(April 6, 2014 at 2:33 am)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

(April 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: Except they will probably end up as stories right where they started. But okay, a more appropriate analogy would've been--Religion will be on the fringes and only loonies who still believe in that unproven religious crap will believe in. Most of the world will likely move on from religion once technology and advancement complexly change our lives further, advancements are already stamping out religion. Also, please make an actual argument next time you tell me I'm not making a good argument...

Last that I heard, Muhammad was taken for a loonie during his own time and there was no strong secular movement going on so you still fail.

Hahaha, how completely insipid and shortsighted. I'm not surprised you got the other moron frodo to thumb you.

You ignored the bigger picture of my post which was dismissed because religions still have influence. By your train of logic, Scientology will be the biggest religion someday since it's being laughed at now. The only fail was your own comprehension of what I said.

(May 3, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote:

(April 30, 2014 at 11:38 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: Panendeism


Bullshit. Any person with a sane mind knows of the genetic variances amongst animals today and also knows that such genetic information provides data on the biological relationships we all share. Human for example have 97-98% of their DNA in common with apes(not monkeys) today, specifically of the chimpanzee variety which are out distant cousins.

Only an idiotic believes int he complexity of life as the teleological argument is something only liars like William lane Craig would would use.

Also if the universe does not exist because of an infinite cause of events than neither does God. You are making a double standard here as you are asserting that the universe will not suffer an infinite loop although god will for merely being god. If there is no time outside of a universe then there is no infinite loop as whatever exists outside of a space were only time is irrelevant would merely have to exist. Assuming that something entirely free of time cannot create something effected by it makes no sense. You are only providing a possible deity that is infinite in the truest sense

You seem to contradict yourself with fallacies while asserting nothing but fallacies which you think create valid arguments.


You should get a new references site kiddo. Jokes do not make good points for a debate. They do provide laughable axioms though

These are nothing more than Red Herring Fallacies. You're the one who claims to believe in God, and you also just demonstrated that the universe can be eternal, thus contradicting the theistic argument that God could have created the universe.

You have no idea what a Red Herring is apparently. I also never stated that the universe could create itself because the universe is a closed bubble. What happens here stays here much like Las Vegas(although I hear that is not entirely true).

Please try pointing out where I proved that the universe could be eternal after I just thwarted it with gusto. If you cannot then it only serves to prove that you are babbling nonsense.

I think you need a new can of Gusto. Yours appears to be empty.

(May 3, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I'm still wondering how Mahmoud A Dinnerjacket here differentiates between the god he claims exists and other supernatural entities. Coincidentally, it just happens to be the God he was raised to believe in.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I will treat you as an idiot(which you are) from here on out and forever.

1. I was never raised to believe in the god I believe.
2. I do not differentiate shit.
3. I do not even believe in "supernatural entities"
4. Coincidentally the god I believe in has nothing to do with anything I was ever taught.
5. You assume to much and are thus objectively stupid.
6. You are worthless and if eugenics was brought back you would be the first to go.

Quote:He's not arguing (very well at all) for the Christian God, Hindu God, or a general bland creator deity. No, those Gods don't exist; but Allah does.

I have been a Christian, Hindu and Muslim in the past although my brush with Hinduism was more intellectual and I have only truly been a Christian and a Muslim.

Quote:Why? How do you know it's Allah?

I never said god is objectivelly called Allah it is just the fact that the world Allah is unisex. Al-ilah is male and al-Ilaha is female and Allah is unisex. It is just the best word possible to remove gender. Sikhs use the word Allah, as do Christians and Muslims. But Allah is a pagan name with pagan connotations.

Quote:What compels any of us to give more credence to
the alternate form of the God character the Christians stole from the Jews, and the Islamics stole from the Christians?

I have never asked for any credence from you. I am not exactly asking for inferior biological units to acknowledge me so I sure as hell do not care about your concerns towards my convictions.
The Muhammadians stole Allah from the pagans and fused Judaism and Christianity into it. So you are historically wrong on that bit by the way but I cannot expect much from something like yourself obviously .

Quote:Why does that intangible supernatural being with no evidence exist, but other supernatural beings do not?

Why do multiple hypothesis exist for the Abiogenesis process? Why do multiple models and theories exist to explain it? Why do multiple religions exist to explain God(who I dubbed Allah)?

I have only concluded 5 things about God

1. All religions are wrong
2. Only Natural Theologies hold actual understanding of god
3. Each of these natural theologies should be taken as theoretical approaches to the Divinity Dilemma.
4. My own(along with others) theology seems the most plausible.
5. Because of it's plausibility I apply it to the natural world.


I doubt you will understand that because you are not very bright, could be inbreeding maybe or retardation but who knows.

---

(May 4, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I think you need a new can of Gusto. Yours appears to be empty.

Just got a new can . I got re-motivated today after listening to one of my favorite Sikhs.

[youtube]IlAJosw3Q3o[/youtube]

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

(May 3, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I'm still wondering how Mahmoud A Dinnerjacket here differentiates between the god he claims exists and other supernatural entities. Coincidentally, it just happens to be the God he was raised to believe in.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I will treat you as an idiot(which you are) from here on out and forever.

Ok, if that's your fallback when you're unable to substantiate your beliefs, you can cling to it if you like.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: 1. I was never raised to believe in the god I believe.

It's just coincidental that the God you believe in happens to be a popular one in your particular culture.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: 2. I do not differentiate shit.

Yes, and that's the problem. You cannot explain why your God is real, and other Gods are not, when all Gods have the same lack of evidence.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: 3. I do not even believe in "supernatural entities"

Yes you do. You believe in God, which is by definition a supernatural entity.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: 4. Coincidentally the god I believe in has nothing to do with anything I was ever taught.

So you admittedly make shit up and present it as fact, then laugh, gibber, and fling your own excrement when people ask you to support your claims.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: 5. You assume to much and are thus objectively stupid.

Sorry, don't speak word salad.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: 6. You are worthless and if eugenics was brought back you would be the first to go.

Perhaps you should declare a jihad on me. Otherwise, as someone who apparently supports eugenics, I suggest you make a pencil disappear using your eye socket forthwith.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

Quote:He's not arguing (very well at all) for the Christian God, Hindu God, or a general bland creator deity. No, those Gods don't exist; but Allah does.

I have been a Christian, Hindu and Muslim in the past although my brush with Hinduism was more intellectual and I have only truly been a Christian and a Muslim.

I'm sure each time you were as objectively bad at supporting the reasoning for your beliefs as you are now.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

Quote:Why? How do you know it's Allah?

I never said god is objectivelly called Allah it is just the fact that the world Allah is unisex. Al-ilah is male and al-Ilaha is female and Allah is unisex. It is just the best word possible to remove gender. Sikhs use the word Allah, as do Christians and Muslims. But Allah is a pagan name with pagan connotations.

"God" is by definition a unisex name. An omnipresent being cannot have gender.

Oh look, more cultural coincidences:

Quote:The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ὁ θεὸς μόνος, ho theos monos).[11] Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[12] The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply 'God'.[13]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

Quote:What compels any of us to give more credence to
the alternate form of the God character the Christians stole from the Jews, and the Islamics stole from the Christians?

I have never asked for any credence from you. I am not exactly asking for inferior biological units to acknowledge me so I sure as hell do not care about your concerns towards my convictions.
The Muhammadians stole Allah from the pagans and fused Judaism and Christianity into it. So you are historically wrong on that bit by the way but I cannot expect much from something like yourself obviously .

Yet you keep making assertions like the above, and throw a screaming tantrum whenever anyone disagrees.

It seems you do expect acceptance of your assertions, and are unable to support them by any method other then hissy fit.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

Quote:Why does that intangible supernatural being with no evidence exist, but other supernatural beings do not?

Why do multiple hypothesis exist for the Abiogenesis process? Why do multiple models and theories exist to explain it? Why do multiple religions exist to explain God(who I dubbed Allah)?

False comparison. Abiogenesis theories are based on empirical evidence. Gods are based on cultural mythology and superstition, and lack empirical evidence.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: I have only concluded 5 things about God

1. All religions are wrong
2. Only Natural Theologies hold actual understanding of god
3. Each of these natural theologies should be taken as theoretical approaches to the Divinity Dilemma.
4. My own(along with others) theology seems the most plausible.
5. Because of it's plausibility I apply it to the natural world.

There you go again, presenting your beliefs as facts with zero support, demanding we accept your conclusions.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: I doubt you will understand that because you are not very bright, could be inbreeding maybe or retardation but who knows.

I would be considerably less bright of I accepted the incoherent rantings of an internet troll unquestioningly.

(May 4, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

(May 4, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I think you need a new can of Gusto. Yours appears to be empty.

Just got a new can . I got re-motivated today after listening to one of my favorite Sikhs.

[youtube]IlAJosw3Q3o[/youtube]

Yet incapable of putting it into your own words, apparently.

Here you go again:

(May 4, 2014 at 6:24 pm)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote:

(May 3, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote: These are nothing more than Red Herring Fallacies. You're the one who claims to believe in God, and you also just demonstrated that the universe can be eternal, thus contradicting the theistic argument that God could have created the universe.

You have no idea what a Red Herring is apparently. I also never stated that the universe could create itself because the universe is a closed bubble. What happens here stays here much like Las Vegas(although I hear that is not entirely true).

Please try pointing out where I proved that the universe could be eternal after I just thwarted it with gusto. If you cannot then it only serves to prove that you are babbling nonsense.

A Red Herring fallacy is where you bring up something irrelevant to what the conversation is about. This is exactly what you did when you brought up the genetic differences between organisms. You also made the Genetic Fallacy when you said the essay, Why Religion is Bullshit is nonsense.

(May 4, 2014 at 9:47 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Ok, if that's your fallback when you're unable to substantiate your beliefs, you can cling to it if you like.

This is gonna be good.

Quote:It's just coincidental that the God you believe in happens to be a popular one in your particular culture.

BRILLIANT! Because we all know that America is a Muslim infested nation where a guy like myself was raised Muslim.

Do you see your stupidity?

Quote:Yes, and that's the problem. You cannot explain why your God is real, and other Gods are not, when all Gods have the same lack of evidence.

I never even attempted to do such a thing. I can disprove any religion at any time. Reincarnation holds no validity, thus goes Hinduism. Islam is pagan, Christianity is Pagan, Judaism is the first pagan lie and Sikhism is a failed syncretic attempt.

Why must I bother refuting every single religion? I accept the claim to particular religions if they hold some sort of validity that can be measured and experienced. I cannot experience a Jesus because Jesus is a fable along with Krishna.

Quote:Yes you do. You believe in God, which is by definition a supernatural entity.

I am a Panendeist so everytime I think I have evidence God exist. So your claim is bullshit

I believe in a natural entity as monism spanks your assertions. I just wonder what other dumb thing you are going to say

Quote:So you admittedly make shit up and present it as fact, then laugh, gibber, and fling your own excrement when people ask you to support your claims.

Teapot talkin' 'bout the teakettle?

Quote:Sorry, don't speak word salad.

Speak of salads do you know how to toss one?

Quote:Perhaps you should declare a jihad on me. Otherwise, as someone who apparently supports eugenics, I suggest you make a pencil disappear using your eye socket forthwith.

Girl, you just make me laugh.

Quote:I'm sure each time you were as objectively bad at supporting the reasoning for your beliefs as you are now.

Nope, I never had a chance to support either claim till once. Which is why I am not any of those things anymore. Although I can make a snazzy case for Hinduism it just takes WAY too long. Hinduism needs to shave with Occam's Razor.

Quote:"God" is by definition a unisex name. An omnipresent being cannot have gender.

God by definition is a male name with male connations

"God: 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."(http://www.thefreedictionary.com)

Right next to the period at the end of this sentence is the world's smallest violin,

Quote:Oh look, more cultural coincidences:

Quote:The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ὁ θεὸς μόνος, ho theos monos).[11] Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[12] The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply 'God'.[13]

Mhm. Fairly accurate but it is older than that.

Quote:Yet you keep making assertions like the above, and throw a screaming tantrum whenever anyone disagrees.

"Tantrum: A fit of bad temper.(TheFreeDictionary)."

I am not angry or of ill temper. I am behind a desk giggling. Nobody is angry but you because your stupidity is frustrating(I assume). Unlike yourself though I do not make my assumptions facts.

Quote:It seems you do expect acceptance of your assertions, and are unable to support them by any method other then hissy fit.

I believe you should have said than then hissy fits. Just sayin'. Also you know damn well I am not having a hissy fit......wait I am laughing at your stupidity again .
Why would I even have a tantrum to begin with? Why would a joke make me angry?

Quote:False comparison. Abiogenesis theories are based on empirical evidence. Gods are based on cultural mythology and superstition, and lack empirical evidence.

Evolution is god, thus god is empirical. Panendeism thwarts your argument again. Also my Panendeism comes from a later Sumerian invention which was later shared other cults and cultures. It is a form of theological monism the Arabs had before they started making idols.
Unlike common perception. The Mesopotamians and Babylonian quit literal idolatry towards the end of their power. Arabs also did not have true idols for a long while. These folks were called the Nabataeans.

Quote:There you go again, presenting your beliefs as facts with zero support, demanding we accept your conclusions.

I told you my methodology of weeding through religions not my basis for my beliefs.
You seem to be slightly retarded, could you perhaps be the Gerber Baby people keep talking about?

For a person to mistake a methodology with a set of axioms puzzles me honestly. I have regarded many atheists as brilliant and I sort of assumed the more militant the atheist the more intellectual. Sadly tis not the case here

Quote:I would be considerably less bright of I accepted the incoherent rantings of an internet troll unquestioningly.

....says the troll. You have the intelligence of 2 marbles in a can and call me a troll? I seriously wonder if you are a theist making fun of an atheist. I wanna debate tor and Godslayer and here I am stuck with you, a fool or perhaps a comedian.

Quote:Yet incapable of putting it into your own words, apparently.

.......says the guy who can't tell an argument for god from an outline of the approach to a religion.

---

(May 4, 2014 at 11:15 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote: A Red Herring fallacy is where you bring up something irrelevant to what the conversation is about. This is exactly what you did when you brought up the genetic differences between organisms.

You asked me how life began. I answered. You are the world's worst debater it seems.

You also made a red-herring when began talking about god when the thread is about god.

Quote:You also made the Genetic Fallacy when you said the essay, Why Religion is Bullshit is nonsense.

The article has nothing to do with me. I am not religious and far from it. Morality, science, and metaphysics are completely irrelevant. I have the same morality as a secularist. Understand and approve of the same scientific evidences while also not holding a believe in the "soul". I am a goddamn deist so how the fuck can I reject any of these things? But now that I think of it you are not very bright .

When you wish to refute a person's claims refute the claims they actually make and the beliefs they hold. Rampant.A.I. could do similar I may add

Are you a troll? Or perhaps very bad at understanding philosophy and argumentation?

(May 5, 2014 at 12:58 am)Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab Wrote: I am a Panendeist so everytime I think I have evidence God exist. So your claim is bullshit

That's begging the question, as your thoughts could only be evidence of the god you claim exists if you assume that god exists to cause them in the first place. Taken in a vacuum, your thoughts are evidence of thoughts.

Totally off-topic, but why do we keep getting theists who act like complete arseholes?

(May 5, 2014 at 12:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Totally off-topic, but why do we keep getting theists who act like complete arseholes?

Comes with the territory, I guess...