:lol: :lol:

You will actually find that verses of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet Muhmmad PBUH whilst he was in the company of other people.

There's a disconnect here between the religious and non-religious on where the burden of proof lies.

My thoughts are pretty simple and echo Carl Sagan - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad via a supernatural being is a pretty extraordinary claim.

But so is claiming that God doesnt exist.. is it not?

I like the name Gabriel

[youtube]Egjb0eNNUzU[/youtube]

Which others? where are their accounts of what happened? Why are they not held up to varify the claims of Muhammad?


No, to be a theist means to believe in the Supernatural, to be a monoist means to belief in what is tangable, what is real and within the world. To live without a Supernatural belief means you only need standard evidence.

No, because there's nothing aside from some old stories to lead us to believe in any existence of a God. Making up a God for everything is just an easy way for people to pretend they understand something and that's how ancient civilisations handled things. Don't understand death? Anubis can help! Don't understand lightning? Thor's behind it all!

There is zero conclusive evidence for the existence of a God and so it's perfectly reasonable to assert that one doesn't exist.

The satirical religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is perfect for this argument. It's pretty ridiculous to actually believe in it's existence isn't it? I mean, it's a monster made of spaghetti that flies around and loves pirates. So that means it's perfectly reasonable to say it doesn't exist. Now replace the FSM with your God and repeat.

They dead. Their accounts are in the hadith.



Wait, so im a monotheist, and you saying that therefore my belief is to believe in something tangible?

Which is why religion is dangerous & logic and rationality is feasible, despite rusty's extraordinarily long bow simplistic argument about the nazis and atheism mentioned a couple of days ago.

Edited by ozboy: 25/9/2012 05:14:35 PM

There is nothing wrong with religion when you look at all the basic fundamentals of it. The whole problem is when you have two contradicting ideas and yet people hold onto both. For example Christians and Muslims preach though shall not kill, yet they are killing each other? So I ask, are these type of people really religious or are they using religion under false pretences?

If you want to see a human that is truly devout to their faith look no further than a Buddhist monk.

I didn't see what he said, but if he tried to say that the Nazi party was atheist then he's wrong, they had shit about God on a lot of their insignias and the like.



"God with us".

I've seen just as many people use 'logic' and 'rationality' to jump to horrendous conclusions that have done serious damage.

Claiming that god exists is the positive claim, that's what requires the evidence.

I think you will find that the vast majority of Atheists do not claim that a god DOES NOT exist, but rather there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that a god DOES exist.

Not that it has anything to do with the stifling of criticism of religions, though.

I wonder how these international laws would work for blasphemy against other religions by the religious (ie: some Christians may find the assertion that Jesus was only a prophet rather than the Son of God blasphemous).

Absolutely should not be a criminal offence, load of rubbish. Christians and Jews have been the butt of anti-religious satire for years, Muslims shouldn't be any different.

I struggle to understand peoples driving need to attack someone on the grounds of their religious beliefs, I think its pretty insensitive myself, but it certainly shouldn't be a crime.

Lost my shit at this :lol:

Actually most religions that have withstood the test of time are not restrictive in their philosophy. Christianity does not in any way preclude scientific investigation of the wonder of creation - in fact it actively encourages it. At one time or another fear has resulted in people drawing imaginary lines in the sand and declaring that it must not be crossed, but what we learn from the Bible is that those imaginary lines are meant to be drawn for behaviors rather than knowledge. It is those who are ignorant of the Bible beyond the teachings of the hysterics that tend to think that it results in an incompatibility with an investigative mind, something that is not the case. The Bible pushes you to learn and grow, something that self imposed or enforced ignorance is designed to prevent and is therefore anti Biblical.

As for the need to prove by empirical evidence the existence of God, why? If you believe that God is something that must be physically touched then you are asking the wrong questions. When confronted with the beauty and complexity of the universe I do not think that it will be beyond man's understanding and therefore there is God, I instead think that one day its wonders will be fully grasped by man and its perfection will only confirm the presence of God in it.

Which of course instantly means that they were a Christian organisation :lol:

I should probably say something on topic, blasphemy laws are a stupid idea, all they do is paint an even bigger target on the reactionary button.

Just a couple of NOFX song from the album coaster that some up my feelings.

Perfectly summed up.

No, I'm not claiming that, I'm simply saying that it wasn't an atheist organisation either so to attribute what they did to atheism is as wrong as it is to attribute it to Christianity.

Religions have stood the test of time because there's no way to disprove them enitrely and so they'll always be around. I'm just curious as to why people need some divine force to drive them to learn or to be good people. Why can't the desire for knowledge of our universe be borne purely out of our own intrinsic desire? Why believe in and involve another party (i.e. God) in that when we have ZERO evidence of it's existence?

I also don't believe God needs to be something that can be physically touched but the only things we have to "prove" his existence is some sketchy stories. We can't sense him in any way and until we can, I refuse to believe in it.

I have a feeling you are missing the point regarding the precedent such a law could set..

This, if a law is passed forbidding us from criticising religion then it'll be only a matter of time until we're not allowed to criticise big business, the government etc. etc.

That's pretty good motivation to the follow the religion, isn't it? :lol:

Why the need to have empirical evidence of a supernatural being that governs the lives of billions of people, governments, and corporations in an ever-shrinking world?

I can think of a few reasons...

For the rest of what you posted there, NdT says it best:
[youtube]HooeZrC76s0[/youtube]

No dramas :)

You are aware that God in the gaps is a stupid concept? Personally the more we understand the more evident it is that there is God, not less. I don't use God as an excuse for my lack of understanding after all :)

Edited by general ashnak: 26/9/2012 08:33:45 PM

Oh yeah, I know how bad the GotG logic is, although I'm not sure how you're disconnecting that from your allusion to certainty through irreducible complexity.

I struggle to understand peoples driving need to force people with no`faith` or belief in a supernatural being to adhere to laws created to prevent them from having lack of reverence for a god they don't believe in the first place.

Here's a thought, why don't athesists push for a law that prevents thiests from speaking of their faith.

My point is, it goes nowhere and ends badly. Believe whatever floats your boat, if the guy next to you doesn't and there is a judgement he's fucked, you aren't, as for theist being wrong, well the worst that can happen is you'll die only to be disappointed you wasted so much of your life following something that does not exist, but it won't matter cause you'll be dead and you'll never know your disappointment.

What? How does complete knowledge = irreducible complexity? :lol: Matt you misread me :)