[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[R00tKiT]

Myself?  No.

But certainly a neutral scholar who is not a member of the religion or a priest who has a personal mission to promote it.

And since many of the priestly scholars can’t even agree...

Well, their disagreements shouldn't concern you at this point, assuming you truly are looking for an impartial judgement of the original texts.

? are you saying that the Quran is a black box only opens for Arabs ?
This is one big false claim that is used by Muslims who crack in front of arguments from non-Arabs. So they run from the embarrassment  of failing at discussions by throwing this excuse in the faces of their foes.

How old are you kid ? I am going to kindly ask you to leave this thread since it doesn't concern you, and you're not really adding anything except make this religion look more complicated for these guys.
And don't think the fact that you're putting Muslim (nor Sunni nor Shia mind you people  ) on your religious views will make what this BS somehow immune to harsh criticism.

Ask yourself; what kind of God reveals a book that is clear to Arabs but a black box to non-Arabs?
That is one troll of a God, that is racist too.
But opening the Quran and reading, we find this verse:

Atheists did contaminate you didn't they ?  
Since you claim to be a Muslim, use less offensive words when talking about the all powerful deity, otherwise you'll get much more offensive ones from my side.

The Quran is a cure for one's logic, one's mind and soul, as long as the reader "Understands" what's in it.
So it's up for those who understands it in Arabic to translate it; just like the ancient Muslims did.

Again: the Quran is all about meaning. Muslims even tried it once; they translated the Quran to all languages and it served as the constitution of huge foreign empires like the great Ottoman empire.

No pal. The Qur'an explicitly challenges all mankind to come up with something superior from an aesthetical point of view. It's far more than just "content"

Here's the verse in Arabic, just to check if you understand Arabic as you claim:
قُل لَّئِنِ اجْتَمَعَتِ الْإِنسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلَىٰ أَن يَأْتُوا بِمِثْلِ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنِ لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا

No it's not. The orientalist sources in many times treat Muslims like cattle; see this video to understand -it's very short but worth your whole topic-:

Since they do, they're clearly not biased to our side. That's why I recommended it to these guys as a starting point. Just let them read what orientalists say about us, they can read.

---

Klorophyll,

So, do you have any evidence for god, or...?

I already said the only reliable way to know God is to check the prophets' claim'. Muhammad's claim is a good candidate for that for all the reasons I explained in this thread.

[Nay_Sayer]

I didn’t read what you stated.

I’ve had religious propaganda pushed on me since I was 4 or 5, so I’ve likely seen multiple versions of your claims, in multiple formats.

Mine was a general statement of fact: reality is better than fantasy.  Especially bad fantasy.

Okay, I suppose you have some ready made answers to my religious propaganda which you didn't read, why don't you copy them here ?

Funny how you disregarded everything I said. this only proves what I always: most Theists are too lazy to look for the truth, or simply don't care about it, or are arrogant enough to think their brilliant mind will surpass even the one true holy book they didn't read.

I have to again inform another woefully misinformed lost lamb.

I'm not an atheist, I am a devout Pastafarian here to spread the goodwill and cheer of our lord FSM, give out free beers and save lost lambs like yourself.

I suppose you read the "Serious" tag written in red besides the title.

I’m always amused that it’s atheists who are claimed to be arrogant simply because we don’t believe the claims put forth by books or their advocates and we ask questions instead of blindly accepting everything that’s put before us.

Yet those individuals who claim we are arrogant come onto atheist leaning communities and tell us we should belueve their particular fiction because only their “holy” book conatains the “truth”, usually with a capital “t” and at least one exclamation mark.  Meanwhile the other religions, from which theirs is derived, are wrong, as are the other versions of their own religions.

They quote passages from their book, post “miracle” videos that “prove” their religion while nixing the same type of “evidence” put forth by other religions, and assail us with personal revelations they’ve had.

And they expect us to accept this “Truth!!” Without question as if we haven’t encountered these claims multiple times.

But WE’RE the arrogant ones...

I dont recall writing truth with a capital t nor using an exlamation mark, I also didn't post any miracle video.

It's not my fault you were exposed for so long to bad theology, just because someone presented the subject matter in a bad or embarassing way isn't an excuse to give up on the subject matter altogether.

bolded

I did, your inability to recognize my faith is your hangup, not mine.

[LadyForCamus]

Myself?  No.

But certainly a neutral scholar who is not a member of the religion or a priest who has a personal mission to promote it.

And since many of the priestly scholars can’t even agree...

Well, their disagreements shouldn't concern you at this point, assuming you truly are looking for an impartial judgement of the original texts.

? are you saying that the Quran is a black box only opens for Arabs ?
This is one big false claim that is used by Muslims who crack in front of arguments from non-Arabs. So they run from the embarrassment  of failing at discussions by throwing this excuse in the faces of their foes.

How old are you kid ? I am going to kindly ask you to leave this thread since it doesn't concern you, and you're not really adding anything except make this religion look more complicated for these guys.
And don't think the fact that you're putting Muslim (nor Sunni nor Shia mind you people  ) on your religious views will make what this BS somehow immune to harsh criticism.

Ask yourself; what kind of God reveals a book that is clear to Arabs but a black box to non-Arabs?
That is one troll of a God, that is racist too.
But opening the Quran and reading, we find this verse:

Atheists did contaminate you didn't they ?  
Since you claim to be a Muslim, use less offensive words when talking about the all powerful deity, otherwise you'll get much more offensive ones from my side.

The Quran is a cure for one's logic, one's mind and soul, as long as the reader "Understands" what's in it.
So it's up for those who understands it in Arabic to translate it; just like the ancient Muslims did.

Again: the Quran is all about meaning. Muslims even tried it once; they translated the Quran to all languages and it served as the constitution of huge foreign empires like the great Ottoman empire.

No pal. The Qur'an explicitly challenges all mankind to come up with something superior from an aesthetical point of view. It's far more than just "content"

Here's the verse in Arabic, just to check if you understand Arabic as you claim:
قُل لَّئِنِ اجْتَمَعَتِ الْإِنسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلَىٰ أَن يَأْتُوا بِمِثْلِ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنِ لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا

No it's not. The orientalist sources in many times treat Muslims like cattle; see this video to understand -it's very short but worth your whole topic-:

Since they do, they're clearly not biased to our side. That's why I recommended it to these guys as a starting point. Just let them read what orientalists say about us, they can read.

---

Klorophyll,

So, do you have any evidence for god, or...?

I already said the only reliable way to know God is to check the prophets' claim'. Muhammad's claim is a good candidate for that for all the reasons I explained in this thread.

I didn’t ask you how to know god; I asked you if you had evidence. Your book is a book of claims. It cannot also be the evidence.

[The Valkyrie]

So the answer, once again, is “no”!

[WinterHold]

? are you saying that the Quran is a black box only opens for Arabs ?
This is one big false claim that is used by Muslims who crack in front of arguments from non-Arabs. So they run from the embarrassment  of failing at discussions by throwing this excuse in the faces of their foes.

How old are you kid ? I am going to kindly ask you to leave this thread since it doesn't concern you, and you're not really adding anything except make this religion look more complicated for these guys.
And don't think the fact that you're putting Muslim (nor Sunni nor Shia mind you people  ) on your religious views will make what this BS somehow immune to harsh criticism.

---

Of course I'm not leaving the topic; Benny. If you want to post personal topics, send PMs to those you want to talk to.

Ask yourself; what kind of God reveals a book that is clear to Arabs but a black box to non-Arabs?
That is one troll of a God, that is racist too.
But opening the Quran and reading, we find this verse:

Atheists did contaminate you didn't they ?  
Since you claim to be a Muslim, use less offensive words when talking about the all powerful deity, otherwise you'll get much more offensive ones from my side.

The "high horse"...it will drop you on your face, Benny, so watch it. High horses are never good.

The Quran is a cure for one's logic, one's mind and soul, as long as the reader "Understands" what's in it.
So it's up for those who understands it in Arabic to translate it; just like the ancient Muslims did.

Again: the Quran is all about meaning. Muslims even tried it once; they translated the Quran to all languages and it served as the constitution of huge foreign empires like the great Ottoman empire.

No pal. The Qur'an explicitly challenges all mankind to come up with something superior from an aesthetical point of view. It's far more than just "content"

Here's the verse in Arabic, just to check if you understand Arabic as you claim:
قُل لَّئِنِ اجْتَمَعَتِ الْإِنسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلَىٰ أَن يَأْتُوا بِمِثْلِ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنِ لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا

You can drop the "mysticism" and "secrecy" and bring the verses translated so the non-Arab readers can understand.

Here's the translated verse:

Sura 17, The Quran:

http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

( 88 )   Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants."

No it's not. The orientalist sources in many times treat Muslims like cattle; see this video to understand -it's very short but worth your whole topic-:

Since they do, they're clearly not biased to our side. That's why I recommended it to these guys as a starting point. Just let them read what orientalists say about us, they can read.

No. You don't advice people to read what is wrong, because the start point would turn into a direction of thought, with the reader prisoner inside; can't get out. All because a Benny suggested wrong and xenophobic starting points.

[EgoDeath]

A god with less than absolute properties is unknowable (say, less bright to be knowable) and didn't make an effort to communicate with us (since all major scriptures agree on properties like omnipotence and omniscience).
And isn't the god with these particular proprties the first one we shoud look into ?

Why is a god with less than absolute properties "unknowable?" What are absolute properties? And how do you know these things?

If there is any way to know god, it's already there

Says who?

(the assumed just God existed for the ancient people, way before the big bang was figured out, way before formal arguments about his existence were written) , it's clearly not something we will figure out one day, it's already there or it isn't, because the supposed God is just for our ancestors too and made a way for them to reach him.

Once again, I'm just not sure how you're coming to these conclusions.

The false assumptions you're talking about are simply a logical disjunction : you either assume God exists or you don't, there is no third way

The third way is to simply admit that you do not know.

Of course you won't take anyone's word for such a claim. Messengers reportedly came up with miracles and such. The prophet of Islam is the most recent of the abrahamic religions and the original holy text is preserved, don't you think this might be a good candidate ?
A pages ago I mentioned the theory of Isnad being the way Islamic scholars ascertain what's reported about Muhammad, Isnad was acclaimed by orientalists and can be a good starting point for the serious researcher.
For example an authentic hadith narrates some miraculous event Muhammad did, the chain of narrators is made of very reliable historical figures reporting the event one after another. It's true it's far from an exact science, but once you look into it more carefully it completely dismisses the claim that Muhammad knowingly lied and faked his prophecy, and popular atheist activists today found a laughable way out of that : Muhammad was epileptic and was completely convinced that he is the prophet of God, everything he did was sincere but was out of his epilepsy.

Well, I'm not sure what this has to do with taking people's word for it when they claim to communicate with god, but alright.

Well, that was my point in a way. Philosophical arguments are by definition inaccessible to the layman and prone to error, although I would give the theologians the benefit of the doubt as they merely try to convey their understanding of scripture - which convinced them of God - in formal terms.[/quote[]

Okay. We can disagree on that point. I have actually began to study Christian theology, but from a secular point of view, and so far as I can tell it's all just convoluted nonsense, made to sound more complex so it seems like you're taking a course in one of the sciences. That's my impression so far. I do still, however, find the stories of the Bible to be interesting, sometimes.

[quote='Klorophyll' pid='1946363' dateline='1575991818']
I don't agree with that. If I join the fat right hand community, my right hand really should be fat.
If one claims to be a Buddhist and sharply disagrees with what almost all Buddhist scholars say about what he should believe in... I mean come on.

Well, you say, "I mean come on," as if it's so obvious, but it is? Is a physical indicator like "fat right hand" in any way, shape, or form the same thing as calling oneself a Buddhist, or Christian, or Muslim? I'd say it certainly isn't. Furthermore, if someone holds 99% of their views to be in line with the Muslim faith, but holds the view that Mohammed doesn't exist, and never existed, and is only a symbol for Muslim faith, does that mean they aren't a Muslim? Even if your answer is yes, we have to ask, is that nearly the same thing as someone who hold 99% of their views to be in line with Buddhist teachings, but then chooses to pray to a divine creator? I'd say it isn't.

You seem to be getting strangely hung up on this point, and I'm not sure why. My only point was that some Buddhists believe in gods and some Buddhists choose to pray to one, divine creator.

An existent deity should be good enough to make such deal, and given the amount of objections we humans can come up with, it's not an easy to get kind of deal.

The real challenge is to reconcile our beliefs with reality, not to give up on them

Yeah. Sounds good.

[Abaddon_ire]

How droll. Klorophyl is merely promoting yet another version of the imaginary sky fairy. No evidence, no demonstrable existence, all assertion. He kind of sounds like a kid that recently caught the disease of religion.

The particular religion matters not a jot. They all come across with the enthusiasm of youth and new found belief in their chosen deity and a burning urge to convince everyone else that they are right. .

[maxolla]

You are reading translations of the Qur'an people. The literary challenge concerns the original text and unless you learn Arabic there is absolutely no way - nor any right - for you to make judgments.

? are you saying that the Quran is a black box only opens for Arabs ?
This is one big false claim that is used by Muslims who crack in front of arguments from non-Arabs. So they run from the embarrassment  of failing at discussions by throwing this excuse in the faces of their foes.

Ask yourself; what kind of God reveals a book that is clear to Arabs but a black box to non-Arabs?
That is one troll of a God, that is racist too.
But opening the Quran and reading, we find this verse:

Sura 41, The Quran:
http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

( 44 )   And if We had made it a non-Arabic Qur'an, they would have said, "Why are its verses not explained in detail [in our language]? Is it a foreign [recitation] and an Arab [messenger]?" Say, "It is, for those who believe, a guidance and cure." And those who do not believe - in their ears is deafness, and it is upon them blindness. Those are being called from a distant place.

The Quran is a cure for one's logic, one's mind and soul, as long as the reader "Understands" what's in it.
So it's up for those who understands it in Arabic to translate it; just like the ancient Muslims did.

Again: the Quran is all about meaning. Muslims even tried it once; they translated the Quran to all languages and it served as the constitution of huge foreign empires like the great Ottoman empire.

Orientalist (non Muslim) literature is a good starting point to have an informed opinion about the Qur'an literary content.

No it's not. The orientalist sources in many times treat Muslims like cattle; see this video to understand -it's very short but worth your whole topic-:






Just a question: are you and Benny related?

Let's pick a random quote : Fitzgerald Arbuthnot - eminent orientalist - says "...and though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far elegant writing is concerned, none has succeeded". Put that against random guy who has a translation of the Koran on his shelf, read about it a couple of times then decided it was poorly worded. Gosh

http://reappropriate.co/2014/04/what-is-...so-racism/

And, perhaps that’s not entirely surprising. Although Orientalism has been asserted to be one of the three pillars of White supremacy by Andrea Smith in her seminal paper “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy” — with Orientalism as a separate and distinct logic alongside anti-Blackness and anti-Indigenous colonialism — Orientalism also appears to be among the least discussed and most poorly understood logic of White supremacy even within digital anti-racist spaces

Benny; do you understand what I quoted; you don't want to quote what Orientalism and its scholars suggest; believe me...or does my strength give you strength ?

Klorophyll,

So, do you have any evidence for god, or...?

[maxolla]

Klorophyll,

So, do you have any evidence for god, or...?

Do you have any evidence for Abraham Lincoln?  How can you be certain of anything at all?

[EgoDeath]

How droll. Klorophyl is merely promoting yet another version of the imaginary sky fairy. No evidence, no demonstrable existence, all assertion. He kind of sounds like a kid that recently caught the disease of religion.

The particular religion matters not a jot. They all come across with the enthusiasm of youth and new found belief in their chosen deity and a burning urge to convince everyone else that they are right.  .

And this is sort of what I've been hoping to hash out with him... Eventually trying to get him to realize that his arguments are the same as any other theists, with little to no deviation outside of replacing "Jesus" with "Mohammed." It's no surprise how similar the arguments are; I mean, how much difference is there between  Islam, Judaism and Christianity, when you strip away the superfluous parts? I mean, certainly, the traditions, culture and positions in the world have become quite different in 2019, but are they really that different at the core? I'd argue that they are not.

Especially when you're arguing for a personal, Abrahamic god... how much different can your argument get? It's really unfortunate to see people quote nonsense like "the prime mover" and "the teleological argument," which are these sort of convoluted, overly complex ways that so-called "sophisticated theologians" use to say "No one created god" and "god designed things." It's bizarre.

---

Do you have any evidence for Abraham Lincoln?  How can you be certain of anything at all?

Oh wow.

The difference is there are mounds and mounds of evidence to account for the existence of Lincoln. It would be interesting though, if there was one book that talked about the existence of Lincoln, and that's all we had in the whole wide world to tell us that Lincoln was real, and when asked about how we know Lincoln was real, we replied, "Because the book tells us so!" And if asked why we trust the book, "Because Lincoln said we should!"

Unfortunately, that's not quite how it works with most historical figures, especially ones from such recent (relatively) times.