Sean of the Living wrote:
What hasn’t he done? Look at his old posts.
yes why dont you actually go read them instead of making stuff up.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He’s a hypocrite:
quote me.
Read my other responses on this post, you will see why.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
The first time he claimed I had made a strawman, he called my argument a Christian one. Even though I wasn’t Christian. Sounds like a strawman to me. He calls everything a fallacy, matter of fact. Even if it’s a question, a comment or a joke.
Ive only ever heard christian use strawman arguments, but I found its mostly a religious thing now.
It’s still a strawman and that is stereotyping. If only religious people make strawmans, howcome you just made one, limp dick?
You say you are not a stereotyping hypocrite... now you’re a liar as well.
Proof you said this:
Gplex wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
You don’t get it. Just because it doesn’t mention something, doesn’t mean it says it’s not real. Not all religions say the universe was created 15 billion years ago, and not all of them say everything was created at once.
To disprove a religion, you need to point out one of the errors that cannot be explained logically.
You DON’T point out something it doesn’t mention and say that, because it doesn’t mention it, it is fake.
Look at yourself, you have not mentioned trees anywhere in your post, does that mean you’re saying trees don’t exist? We know trees exist, there’s one outside my window. Does that make you a liar? No. It just means you haven’t mentioned it.
Besides, even if all the religions are wrong, God could still be really, we might just not have the right theories about him, the true religion may be unknown.
No religon says that the universe is 15 billion years ago... But they have many other stories that conflict with the evidence.
Oh so the bible (quran etc etc) doesn’t say that the earth was created in 6 days....
I never claim anything about your tree, If I had you could have called me a liar.
You have grossly mis understodd the word theorie, you have made a typical christian strawman argument, and have not pointed out one religon which has clearly not just been made up by some primitive people.
Gplex wrote:
He gets pissed off if you correct his spelling or grammar, but he thinks getting the definiton of “theory” wrong is a crime worthy of death.
yes, trying to claim a cat is a dog, is wrong, but trying to claim my arguement is wrong because of a typo is just plain stupid.
Spelling Making a spelling mistake is also claiming something is something it’s not, because you’re saying your word represents something it doesn’t because it’s not the same word as the correct one.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He says he should be able to disrespect whoever he wants, but he complains when we tell him he’s a dick.
quote me when I’ve called someone a dick. someone needs to learn to debate.
I didn’t say you called anyone a dick (nice strawman there). I said you always talk about how you should have freedom of speech and not be ceonsored, but then you complain if we call you a dick, which is asking us to censor ourselves and not have freedom of speech.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He argues in an offensive way. We wouldn’t mind if he was like Chibi and could argue against religion without being insulting but he doesn’t.
QUOTE ME!!!!!!
You don’t quote a writing style. It’s not a direct statement. If your arguments aren’t offensive howcome they’re offending so many people? That is what offensive things do.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He says there are no religions which weren’t founded by primitive people.
I said your religion was founded by primitive people who surly know more about the world then us.
No you didn’t. This is what you said:
Gplex wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
You don’t get it. Just because it doesn’t mention something, doesn’t mean it says it’s not real. Not all religions say the universe was created 15 billion years ago, and not all of them say everything was created at once.
To disprove a religion, you need to point out one of the errors that cannot be explained logically.
You DON’T point out something it doesn’t mention and say that, because it doesn’t mention it, it is fake.
Look at yourself, you have not mentioned trees anywhere in your post, does that mean you’re saying trees don’t exist? We know trees exist, there’s one outside my window. Does that make you a liar? No. It just means you haven’t mentioned it.
Besides, even if all the religions are wrong, God could still be really, we might just not have the right theories about him, the true religion may be unknown.
No religon says that the universe is 15 billion years ago... But they have many other stories that conflict with the evidence.
Oh so the bible (quran etc etc) doesn’t say that the earth was created in 6 days....
I never claim anything about your tree, If I had you could have called me a liar.
You have grossly mis understodd the word theorie, you have made a typical christian strawman argument, and have not pointed out one religon which has clearly not just been made up by some primitive people.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He called Muhammed a rapist, paedophile, liar and murderer... why should that NOT piss a Muslim off?
everything he wrote pointed to this, he said god told him how babies developed in the womb, where 2000 years before that a greek scientist came up with the same idea, which was wrong!
The Hadith has verses that say Mohhamed was a paedophile, this is true. However; I thought you Atheists were always arguing that scripture alone is not evidence, you need records outside of it to prove the things it says are true, because the Hadith is not accurate. It was written over 100 years after Mohammeds death with the only sources of information about his life being his actions in the Quran (which itself was not written down and recorded only in memory until after Mohammed’s death) and stories that have been handed down. They could have easily been corrupted. Not only that, but verses in the Hadith also contradict those verses that say Mohhamed was a paedophile because they record the age of the sister of Mohammed’s wife, who was ten years older than his wife. If she was 27 when he marries his wife, wouldn’t that make his wife 17? Not all Muslims believe in the Hadith either. Sunni Muslims do, but Shi’ites don’t, because even they believe it to be stories of Mohammeds life and not the word of God.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He says it is religions fault that mankind hasn’t developed as quickly as he thinks it should’ve.
Darkages? Middle east has been a scientific vacuum for the last 800 years thanks to the islamic laws. How many people where imprisoned, because they said the earth is not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe?
Saying Muslims hadn’t improved in their science, that is a common misconception by westerners who have a very vague concept of the Middle East in Medieval times and is not true. As a matter of fact, those times were called the Islamic Golden Age because of the wealth of scientific discovery and invention that was unfolding. Not the “Dark Ages” as you say. Ever heard of
Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi or Ibn al-Haytham? Because I suggest you research them and actually know your stuff before making up bullshit stories.
Muslims didn’t imprison people for saying the Earth was round either, because they were one of the few people of the Medieval times who KNEW it was round. The Quran describes the Earth with the Arabic word “dahahaha”, which means round. “dahahaha” could be interpreted as saying the world is “egg shaped”, but the world is, in fact, not a perfect sphere. It is a spheroid with a bulge at the equator, just like an ostrich egg, which was a bird found in those lands.
Sean of the Living wrote:
What hasn’t he done? Look at his old posts.
yes why dont you actually go read them instead of making stuff up.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He’s a hypocrite:
quote me.
Read my other responses on this post, you will see why.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
The first time he claimed I had made a strawman, he called my argument a Christian one. Even though I wasn’t Christian. Sounds like a strawman to me. He calls everything a fallacy, matter of fact. Even if it’s a question, a comment or a joke.
Ive only ever heard christian use strawman arguments, but I found its mostly a religious thing now.
It’s still a strawman and that is stereotyping. If only religious people make strawmans, howcome you just made one, limp dick?
You say you are not a stereotyping hypocrite... now you’re a liar as well.
Proof you said this:
Gplex wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
You don’t get it. Just because it doesn’t mention something, doesn’t mean it says it’s not real. Not all religions say the universe was created 15 billion years ago, and not all of them say everything was created at once.
To disprove a religion, you need to point out one of the errors that cannot be explained logically.
You DON’T point out something it doesn’t mention and say that, because it doesn’t mention it, it is fake.
Look at yourself, you have not mentioned trees anywhere in your post, does that mean you’re saying trees don’t exist? We know trees exist, there’s one outside my window. Does that make you a liar? No. It just means you haven’t mentioned it.
Besides, even if all the religions are wrong, God could still be really, we might just not have the right theories about him, the true religion may be unknown.
No religon says that the universe is 15 billion years ago... But they have many other stories that conflict with the evidence.
Oh so the bible (quran etc etc) doesn’t say that the earth was created in 6 days....
I never claim anything about your tree, If I had you could have called me a liar.
You have grossly mis understodd the word theorie, you have made a typical christian strawman argument, and have not pointed out one religon which has clearly not just been made up by some primitive people.
Gplex wrote:
He gets pissed off if you correct his spelling or grammar, but he thinks getting the definiton of “theory” wrong is a crime worthy of death.
yes, trying to claim a cat is a dog, is wrong, but trying to claim my arguement is wrong because of a typo is just plain stupid.
Spelling Making a spelling mistake is also claiming something is something it’s not, because you’re saying your word represents something it doesn’t because it’s not the same word as the correct one.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He says he should be able to disrespect whoever he wants, but he complains when we tell him he’s a dick.
quote me when I’ve called someone a dick. someone needs to learn to debate.
I didn’t say you called anyone a dick (nice strawman there). I said you always talk about how you should have freedom of speech and not be ceonsored, but then you complain if we call you a dick, which is asking us to censor ourselves and not have freedom of speech.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He argues in an offensive way. We wouldn’t mind if he was like Chibi and could argue against religion without being insulting but he doesn’t.
QUOTE ME!!!!!!
You don’t quote a writing style. It’s not a direct statement. If your arguments aren’t offensive howcome they’re offending so many people? That is what offensive things do.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He says there are no religions which weren’t founded by primitive people.
I said your religion was founded by primitive people who surly know more about the world then us.
No you didn’t. This is what you said:
Gplex wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
You don’t get it. Just because it doesn’t mention something, doesn’t mean it says it’s not real. Not all religions say the universe was created 15 billion years ago, and not all of them say everything was created at once.
To disprove a religion, you need to point out one of the errors that cannot be explained logically.
You DON’T point out something it doesn’t mention and say that, because it doesn’t mention it, it is fake.
Look at yourself, you have not mentioned trees anywhere in your post, does that mean you’re saying trees don’t exist? We know trees exist, there’s one outside my window. Does that make you a liar? No. It just means you haven’t mentioned it.
Besides, even if all the religions are wrong, God could still be really, we might just not have the right theories about him, the true religion may be unknown.
No religon says that the universe is 15 billion years ago... But they have many other stories that conflict with the evidence.
Oh so the bible (quran etc etc) doesn’t say that the earth was created in 6 days....
I never claim anything about your tree, If I had you could have called me a liar.
You have grossly mis understodd the word theorie, you have made a typical christian strawman argument, and have not pointed out one religon which has clearly not just been made up by some primitive people.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He called Muhammed a rapist, paedophile, liar and murderer... why should that NOT piss a Muslim off?
everything he wrote pointed to this, he said god told him how babies developed in the womb, where 2000 years before that a greek scientist came up with the same idea, which was wrong!
The Hadith has verses that say Mohhamed was a paedophile, this is true. However; I thought you Atheists were always arguing that scripture alone is not evidence, you need records outside of it to prove the things it says are true, because the Hadith is not accurate. It was written over 100 years after Mohammeds death with the only sources of information about his life being his actions in the Quran (which itself was not written down and recorded only in memory until after Mohammed’s death) and stories that have been handed down. They could have easily been corrupted. Not only that, but verses in the Hadith also contradict those verses that say Mohhamed was a paedophile because they record the age of the sister of Mohammed’s wife, who was ten years older than his wife. If she was 27 when he marries his wife, wouldn’t that make his wife 17? Not all Muslims believe in the Hadith either. Sunni Muslims do, but Shi’ites don’t, because even they believe it to be stories of Mohammeds life and not the word of God.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
He says it is religions fault that mankind hasn’t developed as quickly as he thinks it should’ve.
Darkages? Middle east has been a scientific vacuum for the last 800 years thanks to the islamic laws. How many people where imprisoned, because they said the earth is not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe?
Saying Muslims hadn’t improved in their science, that is a common misconception by westerners who have a very vague concept of the Middle East in Medieval times and is not true. As a matter of fact, those times were called the Islamic Golden Age because of the wealth of scientific discovery and invention that was unfolding. Not the “Dark Ages” as you say. Ever heard of
Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi or Ibn al-Haytham? Because I suggest you research them and actually know your stuff before making up bullshit stories.
Muslims didn’t imprison people for saying the Earth was round either, because they were one of the few people of the Medieval times who KNEW it was round. The Quran describes the Earth with the Arabic word “dahahaha”, which means round. “dahahaha” could be interpreted as saying the world is “egg shaped”, but the world is, in fact, not a perfect sphere. It is a spheroid with a bulge at the equator, just like an ostrich egg, which was a bird found in those lands.
since the atheist even deny Qur’an and keep saying that it from greek which greek said the opposite way...
---
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster —
Actually the reason we are not part of Islam is because we weren’t indoctrinated by it by the sheer accident of being born in Indonesia or some other Islamic country or family.
ramunematt wrote:
Actually the reason we are not part of Islam is because we weren’t indoctrinated by it by the sheer accident of being born in Indonesia or some other Islamic country or family.
But if we found evidence for it, like if it could actually be considered a theory in science, would we not believe it?
Scripture would never be eligible for science because it doesn’t use the scientific method. The scientific method is harsh, strict, and rigorous. No scripture would ever be able to survive it.
But for the sake of the argument, if you were to find evidence for it, it would have to be pretty damn good evidence and a lot of it to cover everything the Quran says. Remember, one tidbit of truth to the Quran doesn’t mean the entire thing is true.
ramunematt wrote:
Scripture would never be eligible for science because it doesn’t use the scientific method. The scientific method is harsh, strict, and rigorous. No scripture would ever be able to survive it.
But for the sake of the argument, if you were to find evidence for it, it would have to be pretty damn good evidence and a lot of it to cover everything the Quran says. Remember, one tidbit of truth to the Quran doesn’t mean the entire thing is true.
this argument doesnt hold up. It would only hold up if i was attempting to prove that god exsists scientificly with that method. And dont say I have to prove god with scientce thats stupid
ramunematt wrote:
Scripture would never be eligible for science because it doesn’t use the scientific method. The scientific method is harsh, strict, and rigorous. No scripture would ever be able to survive it.
But for the sake of the argument, if you were to find evidence for it, it would have to be pretty damn good evidence and a lot of it to cover everything the Quran says. Remember, one tidbit of truth to the Quran doesn’t mean the entire thing is true.
this argument doesnt hold up. It would only hold up if i was attempting to prove that god exsists scientificly with that method. And dont say I have to prove god with scientce thats stupid
Without science there is only faith. Faith = gullibility/non thinking.
ramunematt wrote:
Actually the reason we are not part of Islam is because we weren’t indoctrinated by it by the sheer accident of being born in Indonesia or some other Islamic country or family.
I was raised by my pagan mother in Australia, surrounded always by Atheists and Agnostics, the only major religion (when there was one) being Christianity, which most people didn’t care about. I was not raised pagan, I was Christian to begin with. Then I became Atheist. Then I became Muslim, and now I have left that. All through my life I have barely met any Muslims and haven’t had any Islamic friends or family or people I knew for that matter. I still don’t know any. Ramuenmatt, how did you come to say such an ignorant thing?
ramunematt wrote:
Scripture would never be eligible for science because it doesn’t use the
scientific method. The scientific method is harsh, strict, and rigorous. No scripture would ever be able to survive it.
But for the sake of the argument, if you were to find evidence for it, it would have to be pretty damn good evidence and a lot of it to cover everything the Quran says. Remember, one tidbit of truth to the Quran doesn’t mean the entire thing is true.
this argument doesnt hold up. It would only hold up if i was attempting to prove that god exsists scientificly with that method. And dont say I have to prove god with scientce thats stupid
Without science there is only faith. Faith = gullibility/non thinking.
You have no proof that the world around you is real or a dream. No matter what that’s faith.
ramunematt wrote:
Actually the reason we are not part of Islam is because we weren’t indoctrinated by it by the sheer accident of being born in Indonesia or some other Islamic country or family.
I was raised by my pagan mother in Australia, surrounded always by Atheists and Agnostics, the only major religion (when there was one) being Christianity, which most people didn’t care about. I was not raised pagan, I was Christian to begin with. Then I became Atheist. Then I became Muslim, and now I have left that. All through my life I have barely met any Muslims and haven’t had any Islamic friends or family or people I knew for that matter. I still don’t know any. Ramuenmatt, how did you come to say such an ignorant thing?
Well of course there are going to be exceptions, I’m just saying that a lot of the time the reason people are the religion they are is because they were raised that way. You would think that parents would let their kids choose their religion later on in their life when they’re old enough by explaining, without any bias or telling them what their own beliefs are, all the religions equally then let them make their own decision, but that just doesn’t happen often. I see parents asking children what candidate they like the best and think will run the country for the next four years but not which god they think is real and created them and the universe and will serve for the next eternity. If you go to America you will find mostly Christians, if you go to Indonesia you will find mostly Muslims, if you to Jerusalem you will find mostly Jews, etc. Do you see the pattern?
ramunematt wrote:
Scripture would never be eligible for science because it doesn’t use the
scientific method. The scientific method is harsh, strict, and rigorous. No scripture would ever be able to survive it.
But for the sake of the argument, if you were to find evidence for it, it would have to be pretty damn good evidence and a lot of it to cover everything the Quran says. Remember, one tidbit of truth to the Quran doesn’t mean the entire thing is true.
this argument doesnt hold up. It would only hold up if i was attempting to prove that god exsists scientificly with that method. And dont say I have to prove god with scientce thats stupid
Without science there is only faith. Faith = gullibility/non thinking.
You have no proof that the world around you is real or a dream. No matter what that’s faith.
ramunematt wrote:
Scripture would never be eligible for science because it doesn’t use the
scientific method. The scientific method is harsh, strict, and rigorous. No scripture would ever be able to survive it.
But for the sake of the argument, if you were to find evidence for it, it would have to be pretty damn good evidence and a lot of it to cover everything the Quran says. Remember, one tidbit of truth to the Quran doesn’t mean the entire thing is true.
this argument doesnt hold up. It would only hold up if i was attempting to prove that god exsists scientificly with that method. And dont say I have to prove god with scientce thats stupid
Without science there is only faith. Faith = gullibility/non thinking.
You have no proof that the world around you is real or a dream. No matter what that’s faith.
Thats why I’m a nihilist.
That’s solipism, not nihilism. And you ridiculed it when I proposed it, even though you didn’t understand it.
And the fact that faith means “belief without reason” now doesn’t mean it always did. Changing the modern definition does not change what the Bible/Quran/Torah meant to say hundreds of years ago when the definition was different. My old Chambers 20th century dictionary defines it simply as trust, confidence or belief (especially religious), whether founded or unfounded doesn’t matter.
ramunematt wrote:
Actually the reason we are not part of Islam is because we weren’t indoctrinated by it by the sheer accident of being born in Indonesia or some other Islamic country or family.
Even so... you should read it and using your mind to understand it...
which Islam is not dogmatic like other religions...
---
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster —
NihilusRavager7780 wrote:
That’s basically what Atheism is. And I don’t know if we would call a being who is capable of wiping out stars supernatural, but that’s just my opinion. Unless you are talking about God or a “god”.
You dont need to have supernatural ablitlys to be classed as a god, or god like, christians have really taken it to far with this infinite bs...
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
ramunematt wrote:
Scripture would never be eligible for science because it doesn’t use the scientific method. The scientific method is harsh, strict, and rigorous. No scripture would ever be able to survive it.
But for the sake of the argument, if you were to find evidence for it, it would have to be pretty damn good evidence and a lot of it to cover everything the Quran says. Remember, one tidbit of truth to the Quran doesn’t mean the entire thing is true.
what evolution said abot the origin of life...??? water and sea...
what Qur’an said about life...??? water...
yes the entire Qur’an is true... The moon once were torn apart to half... ask nasa about this and they will say the same thing like Qur’an say...
---
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster —
»
Religion
» What Is With All The Hate Towards GPlex????
