Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're not the first one to wrongly call the Prophet "a child rapist", child marriage was common in his time, even Muhammad's enemies - who would immediately notice anything that can inflict damage to his credibility as a messenger of God - didn't find anything particularly remarkable or wrong about any of his marriages. Also, Aisha was already engaged to marriage by Jubayr ibn Mut' im, a companion of the Prophet.

A bunch of child rapists don't see anything wrong with another child rapist raping a child. Coincidence?

I think it's cute, btw...that you think that since she was his buddies property.....that somehow makes it better.

Is this the moral conclusion that your reliable brain from a perfect creator comes up with?

[Joods]

Why is anyone still arguing with this clown?

[Jesster]

Why is anyone still arguing with this clown?

I don't know, but I'm having fun laughing at this.

[Cyberman]

Why is anyone still arguing with this clown?

I don't know, but I'm having fun laughing at this.

He's got such a funny red nose.

[Joods]

I stopped wading through this bs pages ago.

[Parsim0ny]

That, in my opinion, is a very bad assumption to make.  If one examines other animals, one sees quite a few similarities and I consider it considerably more likely that the human brain evolved and was not created.

Even assuming that the human brain evolved doesn't help much, you still can't justify belief that your mind can actually demonstrate anything objectively true, that reason is indeed a reliable tool. Nothing can justify this without some kind of an appeal to a being with superior abilities.

That's why I believe that matter/energy have always existed in some form.  Don't bother trying to claim that your god did it, unless you have empirical proof that your god exists and also have an explanation for where it came from.  If you're going to assert "My god was always there," I can assert "Matter/energy was always there."

There's no such thing as empirical proof for god, because it doesn't make sense. God by definition created matter and thus is excluded from any empirical observation, only logical reasoning is valid to demonstrate his existence. I do not claim that the argument previously cited is sufficient to conclude to it is god exactly who created the universe, but there has to be a cause for the universe's existence, regardless of its nature. Only then we can talk about whether this cause is personal or not, if it has any attributes at all, etc.

Well, considering that stylistically it resembles 6th century Arabic poetry, contains blatant plagiarisms from the Bible and  from the Greek physician Galen ("clot of blood" embryology), and is rife with violence, misogyny, absurdities (talking ants and the sun setting in a muddy pool at the end of the day) and contradictory instructions ("There is no compulsion in religion" versus "Kill the unbelievers"), I think it considerably more likely that it was cobbled together by a committee of adequately literate imams sometime after the death of Muhammad.

How do you know that the Qur'an resembles pre-Islamic poetry if you're not an Arabic speaker yourself ? And can you cite some of the plagiarisms you're talking about ?
As far as the "sun setting in a muddy pool" goes, you're simply repeating the same blatant misunderstandings of Arabic christians make. If you check any reliable tafseer of the verse you're referring to, the Qur'an was describing how the sun looks like from the perspective of its viewer. And also if you even read the verse, its exact words are this : 

18.86. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a murky spring, and found a people in its vicinity. We said, “O Zul-Qarnain, you may either inflict a penalty, or else treat them kindly.”

The Qur'an clearly states : He found it setting in a murky spring. Thus the verse simply describes the scene from Zul-Qarnain point of view, and there's nothing contradictory or logically inconsistent about this.

---

I think it's cute, btw...that you think that since she was his buddies property.....that somehow makes it better.

Suddenly there are some objective moral truths such as "child marriage is permanently wrong" ? 

Is this the moral conclusion that your reliable brain from a perfect creator comes up with?

As I already said, you can't demonstrate that anything is morally wrong outside belief systems. Why the killing of an innocent human being is wrong if getting away with murder means that  the killer will never be punished for his crime ? What's the difference between the genocide of thousands of people and the extermination of million of bacterias when you shower ? Can you even prove that morality is rational without warranting any religious premise ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Suddenly there are some objective moral truths such as "child marriage is permanently wrong" ? 

Where you under the impression that child rape only became wrong last thursday, or something?  That, if you had a time machine...you could go back and loot and pillage and rape with the alleged founder of your religion.......and that would be totally kosher?  That's a convenient set of morals for a child rapist, I'd imagine.  Maybe it's only wrong on the second friday of every month that falls on a even number? Or maybe it's only wrong during one holy month. Or maybe it's only wrong five times a day..when you should be doing something else?

Maybe it's only wrong when your victims don't totally want it/love it/have it coming?

As I already said, you can't demonstrate that anything is morally wrong outside belief systems. Why the killing of an innocent human being is wrong if getting away with murder means that  the killer will never be punished for his crime ? What's the difference between the genocide of thousands of people and the extermination of million of bacterias when you shower ? Can you even prove that morality is rational without warranting any religious premise ?

If you have to ask, that might explain why you don't see a problem with your prophets actions.

[brewer]

Man Parsi, you certainly like to cherry pick what you respond to. And the mass of rationalizations and justifications of things you do respond to is astounding. 

What a wonderful and terrifying belief you have there. We're not the ones who has issues.

[Astreja]

Even assuming that the human brain evolved doesn't help much, you still can't justify belief that your mind can actually demonstrate anything objectively true, that reason is indeed a reliable tool. Nothing can justify this without some kind of an appeal to a being with superior abilities.

I have no particular use for objective truth, as I manage just fine with conditional truths.  Even if there is such a thing as objective truth, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to worship your imaginary friend in order to access it.  I know enough about evolution to accept it and to reject creationism in all its forms as pure fantasy, not even up to the status of a hypothesis.

There's no such thing as empirical proof for god, because it doesn't make sense. God by definition created matter and thus is excluded from any empirical observation...

How, um, convenient to exclude your god from the possibility of ever being demonstrated via non-religious methods.  Suffice to say that empirical evidence is literally the only thing that I would find even remotely convincing, so if you don't have that evidence I have no interest in your religion, as I have no interest whatsoever in attempting to  develop religious faith.  Your statement "God by definition created matter" indicates only that you have a very weak definition, as it's just a bald assertion.

How do you know that the Qur'an resembles pre-Islamic poetry if you're not an Arabic speaker yourself ?

I obtained that information a long time ago from what I considered a reliable source.  I'll try to track it down again and provide a link.

And can you cite some of the plagiarisms you're talking about ?

Various Biblical characters and narratives, including Adam and Eve (mythical), Noah and the flood (mythical event and probably mythical character), and many more.  Here's a list.  Copying nonsense from another religion results in your religion being just as nonsensical.

As for Galen:

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’)  [Source]  

I see that you came up with a possible explanation for the sunset, which is moderately plausible but still a bit questionable (how would the reflection of a setting sun appear in a mud puddle?  Too low to the horizon, IMO).  Not a word about the talking ants, though.

[The Grand Nudger]

-we have an objective morality thread, btw. I'm all up in it's gut - bring that question there-