You have gone full rant mode again, but now throwing in insults/digs. No need for that Your points are totally invalid because as it is clear and I have pointed out time and time again I haven't bought Muhammad into this debate. We are discussing what YOU bought as evidence and it is Anas who made this statement not Muhammad The only bit I added was that the SAI is based on Hagar and Ishmael. If you can show evidence that it was there prior to Hagar and Ishmael then bring your evidence
The only thing is I haven't quoted anything, DMD did and as is the norm with atheists they are happy to mock, as you have done in your post, but when challenged desperately try and bring the debate back to mockery. The usual harry potter nonsense comes to the fore I personally think its insecurity and they know that if their own beliefs are put on the table it would make harry Potter and the half blood Prince look like the encyclopedia Britannica I have yet to meet an atheist who will discuss their belief
I appreciate your honesty lol It needs going with DMD and his ilk every noe and again and I can keep it going I just need someone else to keep it going so likes of DMD can't hide
What all beliefs or just in God/s I would love to know your thoughts on how we came to be, for example
I'm not ranting in any way. Other than a claim from your book(s)What is your evidence that the hajj is abrahimic? What is your defence to my claim that abrahimic stories are pagan in origin? What is your argument against the other associated points I make?
Good try but not done with your claims. Anas quote was posted by you not me and I await evidence for the SAI You need to back your claims or its not a discussion as agreed in the terms You have already broken them by being disrespectful with the peter Sutcliffe comment. Please work on your manners, I don't care how you were raised its rude
Yes all night by the looks of things and you are hiding, its obvious with long rants and sly digs. @Spurlock has your number But I digress and as we agreed stick to one post. This was a response to spurlock Now back to your anas quote and claim. Do shed light but do so back in the other post
It's not rude, it's a simple example of why claims 'god did it' are not credible. Your 'demands' break these imaginary rules of yours, but I don't care. I'm comfortable exploring any avenue you throw up, especially as you seem intent on taking it on some merry dance, no matter what's posted. I'm away for a few hours. Try to fill that time with a few answers to the points I raised.
Spurlock is an irrelevance. He'll just disrupt the thread rather than debate. You need a better second than him in your corner.
Well Deities of course. I believe in some stuff. I believe the sun should never set upon an argument I believe we place our happiness in other peoples hands I believe that Junk food tastes so good because it's bad for you I believe your parents did the best job they knew how to do I believe that beauty magazines promote low self esteem I believe i'm loved when i'm completely by myself alone I believe in karma what you give is what you get returned I believe you can't appreciate real love till you've been burned I believe the grass is no...... Hang on, those are song lyrics In terms of what my thoughts are.....I head a department that is in charge of repairing gym equipment mate.....I have to trust in what people far smarter than myself can discover. Science makes sense to me, people put forth theories, they test them , then use the facts to try determine the validity of a theory. It's a process that seems thought out, fair, methodical and practical. Religion, to me, offers nothing but guff, fairy tales and superstitious nonsense. All unsubstantiated at that
I haven't claimed my God did it, I haven't claimed anything more than to say YOUR quotes font do what YOU claim I have made no demands, unless you call asking you for evidence of the SAI prior to Hagar but even that is based on your claims/assertions Ia trying to have s discussion, one that you started. But you seem to want to throw random questions and insults, dont know why tbh Its good you are taking a break. A chance to reflect perhaps?
I suggested him and PNP as neutrals. Think you need to read the memos it may help stop you making **** up But back to the discussion hey
Fair enough mate but if that's the case then no point getting involved IMO To me when people say what you have it shows they have little understanding of religion usually based on own experiences, usually Christianity of some form and very little analysis/study of religion as a whole or at all The science "is yay" I find humorous, generally not sinef at you specifically, because not only us it necessarily at odds with religion but its usually not investigated either Each to their own unsubstantiated fairytale I guess
I guess the main difference is that science does not put something forward as a fact until it is verified as such. Theories are put forward, but they are subject to change when new information or technology becomes available. Religious information is gleaned from books that were written hundreds of years ago, by nobodies, in a time period where people knew **** all about anything, and it is generally not subject to change or amendment. And the world view of humanity in 0 AD, bears zero resemblance to the 21st Century.
The main difference is there isn't much difference when you delve into it. If you are an evolutionist you call the bible just a bunch of stories, OK fine but on closer inspection Darwin's book is also just a bunch of stories People like DMD say religion is copied of what preceded it, you look into Darwin and find tulsi (or whatever his name was) preceded him On top of that is the totally funny, IMO, argument that science is somehow similar to religion in what it proposes. Let me explain this using a story from hadith. Muslims believe Muhammad is the last prophet and came to us to tell us about a creator. His message, as with all abrahamic and some others, is ultimately about God as creator. A man asked Muhammad where he should sow his date crop one season. Muhammad said here, the crop was a failure. The man complained and was told you asked MY opinion and I gave it, if you wanted a view on where it would grow best then ask the people of knowledge. Point being science explaining things it has knowledge about is not at odds with religion never has been
Well the difference is religion doesn't have knowledge of anything. Like I said, they are stories, written by **** knows who, in an age where humanity knew nothing of anything. Its a bunch of wives tales and myths, collated by whoever the **** and written down as a morality tale to stop people from going mad in an age where humanity had no answers. What is the sun? We know the answer to that now What is the moon? We know the answer to that now Why do we have day and night? We know the answer to that now Why does it rain? ...you see where I am going with this? And all these answers came from science.....not religion.
I know where you are going and its something I have heard from people like yourself all my life, but as the DMD argument shows it based on false premises Let's take the rain, sure we have hadith etc saying rain is a mercy from Allah but these in themselves don't purport to explain the rain cycle. Rain in the desert of Arabia is certainly a mercy even if in Manchester we grumble That said certain aspects of explanations of rain cycle have been discussed using Quran text by some
