| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pr126
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8034
Local time: 11:42 PM
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
  |
|
I believe that Islam, classified as a religion, but it is in fact the cult of Mohammad , can be proven false.
The Quran is a mixture of pagan Arab lore, a plagiarised Christian and Jewish scriptures in an incoherent fashion, that the "borrowed" bible events and names are all mixed up in time and content, and it is plainly to see to everybody, (the errors in the Quran) but to the Muslims, because they are forbidden either to question it, or to examine the bible.
Mohammad has included christian an Jewish scriptures to give himself "ancestry" and legitimacy. At the same time, he had to keep the pagan customs, to be able to "sell" his "new religion" to the tribes.
Here is the evidence, supported by comparing the bible and the Quran for inconsistencies.
Muslims are still following and performing the same rituals that the pre-Islamic Arabian pagans have done for centuries before the creation of Islam by Mohammad, who was never a prophet but only a messenger.
And Allah, is non other that a pagan moon deity, a stone idol, still present in the Kaaba to this day.
Wilful ignorance about Islam and the Quran cannot last for ever.
Muslim and infidel will find out one day, the evidence is there for everybody to see for the last 1300 years.
_________________
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." Arthur C Clarke |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2122
Local time: 6:42 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pr126 wrote: | I believe that Islam, classified as a religion, but it is in fact the cult of Mohammad , can be proven false.
The Quran is a mixture of pagan Arab lore, a plagiarised Christian and Jewish scriptures in an incoherent fashion, that the "borrowed" bible events and names are all mixed up in time and content, and it is plainly to see to everybody, (the errors in the Quran) but to the Muslims, because they are forbidden either to question it, or to examine the bible.
Mohammad has included christian an Jewish scriptures to give himself "ancestry" and legitimacy. At the same time, he had to keep the pagan customs, to be able to "sell" his "new religion" to the tribes.
Here is the evidence, supported by comparing the bible and the Quran for inconsistencies.
Muslims are still following and performing the same rituals that the pre-Islamic Arabian pagans have done for centuries before the creation of Islam by Mohammad, who was never a prophet but only a messenger.
And Allah, is non other that a pagan moon deity, a stone idol, still present in the Kaaba to this day.
Wilful ignorance about Islam and the Quran cannot last for ever.
Muslim and infidel will find out one day, the evidence is there for everybody to see for the last 1300 years. |
When I take the time to cite a source, I cite a credible source. If you look back to my first comment, you'd see two real and reputable sources. Youtube is just wikipedia with videos. I don't have time to reply to a bullshit post supported by I am sure, overtly respective youtube videos.
If you can use credible sources, like lets say, citing a proffesor of Islamic history or a book by an established author, then I'd be happy to reply to your constant need to shit in the face of Islam while you continually pretend not to be a bigoted Islamaphobe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2122
Local time: 6:42 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | My apologies for not reading your previous post Dawk. However, I cannot agree with what I assume is your position that the base premise of anything must be assumed to be true before it can be proven false. I Understand this may be the so called rule in the world of philosophical logic, but like believing in a religion, If I disagree with your interpretation I bloody don't have to agree.
I cannot imagine how anyone who has even a limited understanding of current science would say that the base premise of any religion is NOT overtly false, given we know that the world and life was not created by the fashion that any religion that I am aware of states. Interpretation are only used as an excuse when the obvious meaning has been kicked to the curb. |
Great thing that's not my position. I don't care if you prove it false or correct first, as long as you prove it completly. Truth is something objective and the factual reality of something, there is no room for subjectivity. When you assert something is the truth, you are asserting it's a fact. We've already established you cannot prove that Genesis is in truth, a lie, because there is no one accepted view of Genesis, unless you discredit all views. And since some views are unfalisable, you can not truely every disprove or prove Genesis in it's many branches of views. Shit, again, works like that. It doesn't matter if you disagree with me, the "rules" as you call them, aren't going to be bent for either you or me, so get used to it if you play to reply to me. Unlike the words of the Bible, the rules of argumentative logic are absolute. If you make a claim, you have to carry the burden to do what that claim requires of you, even if it's absurd, unless you can shift that burden.
I'm a science major, as I've stated elsewhere. It's because I do have a great understanding, that I understand the base premise of any given religion cannot be overtly false if infomation is unfalisable or hasn't been shown to be false, throughout all of it's interpretations. What's the obvious meaning? Well, that depends on a person. In a inkblot test, see how man "obvious" meanings appear. Your argument falls about, that interpretations are only used as an excuse, if you're stupid enought to claim that your opinion of it is the most obvious or correct one. This isn't defending religion, this is defending logic, which you pissed all over because of your biases against religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2122
Local time: 6:42 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shiranu wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | monkeybyte wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | Shiranu wrote: | | I'll admit, that one comes at me as a complete shock. Never would I have guessed that ISRAEL of all places is waking up to the truth that religion is a lie. Perhaps there is hope for humanity yet. |
BZZZH. Another wrong jackass. There is no truth to the statement that religion is or isn't a lie. It's a subjective statement that holds no power whatsoever as a "Truth." "Religion is a lie" is nothing more than a belief that religion is a lie, not truth- and since it is not a truth, it cannot become knowledge either. |
BZZZT!! Wrong, jackass. Religion at one time might have been an honest attempt at explaining the unexplainable, but today it has been consistantly shown to be made up shit, ergo it is a fucking lie. Cry, cramp, lactate, protest and piss yourself all you want, truth still hurts like a bitch. |
Actually I am not wrong. I'm epistemologically and logically correct. "The truth is, Religion is a lie" is a gross generalisiation which cannot be proven to be correct because you will have to prove every aspect of every religion, incorrect. If you would like to take it upon your shoulders to prove every aspect of every religion is incorrect, I applaud you. However, I suspect you cannot, and since it's not your original argument, you should just back out before you make a fool of yourself. You believe religion has been shown to be shit, ok, that doesn't make something magically become "truth." It is not a fact that "Religion is a lie," however, the statement lies in the realm of subjectivity. For your belief to become "Truth" it has to be factual and realistic, and not your childish hopes and personal convictions. "Religion is a lie" does not meet either standards.
You have no idea what "Truth" means, you are just arguing your "beliefs," and it's pitiful. Shut the fuck up and do something more productive. Shir is a bit more intelligent than you, you're worthless in this debate. |
Perhaps it was a bit of exagaration. I should say, the whole "Jesus came from him self who is his dad, came to die on a cross after spreading his ideas around, then going onto the cross to become a zombie man ghost dude" or "You must live perfectly, or you Allah will punish you for eternity, now go blow up that building!" are more then likely complete lies to get people to do stuff they normally wouldn't do for you, expecially with out any incentive to throw their lives away. As for some of the things in the holy books, they could be true, they could be wrong, I cant disprove all of them, and some of them actually have truth in them.
So touche, I did let my opinion slide in a bit too much on that comment, and I dont think I could honestly come up with a good defense for it  . |
Of course they are lies, Jesus was neither a ghost nor a zombie. Calling Jesus a zombie is akin to calling a caribou a deer. Think of more imaginative and correct terms, instead of this trite rehashing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr126
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8034
Local time: 11:42 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If you can use credible sources, like lets say, citing a proffesor of Islamic history or a book by an established author, then I'd be happy to reply to your constant need to shit in the face of Islam while you continually pretend not to be a bigoted Islamaphobe. |
Bigoted Islamophobe?
Please. Can you add racist, hater, xenophobe as well? The are they buzz words of the decade. Let's not skimp on words.
Islamophobe is a dishonest, made up word, Islam and phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear.
There is nothing irrational fearing Islam, it is irrational not to fear it, after all the evidence is visible to the whole world.
Ever wondered why there is no Christiophobia? Judeophobia? Think about that for a moment.
Here, you'll like this "Islamophobia should be accepted as a crime"
As for credible source, there is none, for those who will not accept any source which against Islam.
But, here is a few, just for laughs:
Some books on the subject
And here:
| Quote: | | And if the presidents and provosts and other alarmed faculty do not start looking into this, or even if they do, alumni should withhold contributions, no matter how keenly they may feel a loyalty to their alma mater. They owe a higher loyalty to the political and legal institutions, and to the conditions of freedom that make art and science possible, and that are under assault, slowly but steadily, by those who derive the meaning of their existence, and the regulation of that existence, from Islam. Ignorant undergraduates, unfortunately, are also impressionable. They are being carefully misinformed and mis-schooled, systematically so, by many of those, Muslims and also non-Muslim apologists for Islam, who are determined that the real Western scholarship about Islam -- that of C. Snouck Hurgronje, and Joseph Schacht, and Arthur Jeffrey, and Charles-Emmanuel Bousquet, and Georges Vajda, and Henri Lammens, and Antoine Fattal, and so many others -- is never brought to the students' attention, or is first carefully discredited by heavy doses of Edward Said's Orientalism That book was Said’s attempt, for so long successful, to undercut, in advance, centuries of Western scholarship on Islam. But recent books, and especially that by Ibn Warraq, have blown Said sky-high. All the horses, and all the men, even of those sinister maecenases, all daggers-and-dishdashas, with their sneers of cold command, deploying the money weapon from their palaces in Jiddah and Riyadh, can't put Orientalism back together again. |
source
I am sure that non of this will be accepted as "credible" source. But what the hell.
I am not trying to prove anything to you.
Are you sure you don't have Tourettes Syndrome?
_________________
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." Arthur C Clarke
Last edited by pr126 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:46 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 986
Local time: 6:42 PM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the response Dawk. You make good points to your point, however I think I am foreced to continue in my opinion that simply because someone believes their “religion” is bona-fide and not a fairy tale does not in any way make me responsible to treat it as such.
We are constantly inundated with various beliefs from people who demand they be taken seriously when their propositions are ridiculous.
That religion is a fond belief of many does not give it the right to demand to be treated as a fact due to popular demand. There are ample examples of this.
Simply because one may believe firmly in a thing, their attempts to elevate it to fact by virtue of argument still does not give it the right to be considered real when it cannot be proven. It would be illogical to present argument to disprove things that have not been proven in the first place.
I state religions are false because they are fairy tales and ancient myths. I base this statement on the knowledge of the similarity of texts, redundancy of claims, impossible claims and false assertions that are associated with other known fairy tales and myths. So far, no religion has been able to prove otherwise. And I am under no obligation to treat a religion with any more respect than I do a fairy tale.
Thanks for your time, I appreciated it.
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monkeybyte
Forum Master
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 3385
Local time: 9:42 AM
Location: At E's place for tea.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pr126 wrote: | | Are you sure you don't have Tourettes Syndrome? |
An interesting hypothesis, though I don't know if the impulse would be so strong as to show up in something that looks like it was thought over before being keyed in a post.
_________________
"Setting people on fire is wrong." -Todd "Squee" Casil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2122
Local time: 6:42 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | Thanks for the response Dawk. You make good points to your point, however I think I am foreced to continue in my opinion that simply because someone believes their “religion” is bona-fide and not a fairy tale does not in any way make me responsible to treat it as such.
We are constantly inundated with various beliefs from people who demand they be taken seriously when their propositions are ridiculous.
That religion is a fond belief of many does not give it the right to demand to be treated as a fact due to popular demand. There are ample examples of this.
Simply because one may believe firmly in a thing, their attempts to elevate it to fact by virtue of argument still does not give it the right to be considered real when it cannot be proven. It would be illogical to present argument to disprove things that have not been proven in the first place.
I state religions are false because they are fairy tales and ancient myths. I base this statement on the knowledge of the similarity of texts, redundancy of claims, impossible claims and false assertions that are associated with other known fairy tales and myths. So far, no religion has been able to prove otherwise. And I am under no obligation to treat a religion with any more respect than I do a fairy tale.
Thanks for your time, I appreciated it. |
I agree with your implication, that is, we won't be able to agree. There is nothing I can reply with to this reply, that I haven't already said. We're just repeating the same infomation in different iterations. It's fruitless to continue this discussion at the moment. If you'd like to pick it up later, with a fresher perspective or a new argument, just let me know.
You seem more well versed than most on this board, a good adversary to have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr126
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8034
Local time: 11:42 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monkeybyte wrote: | | pr126 wrote: | | Are you sure you don't have Tourettes Syndrome? |
An interesting hypothesis, though I don't know if the impulse would be so strong as to show up in something that looks like it was thought over before being keyed in a post. |
At any rate, he must be a very unpleasant company.
_________________
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." Arthur C Clarke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 986
Local time: 6:42 PM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | aitm wrote: | Thanks for the response Dawk. You make good points to your point, however I think I am foreced to continue in my opinion that simply because someone believes their “religion” is bona-fide and not a fairy tale does not in any way make me responsible to treat it as such.
We are constantly inundated with various beliefs from people who demand they be taken seriously when their propositions are ridiculous.
That religion is a fond belief of many does not give it the right to demand to be treated as a fact due to popular demand. There are ample examples of this.
Simply because one may believe firmly in a thing, their attempts to elevate it to fact by virtue of argument still does not give it the right to be considered real when it cannot be proven. It would be illogical to present argument to disprove things that have not been proven in the first place.
I state religions are false because they are fairy tales and ancient myths. I base this statement on the knowledge of the similarity of texts, redundancy of claims, impossible claims and false assertions that are associated with other known fairy tales and myths. So far, no religion has been able to prove otherwise. And I am under no obligation to treat a religion with any more respect than I do a fairy tale.
Thanks for your time, I appreciated it. |
I agree with your implication, that is, we won't be able to agree. There is nothing I can reply with to this reply, that I haven't already said. We're just repeating the same infomation in different iterations. It's fruitless to continue this discussion at the moment. If you'd like to pick it up later, with a fresher perspective or a new argument, just let me know.
You seem more well versed than most on this board, a good adversary to have. |
I appreciate your civility as well, even though it appears we are polar opposites. I would be interested in your thoughts on "Bags of Water" in the Physics section. I am somewhat surprised at what I heard and would like your thoughts.
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2122
Local time: 6:42 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | aitm wrote: | Thanks for the response Dawk. You make good points to your point, however I think I am foreced to continue in my opinion that simply because someone believes their “religion” is bona-fide and not a fairy tale does not in any way make me responsible to treat it as such.
We are constantly inundated with various beliefs from people who demand they be taken seriously when their propositions are ridiculous.
That religion is a fond belief of many does not give it the right to demand to be treated as a fact due to popular demand. There are ample examples of this.
Simply because one may believe firmly in a thing, their attempts to elevate it to fact by virtue of argument still does not give it the right to be considered real when it cannot be proven. It would be illogical to present argument to disprove things that have not been proven in the first place.
I state religions are false because they are fairy tales and ancient myths. I base this statement on the knowledge of the similarity of texts, redundancy of claims, impossible claims and false assertions that are associated with other known fairy tales and myths. So far, no religion has been able to prove otherwise. And I am under no obligation to treat a religion with any more respect than I do a fairy tale.
Thanks for your time, I appreciated it. |
I agree with your implication, that is, we won't be able to agree. There is nothing I can reply with to this reply, that I haven't already said. We're just repeating the same infomation in different iterations. It's fruitless to continue this discussion at the moment. If you'd like to pick it up later, with a fresher perspective or a new argument, just let me know.
You seem more well versed than most on this board, a good adversary to have. |
I appreciate your civility as well, even though it appears we are polar opposites. I would be interested in your thoughts on "Bags of Water" in the Physics section. I am somewhat surprised at what I heard and would like your thoughts. |
I have a few replies I lost interest in, in this thread and others. I'd like to tie up all the threads I ignored, or at least try to become interested again, before I meander over and start a new conversation. So later, sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2122
Local time: 6:42 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pr126 wrote: |
Bigoted Islamophobe? |
Are you incapable of reading? Does such a combination of words just boggle your elderly brain? Don't let old age win, try again.
| pr126 wrote: | | Please. Can you add racist, hater, xenophobe as well? The are they buzz words of the decade. Let's not skimp on words. |
I'd love too as soon as you state something racist or xenophobic, because you must be itching to do so and get out of that closest you reside in.
| pr126 wrote: | Islamophobe is a dishonest, made up word, Islam and phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear.
There is nothing irrational fearing Islam, it is irrational not to fear it, after all the evidence is visible to the whole world.
Ever wondered why there is no Christiophobia? Judeophobia? Think about that for a moment.
Here, you'll like this "Islamophobia should be accepted as a crime" |
A fear of a religion is very irrational. Ideologies cannot harm you, last I check. The proponents of one might, but I'm having a hard time imagining the forces needed to personify Islam and create some short of otherworldly doppelgänger that can physically, mentally or emotionally harm you.
"Phobia," serves two functions.
1. Phobia: A phobia is an irrational, exaggerated or intense fear. Even if you somehow justify your Islamaphobia as rational, it's obvious to anyone particulate to details your intense and overtly over the top feelings on the subject.
2. -Phobia: It also serves as a "noun combining form," meaning that it will create an actual word when attached to an affix, which is usually a prefix.
Thought about, offhandedly, there are documented cases of people with fears of Jews. Why, there are even people with a phobia of atheists. Think about that for a moment while you collect more of your "evidence" that is apparently, just more weak minded people like yourself whacking off each other's desire to hate Islam.
| pr126 wrote: | | As for credible source, there is none, for those who will not accept any source which against Islam. |
What, there are none? Crazy. I'm glad you can concede that you don't have any credible sources which justify your impassable hate of Islam or really prove anything you claim. I guess this means almost everything you think you know about Islam, and have argued about Islam isn't worth shit. Thanks for being a man at the end of his rope, just crawl into your old box and live the rest of your life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monkeybyte
Forum Master
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 3385
Local time: 9:42 AM
Location: At E's place for tea.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a question, doodle, what constitutes a valid source?
Would Salman Rushdie or Ayann Hirsi Ali fall in there?
_________________
"Setting people on fire is wrong." -Todd "Squee" Casil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2122
Local time: 6:42 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monkeybyte wrote: | Just a question, doodle, what constitutes a valid source?
Would Salman Rushdie or Ayann Hirsi Ali fall in there? |
Are you unable to read? That question has been answered several times at several junctions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monkeybyte
Forum Master
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 3385
Local time: 9:42 AM
Location: At E's place for tea.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Um, no. You mentioned some sources that you thought were credible, what is the criteria that makes them this way?
Because they're more mainstream and are covered by paid professionals?
To an extent that would be true, especially compared to a lot of nutbar blogs out there.
To an extent it's not, they're in the business of selling information, not necessarily news.
As for the nutbars, they're going to get a lot of undeserved support by default if mainstream journalists keep up their chickenshit hand wringing.
If the only the fascists will call a duck a duck, then they will displace the liberals in Europe.
If Muslim mods don't speak up more, I'll have to pigeonhole them with the Jihadis myself, regardless of my opinion of the fascists.
I'm still interested in your views on apostate sources like Rushdie and Ali.
_________________
"Setting people on fire is wrong." -Todd "Squee" Casil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
