Islam owns atheism with a single verse

[Loaded dice]

Most facts are unknown to most people,  most people think ill informed intuition further tainted by irrational fears and undisciplined desires has any value in arriving at understanding of reality.  so what most people think is irrelevant.  

You're here trying to gaslight theists that they're not acquainted with the world enough, whereas, in reality, the majority of the "world" does believe in an afterlife, and in hell in particular, independently of whether an afterlife really exists or not.

And not all religious people believe in an afterlife because of fear, many sophisticated theists do have good epistemic reasons to believe in it. In particular, accepting the premise that God -as traditionally conceived- exists directly implies that an afterlife exists. Otherwise, the problem of evil is insoluble, because it would violate the accepted premise -that a benevolent God exists (all theodicies rely on some form of an afterlife, once you take it away, no theodicy is possible)

Terrible example, LD.  If someone commits premeditated murder, I'm fine with them facing life imprisonment - losing the enjoyment of the rest of their own life as punishment for the life that they destroyed.  I'm not okay with bringing them back to life after their death, and subjecting them to torture.

Do you have any specific criterion for being okay or not okay with different forms of punishments -besides your subjective views about the world? And if someone commits premeditated murder and gets away with it, are you okay with them being brought back to life after death and face justice, would that suit your personal tastes?

And apparently, theists value life more than you do. Life imprisonment isn't enough to redress the injustice of murder, life is infinitely valuable.  The death penalty is the minimal form of justice when it comes to murder, and it would still not be enough because the victim usually would have suffered more than the murderer.

Obviously they made up the Hadith, and forgot about the calendar change.

Assuming the calendar change did happen and led to an error in dating the exact year of the prophet's death, this would still mean nothing, absolutely nothing -besides that someone made a mistake, that's it. That a Muslim scholar made a mistake means that he made a mistake, not that Islam is wrong, or that Muhammad didn't exist, or that the hadiths are fake. I'm not sure where you're driving at with all this gibberish.

Apparently you need a refresher on Islam 101, it's common knowledge that there are many thousands of made up hadiths, Muslim scholars knew that for more than 1400 years, that's why they extensively studied the narrators of the hadiths and how reliable they are. After centuries of work, they collected the most authentic ones in books known as Sahihs', we have many of them today, the most notorious and reliable are known as Kutub al-Sittah (the six books)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutub_al-Sittah.

Among these six books we find Sahih Al-Bukhari, probably the most famous text in Islam after the Qur'an, which collects thousands of authentic sayings of the Islamic prophet.

Meanwhile, you're sitting comfortably on your sofa, waving the middle finger at centuries upon centuries of scholarly work on the hadiths, stupidly copying and pasting all kinds of garbage from christian websites that pretend they destroyed Islam, and from notorious islamophobic journalists like Spencer, and you still have no problem claiming, with a straight face, that the entirety of hadith is made up. You can do better, y'know ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Administrator Notice
Just a speed bump: We frown upon members telling other members what and how to post (that's a Staff prerogative : )  Govern yourselves accordingly.

Boru

[Bucky Ball]

Most facts are unknown to most people,  most people think ill informed intuition further tainted by irrational fears and undisciplined desires has any value in arriving at understanding of reality.  so what most people think is irrelevant.  

You're here trying to gaslight theists that they're not acquainted with the world enough, whereas, in reality, the majority of the "world" does believe in an afterlife, and in hell in particular, independently of whether an afterlife really exists or not.

And not all religious people believe in an afterlife because of fear, many sophisticated theists do have good epistemic reasons to believe in it. In particular, accepting the premise that God -as traditionally conceived- exists directly implies that an afterlife exists. Otherwise, the problem of evil is insoluble, because it would violate the accepted premise -that a benevolent God exists (all theodicies rely on some form of an afterlife, once you take it away, no theodicy is possible)

Terrible example, LD.  If someone commits premeditated murder, I'm fine with them facing life imprisonment - losing the enjoyment of the rest of their own life as punishment for the life that they destroyed.  I'm not okay with bringing them back to life after their death, and subjecting them to torture.

Do you have any specific criterion for being okay or not okay with different forms of punishments -besides your subjective views about the world? And if someone commits premeditated murder and gets away with it, are you okay with them being brought back to life after death and face justice, would that suit your personal tastes?

And apparently, theists value life more than you do. Life imprisonment isn't enough to redress the injustice of murder, life is infinitely valuable.  The death penalty is the minimal form of justice when it comes to murder, and it would still not be enough because the victim usually would have suffered more than the murderer.

Obviously they made up the Hadith, and forgot about the calendar change.

Assuming the calendar change did happen and led to an error in dating the exact year of the prophet's death, this would still mean nothing, absolutely nothing -besides that someone made a mistake, that's it. That a Muslim scholar made a mistake means that he made a mistake, not that Islam is wrong, or that Muhammad didn't exist, or that the hadiths are fake. I'm not sure where you're driving at with all this gibberish.

Apparently you need a refresher on Islam 101, it's common knowledge that there are many thousands of made up hadiths, Muslim scholars knew that for more than 1400 years, that's why they extensively studied the narrators of the hadiths and how reliable they are. After centuries of work, they collected the most authentic ones in books known as Sahihs', we have many of them today, the most notorious and reliable are known as Kutub al-Sittah (the six books)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutub_al-Sittah.

Among these six books we find Sahih Al-Bukhari, probably the most famous text in Islam after the Qur'an, which collects thousands of authentic sayings of the Islamic prophet.

Meanwhile, you're sitting comfortably on your sofa, waving the middle finger at centuries upon centuries of scholarly work on the hadiths, stupidly copying and pasting all kinds of garbage from christian websites that pretend they destroyed Islam, and from notorious islamophobic journalists like Spencer, and you still have no problem claiming, with a straight face, that the entirety of hadith is made up. You can do better, y'know ?

So you claim with not one shred of evidence. How lame. It IS a huge problem because you claim Allah inspired this shit.
But I guess if that's all you got, that's what you'll have to go with, ... instead of addressing the actual points.
You are too stupid to even understand the question. The year numbers are not the problem. The problem is that the leap MONTHS from the Arabic calendar have no information in them about what Muhammad did. I did not get this from Christian websites. Stop LYING about what you know nothing about .... but we do get you just make up shit, and then believe it. The Hadith was obviously made up from nothing. "We" see nothing. They made it all up. There are MONTHS missing from every year. Obviously they forgot the calendar was changed from lunar to solar.

I don't even know of ONE Christian website that talks about this. You're just an ignorant presumptuous idiot who knows no history, and has no other retort than people copy shit from Christian web sites. How tired and boring. Get a new line. I thought you were done with me, LIAR.
Does your moon god like it when you lie and make up shit you don't know is true ?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Do you have any specific criterion for being okay or not okay with different forms of punishments -besides your subjective views about the world? And if someone commits premeditated murder and gets away with it, are you okay with them being brought back to life after death and face justice, would that suit your personal tastes?

It's got nothing to do with  personal tastes you would have to be a sociopath to think reviving someone only to torture them would be justice 

And apparently, theists value life more than you do. Life imprisonment isn't enough to redress the injustice of murder, life is infinitely valuable.  The death penalty is the minimal form of justice when it comes to murder, and it would still not be enough because the victim usually would have suffered more than the murderer.

Life in imprisonment is more than enough you don't value life you value bloody-minded retribution.

[Astreja]

Do you have any specific criterion for being okay or not okay with different forms of punishments -besides your subjective views about the world? And if someone commits premeditated murder and gets away with it, are you okay with them being brought back to life after death and face justice, would that suit your personal tastes?

I'm fine with my perspective being subjective. Everyone's perspective is subjective. When a group of people agrees on a course of action, it becomes intersubjective, and IMO a sensible intersubjective worldview makes for a stable and progressive society.

I would not want someone brought back from the dead even if they got away with murder. In such a case I would rather see justice not done. The idea of someone being brought back from the dead solely for punishment is an unspeakably horrible concept, and morally primitive as well - it's informed by a childish bloodlust rather than by jurisprudence. Let the dead stay dead, as they can no longer cause any harm.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Do you have any specific criterion for being okay or not okay with different forms of punishments -besides your subjective views about the world? And if someone commits premeditated murder and gets away with it, are you okay with them being brought back to life after death and face justice, would that suit your personal tastes?

I'm fine with my perspective being subjective.  Everyone's perspective is subjective.  When a group of people agrees on a course of action, it becomes intersubjective, and IMO a sensible intersubjective worldview makes for a stable and progressive society.

I would not want someone brought back from the dead even if they got away with murder.  In such a case I would rather see justice not done.  The idea of someone being brought back from the dead solely for punishment is an unspeakably horrible concept, and morally primitive as well - it's informed by a childish bloodlust rather than by jurisprudence.  Let the dead stay dead, as they can no longer cause any harm.

Also why on earth would anyone care if a dead person faced justice? They are dead.

[Astreja]

Also why on earth would anyone care if a dead person faced justice? They are dead.

Being obsessed with justice and fairness, and an inability to take a more nuanced approach, could indicate a stalling of psychological development (e.g. stuck in Piaget's preoperational stage, age 2-7).

An obsession with cruel punishment is something else entirely; that smacks of outright psychopathy.

The infantilization of believers is a feature of many religions rather than a bug. The desire to see someone in agony could be informed by the "us versus them" mindset of religious cults.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Psych student, not an accredited professional.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Because it's not exactly a secret that Muslim countries suffer a great many of political and economic issues that hamper their development. Islam isn't responsible for these problems, (case in point : Muslims already had a Golden Age + atheist states like North Korea aren't doing great either)

If I told you that the problems we have in the us have nothing to do with our fundies....or if I suggested that n. korea's problems had nothing to do with the cult of kim....would you think that I was a serious person?  

Now imagine seeing yourself, as someone else, suggesting that none of the problems so strangely common to islamic nations..have anything to do with them being islamic nations.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Because it's not exactly a secret that Muslim countries suffer a great many of political and economic issues that hamper their development. Islam isn't responsible for these problems, 

Yes it is 

(case in point: Muslims already had a Golden Age + atheist states like North Korea aren't doing great either)

A golden age that was mostly it copying prior civilizations or conquered civilizations idea's and said the golden age took place centuries ago you would think that wouldn't be Islam's only big advancement and there is no such thing as an atheist state. 

[Ravenshire]

LD, eternal punishment for actions committed in a finite lifetime is not "justice."  It is injustice.

There is no relationship whatsoever between the duration of a crime and that of the punishment. Murdering someone may only take a few seconds, and one can get a life sentence for it. You didn't really think this through, did you ?

Terrible example, LD.  If someone commits premeditated murder, I'm fine with them facing life imprisonment - losing the enjoyment of the rest of their own life as punishment for the life that they destroyed.  I'm not okay with bringing them back to life after their death, and subjecting them to torture.

In the case of religion, it's utterly absurd that a god would deliberately torture people for disbelief.  Disbelief that does not cause any actual injury, let alone injury to a supposedly all-powerful deity.  Disbelief that is likely outside the conscious control of the individual.  Believing or not believing something is not an action; it's a conclusion that has been reached after assessing the available information.

Gawd's followers are is so thin skinned that they he can not abide even the idea that anyone might use their brain and (gasp) not believe.