at all - it's incredibly ambiguous and not distinct from knowledge of Embyology of the time - it isn't erroneous because there isn't enough detail/specifics to show errors. 

Example:

The Sun rises and falls in the sky. Not erroneous from human perspective, but completely fallacious in regard to knowledge of orbit/rotation/axis tilt.

simply hilarious



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

Around the Network
Player1x3 on 08 February 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Player1x3 said:

Is it irrational to believe that leprechauns or unicorns don't exist or the flying spaghetti monster? There is an abundance of evidence - open your eyes. Do you see a unicorn? Do you read about real life unicorns in the news? Do you see Unicorns at the zoo? Same is applicable to a God.

Becaue by definition, God would be in the news and in the zoos and it lives on our small insiginificant planet, right? Yeah thats a really nice comparison. If you're gonna resort to comparing a concept of higher power, something thats been recognized in logic, philisophy and orgin of universe as a likely existance to characters from stories from children, who can easly be disproved by using their own characteristics and background, then just tell me now so i can stop typing here. Also, please note I was referring to a deistic God/higher power, and not the one in the Bible and abrahamic religions

Agnostics don't believing in anything - they lack a belief entirely. Atheists don't necessarily deny the existence, merely disbelieve in it. For instance, an Atheist can be agnostic in regard to logic/philosophy and yet retain an atheistic belief. 

Same can be said for a theist really.

 

I would expect some evidence, no matter how insignificant. But there isn't any.

Wheres faith in that? Why would God ever show himself in the way atheists demand? Not only would that defeat the whole purpose of faith/Christianity, but it would completly change our species forever...and not in a good way im afriad

Stating that a higher power is a likely existence is completely inaccurate. Why do you state this as if it were true?

So you think that everything that came to exist today in our universe and our planet came origianlly from nothing and it was all an accident?? Let me tell you, THAT is highly unlikely, Do the math. Existance of a higher power (of any kind) is billion times more likely than that. 

The point was that you falsely stated that atheists deny the existence of God - this is blatantly fallacious and slanderous to their viewpoint. (I agree, a theist can take an agnostic stance with logic/philosophy but I've never received experience with such a situation).

Atheism by definition, denies the belief in God, as in Athests dont thnik a God exists

Player1x3 said:

Well you said how he used real world examples to prove how stupid theists are...so why not use both sides of the story. He intentionally picked only the bad sides, when its obvious that the good side outweights the bad (today at least, it wasnt always the case)

 

I never said stupid. Good outweighing bad doesn't make the bad go away and that is what he wanted to bring to your attention.

No, he wanted to point out to something that was completly irrelevant to my point.

 





dsgrue3 on 08 February 2013
Roma said:
dsgrue3 said:

Alright, I think you're missing the point here. You act like the Qur'an goes into intimate details of the process. This is embryology in its entirety in the Qur'an:

 

  • "He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."
  • "Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."
  • "Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."
  • "Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump."
  • "Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh." (Sura 23:14)
  • "Then We developed out of it another creature."
  • "And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."
  • "Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed."
  • "And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."

 

This isn't revolutionary at all - it's incredibly ambiguous and not distinct from knowledge of Embyology of the time - it isn't erroneous because there isn't enough detail/specifics to show errors. 

Example:

The Sun rises and falls in the sky. Not erroneous from human perspective, but completely fallacious in regard to knowledge of orbit/rotation/axis tilt.

simply hilarious

Victory. Finally. 



dsgrue3 on 08 February 2013
Player1x3 said:

I would expect some evidence, no matter how insignificant. But there isn't any.

Wheres faith in that? Why would God ever show himself in the way atheists demand? Not only would that defeat the whole purpose of faith/Christianity, but it would completly change our species forever...and not in a good way im afriad

Stating that a higher power is a likely existence is completely inaccurate. Why do you state this as if it were true?

So you think that everything that came to exist today in our universe and our planet came origianlly from nothing and it was all an accident?? Let me tell you, THAT is highly unlikely, Do the math. Existance of a higher power (of any kind) is billion times more likely than that. 

The point was that you falsely stated that atheists deny the existence of God - this is blatantly fallacious and slanderous to their viewpoint. (I agree, a theist can take an agnostic stance with logic/philosophy but I've never received experience with such a situation).

Atheism by definition, denies the belief in God, as in Athests dont thnik a God exists

Player1x3 said:

Well you said how he used real world examples to prove how stupid theists are...so why not use both sides of the story. He intentionally picked only the bad sides, when its obvious that the good side outweights the bad (today at least, it wasnt always the case)

 

I never said stupid. Good outweighing bad doesn't make the bad go away and that is what he wanted to bring to your attention.

No, he wanted to point out to something that was completly irrelevant to my point.

 



You admit there isn't any evidence and then proceed to attempt to rationalize why there is no evidence. This is really odd to read. 

I don't pretend to know how the Universe came to be, but I know the best possible scientific explanation for humans - look into abiogenesis and phylogeny. It certainly does not require a Creator.

Yes atheism is disbelief in God. Disbelief in his existence, that isn't remotely the same as denying existence of God. I wouldn't do that, nor would any rational person. I would never say God doesn't exist, I will always say I do not belief he exists.

PS: Can you stop replying within the quotation?



Roma on 08 February 2013
Player1x3 said:
dsgrue3 said:
Player1x3 said:

Is it irrational to believe that leprechauns or unicorns don't exist or the flying spaghetti monster? There is an abundance of evidence - open your eyes. Do you see a unicorn? Do you read about real life unicorns in the news? Do you see Unicorns at the zoo? Same is applicable to a God.

Becaue by definition, God would be in the news and in the zoos and it lives on our small insiginificant planet, right? Yeah thats a really nice comparison. If you're gonna resort to comparing a concept of higher power, something thats been recognized in logic, philisophy and orgin of universe as a likely existance to characters from stories from children, who can easly be disproved by using their own characteristics and background, then just tell me now so i can stop typing here. Also, please note I was referring to a deistic God/higher power, and not the one in the Bible and abrahamic religions

Agnostics don't believing in anything - they lack a belief entirely. Atheists don't necessarily deny the existence, merely disbelieve in it. For instance, an Atheist can be agnostic in regard to logic/philosophy and yet retain an atheistic belief. 

Same can be said for a theist really.

 

I would expect some evidence, no matter how insignificant. But there isn't any.

Wheres faith in that? Why would God ever show himself in the way atheists demand? Not only would that defeat the whole purpose of faith/Christianity, but it would completly change our species forever...and not in a good way im afriad

Stating that a higher power is a likely existence is completely inaccurate. Why do you state this as if it were true?

So you think that everything that came to exist today in our universe and our planet came origianlly from nothing and it was all an accident?? Let me tell you, THAT is highly unlikely, Do the math. Existance of a higher power (of any kind) is billion times more likely than that. 

The point was that you falsely stated that atheists deny the existence of God - this is blatantly fallacious and slanderous to their viewpoint. (I agree, a theist can take an agnostic stance with logic/philosophy but I've never received experience with such a situation).

Atheism by definition, denies the belief in God, as in Athests dont thnik a God exists

Player1x3 said:

Well you said how he used real world examples to prove how stupid theists are...so why not use both sides of the story. He intentionally picked only the bad sides, when its obvious that the good side outweights the bad (today at least, it wasnt always the case)

 

I never said stupid. Good outweighing bad doesn't make the bad go away and that is what he wanted to bring to your attention.

No, he wanted to point out to something that was completly irrelevant to my point.

 



man can't you understand simple logic? the universe came from nothing as in no atoms no nothing, it just magically appeared and then formed itself by itself to become the universe that my friend is logic not that there is someone who created the atoms and then formed them to the universe as that doesn't make sense!


I expect you to know this is sarcasm but just in case

 



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

dsgrue3 on 08 February 2013
Roma said:

man can't you understand simple logic? the universe came from nothing as in no atoms no nothing, it just magically appeared and then formed itself by itself to become the universe that my friend is logic not that there is someone who created the atoms and then formed them to the universe as that doesn't make sense!


I expect you to know this is sarcasm but just in case

 

It's incredibly difficult to take you seriously when you make posts like these completely devoid of any intelligence. You know what, I'm through replying to you since you have no capacity for rational thought and blindly take the Qur'an as if it were some substantiated scientific explanation for everything. It's a book. If you weren't so blinded by your own devotion to your faith, you would perhaps be able to engage in intelligent discussions - until then, good day. Enjoy the kids table.

Take a tip from Player1x3, he isn't in your camp of blissful ignorance. He speaks intelligently on the topic and has the capacity to receive, respond to, and dictate conversation points.