I see what you are attempting here. However as mentioned it was 1881 ish when it was attributed to aesop (who I agree couldnt have said all those things) As a parable from the Sunnah it predates 1881. You arguing and nit picking shows my original claim to be correct. Of course I fully expect this to be the new distraction. However like with everything else you have said you will have changed your mind in 6 months. How about addressing the 6m questions?
could be worse I suppose, I could change my mind every 6 months, completely miss out chunks that I cant address, avoid certain questions and hang myself given enough rope
You call religious people fundamentalist, yet the real fundamentalists are people like you. I cant speak for the other religions in as much detail but from an Islam and science point of view most historians have argued that the modern scientific method was first developed by Islamic scientists, pioneered by Ibn Al-Haytham, known to the west as "Alhazen".
What scrolls? The site claims that it's connected to the quote that I listed, which doesn't mention it at all. If it's in the Torah, then tell us where. If it isn't, then where the hell are you getting it from? It's a total fabrication. Because they have provided equal claims, with an equal lack of available evidence, yet you believe one and not the other. I accept neither and go with the ton of other evidence, which also says that you're wrong. Is this another example of you not insulting me? More lies, Fan? Who's claiming spontaneous generation? That's not the same as abiogenesis. Utterly unproven assertion, like virtually everything that you say. Very, very easy to show, too. What caused god? You don't know? Then how can you claim that god had a cause? What's the cause of the big bang? Is there even any proof that aliens exist? Not as far as I know, yet you're saying it's been proved that they had a cause. Ridiculous. Kalam features special pleading, as it puts god outside of creation and the claim that everything is created. Your own version of it features a different type, where you demand to know where everything came from and refuse to accept the answer that we don't know, til you hit god. Then it becomes a perfectly acceptable answer, suddenly. It doesn't appear to feature at all in Islamic literature. You claim that it's Islamic and it's a Hadith, yet you've shown no historical reference for it at all. All you've done, yet again, is make a series of claims and failed to back any of them up. You've attempted to suggest that I've changed my mind repeatedly, while utterly failing to show a single example of it happening. You try to claim the higher ground, whilst constantly lying and insulting those that disagree with you, feigning offence when confronted with simple facts. It's utterly embarrassing, honestly.
You should be embarrassed, you change your mind quicker than the weather. All you are doing here is trying to turn what I have said about you onto me. Are you running out of ideas? I am not suprised you still argue, its your way. Even when given something in black and white, rather than putting your hand up and admitting you messed up you get incessant with questioning. Questions which you yourself continue to avoid but demand answers. Everything you have bought up to argue against me has turned out to agree with me, whether it was colls finding nothing ala Krege or there being a first cause ala abiogenesis. You went from being a 'loud and proud' atheist to a meek agnostic. Jobs a good un
You've repeatedly referred to claims made on a neo-Nazi site with no supporting evidence. If you can't show where this "you will return minus 6m" bit features in Jewish scripture, which you've repeatedly failed to do, then I'll just ignore this crap from now on. You've clearly got nothing but your own bias to go on here. More repetitive drivel. Show Krege's data or shut up. More baseless, bigoted bias. "You say I am the bigot yet you are the one who is name calling"? Which one is it, Fan? I didn't say that I accept abiogenesis, but that it was currently the best explanation available. It's still unproven. Please explain how abiogenesis relies on existing living things. And you find this acceptable, but don't find it acceptable to say that we don't know what caused the big bang or abiogenesis. Why insert one extra unknown and then say it's fine? Ludicrous. Ghazali's claim is drivel. It's Kalam by another name. It attempts to put god outside of the claim itself by defining it to be that way. Prove it. Unproven assertion after unproven assertion. You have to establish both the existence of god and that anything was ever truly created, as opposed to modified from a previous form, in order for any of that to be true. You've not done so. No. Ever since I rubbished your Nazi assertions you've been utterly unwilling to link to anything, knowing that I'd do the same to that. Provide back up for your own arguments, don't ask others to do the work for you. Yet you've failed to provide even a single, solitary example of me doing it. Except that this only happened in your deluded mind. You've claimed that I'm a Jew, an atheist, an anti-theist, an agnostic and a secret theist. You then have the gall to call me inconsistent! You're a joke, Fan. Not a very funny one, either.
oh dear, thats sounding really desperate my agnostic friend. Take a time out this forum discussion thing isnt for you. Maybe if you ask mick he will make you mod here and you can ''win'' by pleading for a ban
