Atheists on sspot please come in.

[Gibiin-Udug]

Please state your atheism so I can put you on Ignore.

I'm sick and tired of you losers always disrespecting my religion.



Thank you.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

Please state your atheism so I can put you on Ignore.

I'm sick and tired of you losers always disrespecting my religion.



Thank you.

Some atheists are disrespectful but it is not disrespecting your religion by quoting directly from it and highlighting what the implication of those citations are such as sex slavery jf. Quran 23: 6, domestic violence jf. Quran 4: 34, women's inferiority jf. Quran 2: 282.

In-fact it is honoring you as rational human that we would like to have this debate with you and come to an understanding of sort even if we disagree, but we also understand that rationally it is impossible to defend many of these concepts.

The best way you shut us down is with a good rational argument, not hiding from difficult dilemmas, questions and debates.

 

[Gibiin-Udug]

Some atheists are disrespectful but it is not disrespecting your religion by quoting directly from it and highlighting what the implication of those citations are such as sex slavery jf. Quran 23: 6, domestic violence jf. Quran 4: 34, women's inferiority jf. Quran 2: 282.

In-fact it is honoring you as rational human that we would like to have this debate with you and come to an understanding of sort even if we disagree, but we also understand that rationally it is impossible to defend many of these concepts.

The best way you shut us down is with a good rational argument, not hiding from difficult dilemmas, questions and debates.

Quoting or not you're still disrespecting my religion.

Ignored.

One down, 475738384 to go.

Come at me!

 

[Baliska]

Some atheists are disrespectful but it is not disrespecting your religion by quoting directly from it and highlighting what the implication of those citations are such as sex slavery jf. Quran 23: 6, domestic violence jf. Quran 4: 34, women's inferiority jf. Quran 2: 282.

In-fact it is honoring you as rational human that we would like to have this debate with you and come to an understanding of sort even if we disagree, but we also understand that rationally it is impossible to defend many of these concepts.

The best way you shut us down is with a good rational argument, not hiding from difficult dilemmas, questions and debates.

How do you 100% know there is no god? You realise even most scientists take a rational approach and say you can not disprove this.
In light of this, wouldn't it be more rational to accept that existence itself had to have a beginning and it is this source we must ponder.

 

[feen]

Some atheists are disrespectful but it is not disrespecting your religion by quoting directly from it and highlighting what the implication of those citations are such as sex slavery jf. Quran 23: 6, domestic violence jf. Quran 4: 34, women's inferiority jf. Quran 2: 282.

In-fact it is honoring you as rational human that we would like to have this debate with you and come to an understanding of sort even if we disagree, but we also understand that rationally it is impossible to defend many of these concepts.

The best way you shut us down is with a good rational argument, not hiding from difficult dilemmas, questions and debates.

you have the ahlul naar as your profile picture not surprised. i see you are nitpicking the quran stop cherry picking verse and bring the proper context of those verses.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

How do you 100% know there is no god? You realise even most scientists take a rational approach and say you can not disprove this.
In light of this, wouldn't it be more rational to accept that existence itself had to have a beginning and it is this source we must ponder.

That is an interesting philosophical question. The consequences of such a stipulation however is that the Islamic God is as empirically proven as the Spaghetti monster, and therefore they are equally valid.

The most rational answer is not to believe until a concept has been empirically proven, otherwise you can justify human sacrifice, slavery, abuse under the proposition that it has divine approval and that this can't be empirical disproven and therefore it must be valid.

 

[Baliska]

That is an interesting philosophical question. The consequences of such a stipulation however is that the Islamic God is as empirically proven as the Spaghetti monster, and therefore they are equally valid.

The most rational answer is not to believe until a concept has been empirically proven, otherwise you can justify human sacrifice, slavery, abuse under the proposition that it has divine approval and that this can't be empirical disproven and therefore it must be valid.

I dont think you're right. You would be right in saying you shouldn't be believing in a specific kind of god until rational proof can lead you to that specific god.
But if you were to go that route, you'd see the jewish and islamic concept of God is the only one that rationally makes sense. My advice to you is to explore rationally whether you can accept that this universe had a beginning, and then off of that, try to find a concept of God that matches this rationale. You'll come to monotheism (jewish and islamic monotheism) pretty quickly.

 

[Brooks]

You can't help but be disrespectful when you have backward Somali religious folks.

 

[tesfey67n]

@Steamdevolopment @Kafir @AussieHustler


https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-phy...


a glimmer of hope.

 

[Steamdevolopment]

I dont think you're right. You would be right in saying you shouldn't be believing in a specific kind of god until rational proof can lead you to that specific god.
But if you were to go that route, you'd see the jewish and islamic concept of God is the only one that rationally makes sense. My advice to you is to explore rationally whether you can accept that this universe had a beginning, and then off of that, try to find a concept of God that matches this rationale. You'll come to monotheism (jewish and islamic monotheism) pretty quickly.

Your rationality concept is suspect at best, and what rational argument is there for one God but not two or three or four? Since you can't empirical disprove the other notions they remain equal.

I think your partisan disposition is clouding your judgement, there is no rational way deduct a single God or even a God beyond using incomplete data that do not meet scientific method's standard.

 

[Hybrid]

@Reiko do you really expect your children to be Muslims by raising them in the west ?

 

[Steamdevolopment]

you have the ahlul naar as your profile picture not surprised. i see you are nitpicking the quran stop cherry picking verse and bring the proper context of those verses.

Sex slavery:
Quran 5-6: "And they (believers) who guard their private parts.
Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed"
Right hand refers to sex slaves.

Quran 4: 24:
"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise"

It even includes previously MARRIED sex slaves.

Domestic violence:
Quran 4: 34:

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

Domestic violence sanctioned as a means to discipline a woman.

Woman's testimony:
Quran 2: 282:
"O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear Allah, his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon. And do not be [too] weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its [specified] term. That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves. For [then] there is no blame upon you if you do not write it. And take witnesses when you conclude a contract. Let no scribe be harmed or any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is [grave] disobedience in you. And fear Allah . And Allah teaches you. And Allah is Knowing of all things."

The famous Quranic verse which holds male testimony in having greater when it comes to financial documents.

 

[Baliska]

Your rationality concept is suspect at best, and what rational argument is there for one God but not two or three or four? Since you can't empirical disprove the other notions they remain equal.

I think your partisan disposition is clouding your judgement, there is no rational way deduct a single God or even a God beyond using incomplete data that do not meet scientific method's standard.

I can explain the rational of one god over multiple.

Quoting myself in another thread

Avecinna made a good argument.

In layman's terms;

Everything is something that has a cause. You can go back to a point where each and everything had to have had the same source.

The source of everything is Allah and Allah being the source of everything, means there can not be multiple, so Allah is one. But not in the numerical sense, because even 1 can be divided conceptually. You have to go further than arithmetics. It also means Allah is unlike anything. Because everything comes from Allah and any similarities to existence itself would have an origin source. And that source had to have been Allah.

Allah and Allah's creation are separate. Creation is finite and has to have a source. Allah is infinite and does not have a beginning or end. Rather Allah is the beginning and end.

Also, ponder on the word Allah. Allah is taken from Al-Ilah according to islamic scholars. the word Allah in its form denotes no gender. It also means something that can not be made multiple in its form.

 

[Yonis]

Great to see you back again @Reiko

 

[Steamdevolopment]

I can explain the rational of one god over multiple.

Quoting myself in another thread


Also, ponder on the word Allah. Allah is taken from Al-Ilah according to islamic scholars. the word Allah in its form denotes no gender. It also means something that can not be made multiple in its form.

The problem is that the hypothesis follows from the BIG BANG that everything had one source, however the assumption that this source was Allah or any deity is really just an assumption. Another explaination could be that the BIG BANG reverses and recreates itself in an infinite loop, or that each new universe is the result of multiverses.

You make assumptions that have no basis in known reality, essential a thought experiment with no relations to proof. It was an interesting read but really baseless assumptions with no concrete proof.

 

[tesfey67n]

I dont think you're right. You would be right in saying you shouldn't be believing in a specific kind of god until rational proof can lead you to that specific god.
But if you were to go that route, you'd see the jewish and islamic concept of God is the only one that rationally makes sense. My advice to you is to explore rationally whether you can accept that this universe had a beginning, and then off of that, try to find a concept of God that matches this rationale. You'll come to monotheism (jewish and islamic monotheism) pretty quickly.

A better question. If there was no concept of an angel or ghosts would those assumptions still arise? what if our experiences arise from what we have been told and learned. with no concept of what has been learned would some other entirely different concept arise. when looking at religions you see very big differences when the societies are secluded from other beliefs. would one experience these things without the concept first?

 

[Gibiin-Udug]

@Reiko do you really expect your children to be Muslims by raising them in the west ?

Yes. I was raised in the West and I’m still Muslim alhamdullillah!

 

[feen]

First of all what some people need to understand is the concept of believe in god in Islam is a faith based test. If you are looking for tangible evidence of god existing sorry to disappoint you but that doesn’t exist. If you are looking for rational proof for the existence well we can discuss the fact that you and universe have a beginning and we know that anything which has beginning has to be created and every creation has a creator.

 

[Gibiin-Udug]

Great to see you back again @Reiko

Good to see you too cuz. Where were you? Your posts have been highly missed.

 

[Yonis]

Good to see you too cuz. Where were you? Your posts have been highly missed.

I've been very busy with life, i'll try to post more often