Islam owns atheism with a single verse

[Loaded dice]

Under what user name did you post links?

I didn't post links so far because I know what he's trying to do, he just wants to spam me with more links and run away. Let him use his head or give up.

Do ladies not get grapes in heaven because ladies just don't like grapes?  You know how men are, fuckin grape-hounds.

It's clear that ladies desire men less than men desire ladies (in general, there might be exceptions). As I already said, men generally take the initiative to find a spouse (that's certainly true in Arab countries even before Islam).
So, it makes sense that the Qur'an would make paradise appealing to men by mentioning highly attractive women. It would seem fishy to do the same for women.

A belligerent god would also imply the existence of an afterlife. The non-existence of all god would not preclude an afterlife.

Boru

This is probably true, even if it's an uncommon belief. But it's really important to remember that God's existence (as traditionally conceived) DOES imply there is an afterlife.

The non-existence of gods doesn't preclude an afterlife, but it renders it much less likely, and there is no real justification to believe in an afterlife anymore, at least afaik.

[Loaded dice]

A benevolent deity doesn't necessitate any specific reward unless said deity is infinitely benevolent.  Beyond being absurd, that's obviously not the case.

I think even if the deity is even mildly benevolent it would still imply an afterlife. Children under the age of 5 die in millions, every year, for no reason at all, a God with even a minimal degree of benevolence would redress that with another life.

The real headscratcher is animal suffering, traditional accounts of heaven, including Islam's, aren't really clear about animals, apparently God would just make them cease to exist, once the unjustice is redressed.

[Bucky Ball]

Do you think flooding me with multiple websites filled with walls of text is an appropriate response? Um.. Think again. I can similarly answer you by posting literally hundreds of websites and books about the historiography of Islam, which say the exact opposite of Spencer's crap. And then I can claim the upper hand and blame you for not reading the hundreds of links I posted, that's not a recommended tactic if you're willing to have a genuine conversation here.

Please use your head a bit and tell us why your major (only?) source of knowledge about Islam is a far right extremist. And remember, you're not spitting any timeless wisdom here, negationist claims such as Muhammad never existed were suggested many times in the past, but were largely ignored by mainstream scholarly research on Early Islam, and not without reason: Muhammad is one of the most documented figures in history, or perhaps THE most documented.

LOL Prove it. Making unsupported assertions proves nothing. You have nothing. I did not flood yoou with anything. I gave you a page of references. You on the other have have given us NOTHING in terms of support.

I already clarified this: Spencer dismisses all mainstream Islamic history, like Ibn ishaq's biography of Muhammad and such. He considers it 100% fabrication. This is flatly wrong because Muslims authenticated their history and isolated the fabricated bits.

Another unsupported claim. I have no reason to accept one word you say. Your CLAIMS are not clarifications. You have to provide EXAMPLES and proof of them. Not just claims and assertions.
Maybe you could ask for help in learning how to debate.

benevolent god implies an afterlife exists, that's 100% true. So proving that a benevolent god exists does prove that an aferlife is real. but this is another topic

Nope. Unless you prove the god exists, it implies nothing. You are such a BAD debater.
I could care less what you think a benevolent god implies. You have to PROVE there is one first. You haven't even tried. 
You are certainly quite the pathetic amateur here. Obviously you never debated anyone before. Are you like 13 ?

You keep proving here you are TOTALLY unable to deal with any of the historical issues.
Saying others already did, is nothing but lame bullshit.
You actually know NOTHING about the historical issues.

You are dismissed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Under what user name did you post links?

I didn't post links so far because I know what he's trying to do, he just wants to spam me with more links and run away. Let him use his head or give up.

Do ladies not get grapes in heaven because ladies just don't like grapes?  You know how men are, fuckin grape-hounds.

It's clear that ladies desire men less than men desire ladies (in general, there might be exceptions). As I already said, men generally take the initiative to find a spouse (that's certainly true in Arab countries even before Islam).
So, it makes sense that the Qur'an would make paradise appealing to men by mentioning highly attractive women. It would seem fishy to do the same for women.

So it is hookers, and not grapes...then...? What are they, 150 a night? Now we're just negotiating.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I didn't post links so far because I know what he's trying to do, he just wants to spam me with more links and run away. Let him use his head or give up.


It's clear that ladies desire men less than men desire ladies (in general, there might be exceptions). As I already said, men generally take the initiative to find a spouse (that's certainly true in Arab countries even before Islam).
So, it makes sense that the Qur'an would make paradise appealing to men by mentioning highly attractive women. It would seem fishy to do the same for women.

So it is hookers, and not grapes...then...?  What are they, 150 a night?  Now we're just negotiating.

Reminds me of the old joke where someone asks Queen Victoria is she'd sleep with a gentleman of good family and impeccable breeding for a million pounds. HRM answers, 'Probably, as I could use the funds to help the poor.'

He then asks if she'd sleep with the same gentleman for two pounds. Outraged and offended, the Queen answers, 'Certainly not! What do you think I am??'

'We've already determined what you are, Ma'am. Now, we're just haggling over your price.'

Boru

[Angrboda]

It's clear that ladies desire men less than men desire ladies (in general, there might be exceptions).

Men desire women differently than women desire men. It isn't a question of more or less.

[Angrboda]

A benevolent deity doesn't necessitate any specific reward unless said deity is infinitely benevolent.  Beyond being absurd, that's obviously not the case.

I think even if the deity is even mildly benevolent it would still imply an afterlife. Children under the age of 5 die in millions, every year, for no reason at all, a God with even a minimal degree of benevolence would redress that with another life.

It either does or does not imply it. There is no middle ground for "I think."

[brewer]

I'll go with The Who. They're verses blow your's out of the water.

[Loaded dice]

LOL Prove it. Making unsupported assertions proves nothing. You have nothing. I did not flood yoou with anything. I gave you a page of references. You on the other have have given us NOTHING in terms of support.

Support of what, exactly? that an extremely popular historical figure is, actually, extremely popular ? that would defy the purpose of them being popular, wouldn't it?

If you want a non-Muslim source that Muhammad existed, look up the name Sebeos, an armenian bishop who lived in the 7th century, and who recounts how the life of an Arab named Muhammad was suddenly changed when he received a divine inspiration.

Nope. Unless you prove the god exists, it implies nothing. You are such a BAD debater.

And there you go, you just showed us, in a rather embarassing fashion, that you don't know how logical implication works.

An assertion such as P => Q can be true even if P is false. Saying that a benevolent God implies an afterlife is true, and the existence of a benevolent God does imply the existence of an afterlife, regardless of whether God really exists or not.

So, use your head a bit and stop copying links.

I could care less what you think a benevolent god implies. You have to PROVE there is one first. You haven't even tried. 

That's because the topic isn't about proving that God exists.

It's clear that ladies desire men less than men desire ladies (in general, there might be exceptions).

Men desire women differently than women desire men.  It isn't a question of more or less.

Um.. not really, I guess. The overwhelming majority of victims of harrassment, rape, conjugal violence are women. This means that men, overall, really viscerally seek to possess and control women. Probably this can be explained away by saying that men are physically more powerful, and that we would have more balanced statistics of harrassment and rape if women were equally powerful.

I think even if the deity is even mildly benevolent it would still imply an afterlife. Children under the age of 5 die in millions, every year, for no reason at all, a God with even a minimal degree of benevolence would redress that with another life.

It either does or does not imply it.  There is no middle ground for "I think."

It definitely does imply it. A normal person with finite benevolence would create, if they could, another enjoyable life for children who died early. Certainly a benevolent God would do much more.

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously, if god were just...that men seek to possess and control women - as exemplified by sexual assault and harrassment.......then that would mean he'd have to perpetuate the violence in heaven. Eternally.

As a reward....for "good" muslims.

Meanwhile, wives get no grapes and no penis. Awesome. Then you marvel at how..in arabic society, men have to get super aggressive for wives. I bet..I bet.