(January 30, 2012 at 12:03 pm)Phil Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 11:58 am)Zakir_250 Wrote: Ok firstly I would not steal any arguments from Christians.

Why? Because there is more evidence towards Islam historically and Scientifically than Christianity.

Christianity believes in 3 gods and believes god was once a child. That's illogical.

Jesus (Peace be upon him) never knew what Chrsitianity meant because he taught monotheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma

Now shove your fucking lies up your ass.

Don't see how I'm stealing it. We believe Jesus was a prophet so we muslims can say the same (apart from lord part).

Quote:Because there is more evidence towards Islam historically

There is no more "historical" evidence ( i.e. contemporary texts ) of mohammed than there is of jesus or moses.

In all 3 cases all that exists is a lot of pious horseshit written later ( in some cases MUCH later) by believers.

That, in case you are wondering, counts for shit.

(January 30, 2012 at 11:25 am)Zakir_250 Wrote: Again, I ask; Is Muhammad a liar, lunatic or prophet?

The three are one and the same. No one becomes perceived as a prophet without being a lunatic or a liar, or in most cases both.

So Muhammad was a great prophet is to say he was an exceptionally shameless liar and a true wacko of a lunatic.

No evidence for any religion, all a total fail, and it's adherant spout 'there is evidence' and when it's looked at by an expert, or even a literate person, it is discarded because it isn't evidence at all. The evidence for anything in religious texts is weak at best, plagiarised next, woeful last (or first).

Quote:Islam true religion?

Of course Islam is a true religion. Its a religion that claims it is true.

I dont know very many religions (other than the discordian types) that claim they are NOT a true religion.


Its just like someone asking "does atheism exist". Of course it exists, even if your God really did exist atheism would still exist is those who chose not to believe. Sort of like Ray comforts book "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof the Atheist Doesn't Exist." It basically shows that he hasnt the foggiest clue how to use the definitions in context. Clearly comfort is a disbeliever in Thor, therefore he is an atheist when it comes to Thor, therefore his book title is proof that Comfort is still very much a moron about the subject, which being a theologist he should be cleraly aware of the correct use for these terms. This means he is either a lyer or an idiot. He could more than likely be both.

The problem with 'prophet' is that you're implying that God has a 'messenger' of sorts. This is implying there is a god, then the problem is you have no proof for a god. If you say 'something must have started all this,' you are then arguing from ignorance, as you do not know the workings of this majestic universe, to presume you do is lofty to say the least. The claim of being a prophet is no more than either a joke or lunacy.

This man is a prophet too, but do you think so? Or do you disregard him as a looney as I do yours? And why is he less likely, without spouting Quranic brainfart. The Quran is a book like The Hobbit after all, being written in a desert some time after the apparent facts it presumes doesn't validate its accuracy any more than a J.R.R. Tolkien novel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDX6x9Pr3KU

Which merely demonstrates, Fifth, exactly how stupid religious assholes can be.

(January 30, 2012 at 11:25 am)Zakir_250 Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 12:00 am)genkaus Wrote:

(January 29, 2012 at 7:32 pm)Zakir_250 Wrote:

(January 29, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Hitchslap Wrote:

(January 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm)Zakir_250 Wrote: What about this as evidence;

"Kerala is a state of India. The state stretches for 360 miles (580 kilometers) along the Malabar Coast on the southwestern side of the Indian peninsula.[3] King Chakrawati Farmas of Malabar was a Chera king, Cheraman perumal of Kodungallure. He is recorded to have seen the moon split. The incident is documented in a manuscript kept at the India Office Library, London, reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173.[4] A group of Muslim merchant’s passing by Malabar on their way to China spoke to the king about how God had supported the Arabian prophet with the miracle of splitting of the moon. The shocked king said he had seen it with his own eyes as well, deputized his son, and left for Arabia to meet the Prophet in person. The Malabari king met the Prophet, bore the two testimonies of faith, learned the basics of faith, but passed away on his way back and was buried in the port city of Zafar, Yemen"

see the king saw with her own eyes.

Since all of you are fans of Science, I would like to say I am too because the Quran is supported By science. Evidence: http://www.islamreligion.com/category/34/

Like I said, I came here to debate and so far I feel like I'm winning the debate.

You think you're winning? when you ignore posters replies, ignore counter-responses and keep asserting more shit on top of stinkier shit? You didnt come here to debate or even think, you care here to prosthelytize and spew out logical fallacies hoping to convert. You make me sick with your comment about seing "fans of science" arent you not? Are you not using a computer? made by science? are you not trying to refute anything thats not Islam with Pseudoscience? haha winning...quit while you're behind, pal. Bald assertions and holy books are not evidences of supernatural claims or gods, you should know that by now.

I would never trick people to convert. It's against my religion. All I'm doing is providing evidence and waiting for a debate. Whereas people here are insulting my Prophet and god. Also the Bible even though I don't believe in it.

This particular piece-of-shit evidence has been refuted before. One person, just one, saying that he saw the moon split. There is no indication that he said anything like that before he met the Muslim pilgrim. And apparently, he saw the moon split and failed to awaken every person he could to see the split as well.

If this witness was produced in the court of law, he'd be laughed out of there. Try to reply for once.

It's a reliable witness though. It's the king, someone who has no reason to lie.

Again, I ask; Is Muhammad a liar, lunatic or prophet?

Why would being a king make him reliable? And how do you know he had no reason to lie? Did anyone cross-examine him? If yes, I'd like to see those transcripts. If no, then you have no evidence for his reliability.

And Muhammad was telling lies. However, as I have no way of examining his state of mind when he was telling them, I cannot say whether he himself truly believed them or not. Therefore, I cannot say whether he is a liar or a lunatic.

(January 30, 2012 at 2:16 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 11:25 am)Zakir_250 Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 12:00 am)genkaus Wrote:

(January 29, 2012 at 7:32 pm)Zakir_250 Wrote:

(January 29, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Hitchslap Wrote: You think you're winning? when you ignore posters replies, ignore counter-responses and keep asserting more shit on top of stinkier shit? You didnt come here to debate or even think, you care here to prosthelytize and spew out logical fallacies hoping to convert. You make me sick with your comment about seing "fans of science" arent you not? Are you not using a computer? made by science? are you not trying to refute anything thats not Islam with Pseudoscience? haha winning...quit while you're behind, pal. Bald assertions and holy books are not evidences of supernatural claims or gods, you should know that by now.

I would never trick people to convert. It's against my religion. All I'm doing is providing evidence and waiting for a debate. Whereas people here are insulting my Prophet and god. Also the Bible even though I don't believe in it.

This particular piece-of-shit evidence has been refuted before. One person, just one, saying that he saw the moon split. There is no indication that he said anything like that before he met the Muslim pilgrim. And apparently, he saw the moon split and failed to awaken every person he could to see the split as well.

If this witness was produced in the court of law, he'd be laughed out of there. Try to reply for once.

It's a reliable witness though. It's the king, someone who has no reason to lie.

Again, I ask; Is Muhammad a liar, lunatic or prophet?

Why would being a king make him reliable? And how do you know he had no reason to lie? Did anyone cross-examine him? If yes, I'd like to see those transcripts. If no, then you have no evidence for his reliability.

And Muhammad was telling lies. However, as I have no way of examining his state of mind when he was telling them, I cannot say whether he himself truly believed them or not. Therefore, I cannot say whether he is a liar or a lunatic.

The exact same thing can be said. How do you know he lied? Did anyone say he was lying?

Do You see how logic works? Muhammad wasn't telling lies because he was trustworthy and even his enemies trusted him. Why would a innocent man lie about an angel? for fame? for power? for money? Well according to the authentic hadiths, he rejected power and money. He was a very nice man. This is why he is called to mankind.

Hey Zakir, there is this bridge in New York, I'm selling, interested?