question for athiests

[UIR - Kagawa Powa]

I think the people at the top of each religion have texts that prove religion its a lie.

Obviously I cant prove it but I think the pope and his equivalent heads of religion know the truth.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Again, not true. God looks at someone's intentions. I don't believe all the people which go to Heaven will be Muslims - there will be a multitude of religions. You have to put things into context. As for giving someone a free pass to heaven, that's not the case. These prophets have a choice. They could reject the belief of God, if it suited them, but they didn't.

How are they going to reject someone that they're in direct communication with?
That'd be like me rejecting the belief that you exist.

How long will I have to reiterate this point - we have limited knowledge. I sent you a quote from the Qur'aan before where God basically said we are only allowed bits of knowledge and we will not know the entire story. There is clearly reasons for why he chose certain people to become prophets. Makhtub - it is written.

Totally irrelevant to my point.

The point isn't that he chose some people to become prophets, but that he's given some people a clear advantage as to whether they believe in him or not, which is one of the requirements to get into heaven.
That's not just and I don't know how you can claim that it is.

How anyone can correlate a court case to someone's religion and the prophets which belong to that religion is truly beyond me.

According to your religion, we are all judged before our final fate is decided.
The parallels between a court case and this judgement are pretty obvious.
You would expect both to be fair.

He wanted to see if the humans would be able to expand the message of God and to see if other's would truly believe.
If God wanted to write the message on the moon in neon lights or whatever, then he could.

But he didn't. And in essence, there were reasons for that.

And what would those reasons be?
Are they incomprehensible to us, by any chance?

If Allah is omniscient, then he'd already know whether humans could expand on his message, so what was the point?

1) So what? They were told that they that particular tree was off limits. He didn't listen to God and committed an act which was wrong.
2) Sorry, how did God lie to them? And you've said yourself the Islamic story is different to the Christian/Jewish ones.

1) They were unable to understand that it was wrong, as they didn't have that knowledge yet, having not eaten the fruit.
2) Allah told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit, in the original version. This clearly wasn't true.

You really are not getting this at all, are you? GOD DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT WE DO. How many times do I need to repeat myself? God can see our thought processes and our feelings, but does not have command over our actions.

Do you really think God would allow something like rape to happen, for example?!
Is that acceptable? Give me a break.

I think that it's you who isn't getting it, SNIAW.

If god chooses who we are and created everything in the world, then he clearly does control what we do, regardless of any claims to the contrary.
How do you make a decision?
Think about it.

If Allah is omnipotent, then he clearly does allow rape to happen.
Is he incapable of stopping it, in your opinion?
Quran 4:24 would actually appear to condone it.

Oh sorry but I thought Science had the answer to everything?

Despite the fact that I've repeatedly stated that I don't think that at all?

 

[Glesgabhoy67]

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.[Quran 4:24]

Despite my own opinions on religion I don't think that condone's rape, unless it's a bad translation?

 

[Glesgabhoy67]

The first sentence would disagree with your conclusion.

How so?

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.[Quran 4:24]

I would say captives is a strong word (a lot is lost in translation), but probably means a wife? Bit of polygamy going on there but nothing about rape. The use of mutual agreement in the same passage would suggest rape is not condoned?

 

[Glesgabhoy67]

No, it means what it says. It condones having sex with slaves. The use of the term mutual agreement is refering to a completely different thing. This is made obvious by the use of the word "and".

There are plenty of passages where sex with captives is discussed and condoned.

I suppose thats the issue with the Quran being so vague, its open to different interpretation from people.

 

[Glesgabhoy67]

Not really: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/015-slavery.htm

If people were honest it wouldn't matter. It was written 1400 years ago when slavery, rape and sex with minors were accepted parts of life.

I would take their opinion with a pinch of salt, thats a far right website and if you go to the homepage its littered with anti-islamic rhetoric.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

The argument at the bottom of the page before the Quotes from the Quran and their dissection of them is basically that Western slave traders/owners were kinder than Islamic slave traders/owners.

 

[The Raging Oxter]

Can people please stop using The Religion of Peace website to back up their arguments please?
Neutrals on here have already said the site is not reliable and the quotes on the website have either been manipulated or just plain made up.

And no, rape is not encouraged in Islam.
This is an absolutely ridiculous debate.

Do you seriously think I would follow a religion where rape is permitted? Not a chance.

Even back then, a woman was allowed to part ways with her husband if she even thinks that her man will harm her or her family.

And even prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) tells men to be kind and loyal to their wives, he doesn't tell people to have sex with whoever they want or have sex when it only suits the man. A husband can't force his wife to have sex.

As for sexual slavery, perhaps it is allowing men to have sex with slaves, but you have to put things into its historical context, too. The verses are basically saying that men can have sex with their wives or slave women. But you have to marry the slave woman before you have sexual relations with her. And the slaves in those times were far different from the modern perception of a slave; you had to treat them well and as if they were a part of your family, or if they were a valued friends.

People don't seem to acknowledge just how different times were 1,400 years ago compared to now.

I'm not going to argue with any other points because, quite frankly, I can't take religion seriously but to suggest a husband can't force his wife to have sex is probably one of the most naive things I think I've ever read on here.

 

[monacoger]

Well, it should be, but it obviously isn't.

The problem with culture nowadays is that it's too sexualised. It influences people's way of thinking and because it's encouraged, people start doing it openly. The media and even in films and on TV shows and adverts - a lot of it is dominated by sex. A while ago, I remember reading a story about two 10 year old boys trying to have sex with an 8 year old girl FFS. Is this what it's really come down to? Stories like that are just embarrassing. It's no wonder the rape %age has increased over the years. There's also no-one being a role model telling these people right from wrong because people have been brainwashed from what they hear on TV and this mentality has been diffused through millions of people. Complete corruption.

Quite a lot of my Muslim friends fornicate and get girlfriends and watch porn etc - stuff which isn't supported in the ethos of Islam.

Watch porn? The dirty bastards.

 

[The Raging Oxter]

Isn't that basically spousal rape, then?
In which case, it's not encouraged.

.

I think that's something of an understatement.

Also, it's a bit rich you being on your high horse when your username is basically calling someone a ****er. Where does that fit in with your religion?

 

[monacoger]

Isn't that basically spousal rape, then?
In which case, it's not encouraged.



I don't watch porn. It's really not hard to not watch it.

I meant your friends, hence I made "bastard" plural!

 

[The Raging Oxter]

What high horse? Let's get something out the way first - I've already acknowledged that I'm not the best Muslim around and that I don't always stick to its principles. But I will defend it and I am trying to become a better Muslim, so it's a start.

As for swearing, please show me where swearing is a sin in Islam.

Thanks.

I never mentioned sin. I was looking at your name from a moral point of view.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

It's absolutely nothing like that at all. What I mean is they could have rejected God's message to spread around the word of said religions, rather than God himself.

They could've chosen not to spread the message of Allah, but they still have a massive step up from the rest of us who have no proof that he even exists.
It's not a level playing field, so it's clearly unjust.

Yes. He has. And you want to know why he's done that, right? You want to know why he's given some people a ''clear advantage''?

Allah says "They ask you (O Muhammad) concerning the Ruh (spirit of inspiration). Say: "The Ruh (the Spirit) is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little.''

That's not an answer.
Saying that Allah knows and that he chooses not to tell us doesn't explain why he's taken clearly unjust action.

Yes, we are measured on scales. If our good deeds outweigh the bad ones, then we should go to Heaven for all eternity. If the bad deeds outweigh the good ones, then others will rot in Hell.

And non-theists are damned for not believing in something that hasn't been proven.
Why would a just god condemn somebody for looking at the evidence and going with the side that has more or even some?

Also you weren't comparing the court case to the day of Judgment, at the time. You were doing an analogy about two people being sent to jail and then one going free.

People generally get sent to jail after court cases, but I probably should've clarified.

Well not really. Allah, the creator, had created Humans and wanted his creation to worship and look upto him. So he wanted people to be Prophets who could help send the message of God around and perhaps even convert more people to Islam by preaching to them. He wanted to see how devoted and trustworthy the humans are and what the humans themselves could do, to help God.

By writing on the moon, it's not exactly showing a human's capabilities, is it?

No, but expecting people to believe in something when all of the available evidence doesn't suggest that it's true is both ridiculous and pointless.
If he wanted people to worship him, which I don't see the point of either, then making his existence obvious would've increased the chances of that happening.

Oh no, he knew humans could expand on the message, but he wanted to see if others would take heed of the message and follow Islamic methodology. God supervises us, but doesn't rule our actions. God knows what alternative choices we have to make in life and has given us freedom to make our own. It's up to us whether we make the right one or not.

If he's omniscient (ie, knows and sees everything), then he'd know which choices we were going to make, so why not skip this life and move to the next one?

It is well-documented that humans are responsible for their own actions and when they are first born, they are pure and free from sin.

Claiming something doesn't make it true.

I'm sure that you're also aware that the suggestion to be drawn from what you're saying is that you'd be doing a new born child a favour by killing them, aren't you?
If they would automatically go to paradise, then why allow for the possibility that they could end up in hell by letting them live?

But they were told to stay away from the tree, which does imply that they knew it was wrong to go anywhere near it, having been solemnly told not to go near it.

And not understanding the difference between right and wrong, how were they supposed to make the right decision?
Also, why did god leave them in the company of Satan, next to a tree that could damn humanity for all time?
Not a great piece of decision making from a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being, really.

If God controls what we do, why are we not all Muslims who are deeply religious and live in a society which isn't as sexualised and don't cheat or whatnot. If God controls what we do, why is there so much cheating, violence and hatred in the world? Islam does not encourage any of this.

Because he doesn't exist, perhaps?

Sorry PNP, I respect you because you are an intelligent poster who makes solid points, but this is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen you write.

Is God incapable of stopping rape? Well, no, he's not incapable.
He can, but this just backs up my point about God not controlling us and giving us a brain to make our own wise/unwise decisions.

The Qur'aan does not, in any way shape or form, condone rape.

Sorry, but that is just an absolutely preposterous claim, PNP.

Why is it preposterous?
Does the Quran actually discuss rape at any point?

As for sexual slavery, perhaps it is allowing men to have sex with slaves, but you have to put things into its historical context, too. The verses are basically saying that men can have sex with their wives or slave women. But you have to marry the slave woman before you have sexual relations with her. And the slaves in those times were far different from the modern perception of a slave; you had to treat them well and as if they were a part of your family, or if they were a valued friends.

People don't seem to acknowledge just how different times were 1,400 years ago compared to now.

I hate this argument.
How are the morals of an eternal and timeless being influenced by the passage of time?

Having sex with slaves should've been wrong then, just as keeping slaves should've been wrong in the first place!
Please feel free to explain to me why keeping and raping slaves is actually moral, though.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

SNIAW is clearly sick and has not been drinking his camel urine

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

So no, people did have proof of God, as people actually saw bits of him. You never get any reports like that now.

Yeah, I'm sure you don't.
Seeing a bright light isn't proof of god, either.

I know it doesn't. But that's my point. There's not logical reasoning for everything which happens and we don't have the answers to everything.

Yet we're supposedly going to be judged for eternity base upon the decisions that we make with the information that we do have.
How can that possibly be fair?

Because he wants to see if we truly believe. Islam is a faith. That's why we have the Qur'aan and Hadith to tell us what happened in the times of prophets. The Qur'aan has not been corrupted and I find it the more reliable book.

Why would I believe?
I have absolutely no reason to.

Old texts that appear to contain contradictions and inconsistencies and that weren't even compiled until after the death of the prophet that they claim to represent simply aren't convincing evidence.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but then there is also the Shai'taan (devil). He said that he wanted to guide some people astray and that under his influence, it'd be interesting to see how many people would be a loyal and devoted person to God. You look at things way too simplistically, PNP. As for making his existence obvious, I'm afraid that would be way too easy. God wants to see if we can believe in him with the amount of 'evidence' already given and past reports.

A belief is something someone accepts as true or real - a firmly held opinion. So it's a firmly held opinion that God exists and that Islam is the right path.

Allah is more powerful than Shai'taan.
If he doesn't want people to be influenced by him, then he could just stop him outright.
Allowing people to be deceived and then judging them for it is ludicrous.

I don't look at things simplistically at all.
I look at them logically.
If they don't make sense, then they're probably not true.

No, he sees what options we have and it's up to us on which one we make. Why not skip this life and move to the next one? Because the afterlife determines whether people go to heaven or hell and God is using this life as an indicator of who will go to which place.

And if he's omniscient then he already knows what we're going to do, so why not skip it?

No, because they're not being given the chance to develop and cultivate as a human being to be judged on their deeds as they get older.

So what?
Anything that they learn and do can only condemn their eternal soul, so why take that chance?
I'm sure that any paradise would allow for personal growth and development.

God knows we will make mistakes also and wants to know if we will learn from them.

So he chooses to hide from us and allow people to condemn themselves to hell by not finding him?
That's totally illogical.

1) If you are told not to do something by someone of higher magnitude than you, then you do not do it. It's not hard, really.
2) God wanted to see if they would cave in, under the influence of Satan. To test their allegiance to God.

1) They didn't know right from wrong. They didn't understand the concept of what they were doing.
You also disprove this yourself, by choosing to go against your own beliefs.
2) Yet he would've known the outcome already.

Wrong.

Prove it.

Why would I follow a religion which says rape is fine? Islam does not encourage rape in any way whatsoever, so it wasn't a smart comment, really.

People follow religions that say a lot of things are fine that clearly aren't.
Slavery is condoned by the Bible, for instance.

In the sense that a lot more was shown back then, there wasn't as much advanced technology, methods were more antediluvian, people were actually more closer to God and people were maturer at earlier ages and where culture wasn't as so easily influenced by technology and lovemaking. And the definitions of words were different, too. Again, it's about putting things into historical context.

What does any of that have to do with the moral guidance of an eternal and timeless being?
If something is wrong now, then it would've been wrong then, in the eyes of such a creature
Historical context is irrelevant.

Most slaves were widowers/women from wars. But they weren't treated like dirt, they were treated well. But you'd have to marry the slave before you have sex with them. If she declines, that doesn't mean you can rape her, it means you carry on treating her well, until you feel she should leave (manumission). It was encouraged that women should be freed, but the women prisoners were allowed to be kept as concubines. If she was willing to convert to Islam, she could become the man's wife.

You've clearly contradicted yourself within this statement.

What's a concubine?
(I do know, before anyone says anything!)

The Qur'aan recognises the inequality between the slave and the 'master' hence why the master must treat the slave as an equal.

A master clearly doesn't treat a slave as an equal.
That's implicit in the relationship.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I won't go into detail on most of what you've said SNIAW, as you clearly don't apply critical thinking to your own religious beliefs, but I will mention one point.

Muslim men had sex with concubines outside of marriage.
Keeping a harem was allowed.
Having compulsory sex with a slave is rape.

It's unfortunate that you can't see the circularity of your logic when it comes to your faith.
You seem like an intelligent, balanced and articulate individual when it comes to most things.

 

[GasheadinChelt]

SNIAW Point 1 in your most recent post is quite frankly no proof at all. Seeing a really really bright light is not a justification of the existence of God or Angels. Sunlight being reflected of something metallic (a tactic King Solomon employed in battle to lure his enemies to charge into a deep ravine if it's to be believed) is a rational explanation for that. It has to be remembered - as I pointed out in a previous post - that peoples knowledge and experience then is nothing like we have today, so that they would attribute things beyond their comprehension and understanding to a Supreme being. Back then, those who could read and write would, more often than not, be found in religion so those who couldn't read or write would take what they were told at face value because they heard it from those they took to be more intelligent than them. These peasants needed to be told that there would be an afterlife that would be far better than the life they were experiencing at the time.

Regardless of what you might think of me & the point I'm about to make I have no trouble with people following a religion. The mistake being made is taking religious texts literally. Using them as a guideline to live your life by is fine - the basis of law comes from religion after all. However, given the time in history when the majority of these texts were written and then subsequently translated into other languages it would not be unreasonable to take it that events have been "embellished" which are portayed in them. To clarify this point, according to the Bible the Israelites brought down the walls of Jericho with the sound of trumpets. However, archaeologists have proved conclusively that Jericho had no walls.

Religious texts are not just the basis of laws, they're also a promotional/ propaganda tool. However saying something is a fact because it's written in a religious text doesn't actually make it a fact. It was best put to me by a Catholic friend of mine (sadly no longer with us) who said that the only way the Bible, Qu'ran or any other religious doctrine can be taken is by thinking "how would you explain things to a child to make them understand?" as there is no way things written back then should ever be taken at face value.

If that makes me some sort of bigot in your eyes then I'm some sort of bigot. I just can't accept as a rational person that books written 1,400 - 2,500 years ago are going to be 100% accurate and to be taken at face value. I'm sorry, it doesn't add up.

 

[Fabulous Fabio]

Ahh **** off I thought this thread was dead and buried

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

To clarify this point, according to the Bible the Israelites brought down the walls of Jericho with the sound of trumpets. However, archaeologists have proved conclusively that Jericho had no walls.

Not after the Jews took them out with their trumpets!

 

[SUPERNORWICH 23]

SNIAW Is Ok in my books, thanks again for deleting the offending materiel from your sig, Hope Arsenal win today with style

 

[SAF dried my hair]

Question for 'religiuos' folks

could you explain your theory as to what created god?