[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[R00tKiT]

@Klorophyll

What’s your BEST argument for god? Go.

Scripture and the prophet's life. The Qur'an couldn't, can't and will never be matched (I explained this point in previous replies) and if all what the authentic hadiths report about Muhammad's life are to be trusted, it's almost insane to say he was a fake. His companions reported everything about him, it was extremely easy for them to spot anything that could question his prophecy.

This argument doesn't invoke one bit of philosophy at all, it's accessible to anyone who can read objective scholarly assessment of how good is the original text, and who can read without bias the biography of the prophet.

Go and read about anachronism and skip the stereotyped nonsense pal, you don't know what you're talking about.

I know that you can't use moral relativism to excuse the misdeeds of your holy man with one hand while peddling moral absolutism with the other. Either sex with children is wrong now. then, and always or it isn't. Neither your god nor your prophet could manage to get that very basic precept right, so anachronism is precisely what your religion is.

You missed the interesting part : Aisha wasn't a child.

Dude, there are entire muslim countries where apostasy is punished (often with death)
Some of the most renowed islamic scholars and institutions have (just lately!) confirmed that apostasy = death
I wont bother to look it all up in detail, because you will flat out deny it, no matter what. That much is what we have learned about your character in here already. Once a person has given up rational thought decided that religion is #1 and everything else #2, at best, then religion can take over and make one completely abandon the ability to be reasoned with, up to the poin tof giving up your humanity. You have reached the point by denying that islam made and makes people kill others just for what they think (= not believing). You are welcome to waste your entire lifetime with this horrible mess, bu tdont expect me to waste more than whats necessary in here.
You want meaningful conversation? good then qualify for it, by getting back some of your human decency that you left at the altar of worshipping an imaginary morla monster god.

Where the fuck did I deny apostasy man? I was the one who brought it into the discussion you know, when you mentioned killing atheists arbitrarily without any clarification in your memorable first post. I denied the fact that apostasy is mentioned in the Qur'an. Sounds like I'm not the one with huge understanding issues.

What kind of treasonous, harmful disorder? Making others apostates as well? Whats the fair punishment for this *treason* in your opinion?
And by the way. Look above, where you denied that (a majority of) muslims believe in punishment for apostates, and now you say "We know that by usually waiting for them to spread disorder,..". You seem indeed to be concerned about apostasy, arent you? So much that you accuse apostates across the board with treason, and we all know treason must be punished, right?

First you deny that apostates be punished, and in the next sentence you are thumping your chest about how you catch them being treasonous apostates.

Again, I deny the existence of a verse who mentions apostasy. I know it's enforced and I know it's there in the Islamic jurisprudence based on an authentic hadith.
And if it is established by a court of Islamic law that it is actual treason (which is extremely complicated to establish and requires incontrovertible proof already) then yes, the punishment is death.

It fucking is. If a scholar wants me to believe in his interpretations of the Quran, to believe in Allah at all, then he better be fucking impressive with his credentials and methodolgies to figure out the correct interpretation of Quran (unlike those filthy heretic other muslims like Atlass, you know), i can tell you that.
What about you? You believe any certified-by-clusterfuck-scholar, whatever he says?

It's hard to discuss with you in this point if you did absolutely no homework looking up the rudimentary methodologies of dealing with holy texts. There are universities and schools and curriculums who teach all of that you know. And if you mean by 'impressive' holding fancy credentials in a graduation ceremony, the yes they are impressive.
And once you are able to deal with the verses with very basic but correct methodology, it's fairly possible to understand what they say better than the majority of Muslims.

Correct i am not interested in the consensus of self proclaimed experts about a fairy tale they take for real. I am interested in people who do actually care what is true, what they can demonstrate to be true and the methods how to demonstrate it to be true.

If you are interested about what's true, why did you bring up killing? This is a serious matter you know, and it's dealt with extensively in scholarly literature, and hint: killing nonbelievers (which is miles away different from the status of an apostate) is unexistent. It's not like we're blindly following some random Imam born in Tora Bora instructing us to strike the White House. We're expecting reasonable non Muslims to grow up and see the stereotypes exactly as they are: stereotypes, nothing more.
Just for the sake of giving an example, let's apply some of the extremely basic Islamic jurisprudence principles to what you see in the media : Suicide bombing is absolutely forbidden in Islam , under any circumstance, even in wartime, even if you are completely authorised to do so from the highest ranking officer in the chain of command during the most righteous just defensive war. Suicide bombing is flat suicide (which is a gravely immoral sin in Islam, as my cousin in kindergarten knows).

Consequence : al-Qaeda, ISIS, Ansar al-Shari'ah, Boko Haram and any other Islamist insurgent group that rationalises his crimes by religious claims understand less about Islam than my little cousin. All we need to come to this conclusion is not to skip kindergarten, no scholars and fancy credentials involved.

If your schholars can demonstrate that their interpretation is correct, why are there scholars with opposing views? Whats the standard to decide which scholar is correct? Sure scholars dont base their understandings of things in news, they base it on a 1500 year old book written by ignorant, savage warlords. As for the scholars´abilities: Rules of grammar seems to be a bit thin, concerning whats at the stake: belief in a creator of everthing, who wants to you pray....properly! Or, maybe, just maybe, i underestimated my grammar teacher in primary school.

Why do news bother you so much? Because they would make you question your established belief? Yeah, doubt, based on new information is a grave danger to an deep enraved wishful thinking in fairy tales, isnt it?

Scholars have no opposing views when it comes to killing a nonbeliver [Hint: it's murder], to whether Aisha was a child when the marriage when consummated [Hint : she wasn't]. They don't discuss much all the standard erroneous claims you see here in the forums.