Post by: Lividup64 on 12 January 2016, 12:27:13 PM
There was a suicide bombing in Istanbul. Ten people died.
#PrayforIstanbul.
Post by: Akomine on 12 January 2016, 06:27:12 PM
And while I don't spend any of my time praying like those suicide bombers likely did before they committed their religious crime, I do find this kind of shit all to common in that part of the world. It's disgusting, and thanks for letting me know about it, I didn't know before this.
#fuckreligion
Post by: luisc99 on 12 January 2016, 06:43:10 PM
Then again, if you look up terrorist attacks in 2015 on Wikipedia then it's split into two pages due to the sheer number. There's been plenty that don't make it into the news...
Post by: Akomine on 12 January 2016, 06:55:45 PM
Back in the Paris attacks a friend reminded me of the quote "Terrorism has no religion". That's something the western media doesn't really understand. I know people who've seen the news and take the actions of the few to represent the actions of countries. We need to be the ones who will grow up and change that view, and show that it is only a minority who does these things.
Terrorism is very, very often rooted in religious dogma. The terrorism in Paris and Istanbul does have a religion, it's called Islam.
Fortunately it is a minority that commit these crimes, however very, very unfortunately, a massive MAJORITY of Islam's adherents support this kind of barbaric shit. The only exception is in North America, where it's a minority of Muslims. In every other part of the world, like Europe, it's a majority. That's the very sad truth.
Like it or not, religion is at the core of this problem. It's unhelpful to water this fact down.
But you're very right. We need to be the ones who grow up and refuse to stand for this evil shit.
Post by: ChaosMushrooms on 13 January 2016, 12:06:48 PM
#fuckreligion
Post by: TheCatsMangler on 13 January 2016, 05:44:20 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 January 2016, 09:12:22 PM
Post by: gerrit70 on 15 January 2016, 08:16:22 PM
Also not made to be offensive. Just a suggestion
(https://media.giphy.com/media/YCvulQI1dizq8/giphy.gif)
Post by: Airbongo on 16 January 2016, 08:21:34 PM
http://Livid I saw you made a Paris thing in Lakestone, maybe make more memorials to the other attacks?Hi, I edited your post so the gif would work correctly.
Also not made to be offensive. Just a suggestion
(https://media.giphy.com/media/YCvulQI1dizq8/giphy.gif)
Post by: EnderEssence on 16 January 2016, 11:15:02 PM
Ako, please allow me to correct your misinterpretation of Muslims' intentions. It's not just Muslims in America (me being one) who are against the heinous crimes of various "Islamic" terrorists. I put the term "Islamic" in quotation marks due to the simple fact that Islam does not justify and/or support any of the actions of al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.
The majority of Muslims as a WHOLE are against such terrorists' behaviors, and when I say Muslims, I mean true Muslims who adhere wholeheartedly to the faith and are not insane, unlike terrorist organizations. I know Muslims originally from all continents (excluding Australia, for I've never met an Australian) and they too are against said "Islamic" terrorists, not just because they live in North America, but because the original countries they came from too were against it, and I know people from all over the world. While I do understand that you may not be religious and have no intentions to contest what you decide to believe, one cannot justify these actions because of religion. Islam is simply a supposed excuse for these idiots who think they are doing these things for the sake of God. They're not. As far as real Muslims are concerned, they're not Muslims. They're not actual Muslims. Hell, "jihad" doesn't even mean "holy war." It means "internal struggle," and is basically the term used for striving to do what is morally and spiritually right.
And Livid, I do agree that the media is mostly the reason for a lot of this incorrect perception of Muslims. It's not right to simply say "Islamic terrorists" while neglecting to mention that true Muslims are completely against the horrors caused by terrorists. Terrorism, again, has no religion whatsoever.
Thank you for reading my first ever post on the forums. It is my hope that I can continue to contribute to both the server and the forums in any way possible, let it be about Minecraft or real-world issues, as a standard member on VC and, if the time ever comes and I am deemed appropriate for it, as someone much more than that.
Thank you. Please continue your prayers for Istanbul, my birth city and where several of my relatives are. I too have been dealt a personal blow by these attacks, though I am sure the actual victims and their families have just experienced something far worse than that.
#PrayForIstanbul
-Ender
Post by: Airbongo on 17 January 2016, 03:25:21 AM
Hey. For some reason I decided to make a forums account.That was a very good reply, hopefully we can stimulate a nice discussion about the subject. Welcome to the forums!:D
Ako, please allow me to correct your misinterpretation of Muslims' intentions. It's not just Muslims in America (me being one) who are against the heinous crimes of various "Islamic" terrorists. I put the term "Islamic" in quotation marks due to the simple fact that Islam does not justify and/or support any of the actions of al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.
The majority of Muslims as a WHOLE are against such terrorists' behaviors, and when I say Muslims, I mean true Muslims who adhere wholeheartedly to the faith and are not insane, unlike terrorist organizations. I know Muslims originally from all continents (excluding Australia, for I've never met an Australian) and they too are against said "Islamic" terrorists, not just because they live in North America, but because the original countries they came from too were against it, and I know people from all over the world. While I do understand that you may not be religious and have no intentions to contest what you decide to believe, one cannot justify these actions because of religion. Islam is simply a supposed excuse for these idiots who think they are doing these things for the sake of God. They're not. As far as real Muslims are concerned, they're not Muslims. They're not actual Muslims. Hell, "jihad" doesn't even mean "holy war." It means "internal struggle," and is basically the term used for striving to do what is morally and spiritually right.
And Livid, I do agree that the media is mostly the reason for a lot of this incorrect perception of Muslims. It's not right to simply say "Islamic terrorists" while neglecting to mention that true Muslims are completely against the horrors caused by terrorists. Terrorism, again, has no religion whatsoever.
Thank you for reading my first ever post on the forums. It is my hope that I can continue to contribute to both the server and the forums in any way possible, let it be about Minecraft or real-world issues, as a standard member on VC and, if the time ever comes and I am deemed appropriate for it, as someone much more than that.
Thank you. Please continue your prayers for Istanbul, my birth city and where several of my relatives are. I too have been dealt a personal blow by these attacks, though I am sure the actual victims and their families have just experienced something far worse than that.
#PrayForIstanbul
-Ender
Post by: Akomine on 19 January 2016, 03:33:28 AM
Hey. For some reason I decided to make a forums account.
Ako, please allow me to correct your misinterpretation of Muslims' intentions. It's not just Muslims in America (me being one) who are against the heinous crimes of various "Islamic" terrorists. I put the term "Islamic" in quotation marks due to the simple fact that Islam does not justify and/or support any of the actions of al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.
The majority of Muslims as a WHOLE are against such terrorists' behaviors, and when I say Muslims, I mean true Muslims who adhere wholeheartedly to the faith and are not insane, unlike terrorist organizations. I know Muslims originally from all continents (excluding Australia, for I've never met an Australian) and they too are against said "Islamic" terrorists, not just because they live in North America, but because the original countries they came from too were against it, and I know people from all over the world. While I do understand that you may not be religious and have no intentions to contest what you decide to believe, one cannot justify these actions because of religion. Islam is simply a supposed excuse for these idiots who think they are doing these things for the sake of God. They're not. As far as real Muslims are concerned, they're not Muslims. They're not actual Muslims. Hell, "jihad" doesn't even mean "holy war." It means "internal struggle," and is basically the term used for striving to do what is morally and spiritually right.
And Livid, I do agree that the media is mostly the reason for a lot of this incorrect perception of Muslims. It's not right to simply say "Islamic terrorists" while neglecting to mention that true Muslims are completely against the horrors caused by terrorists. Terrorism, again, has no religion whatsoever.
Thank you for reading my first ever post on the forums. It is my hope that I can continue to contribute to both the server and the forums in any way possible, let it be about Minecraft or real-world issues, as a standard member on VC and, if the time ever comes and I am deemed appropriate for it, as someone much more than that.
Thank you. Please continue your prayers for Istanbul, my birth city and where several of my relatives are. I too have been dealt a personal blow by these attacks, though I am sure the actual victims and their families have just experienced something far worse than that.
#PrayForIstanbul
-Ender
Hey, welcome to the forums.
I don't think I have a misinterpretation of Muslims. If I do, then I'd rather correct it. I'm not intending to generalize Muslims or their intentions, I'm well aware there are a lot of people part of the faith, and that there are plenty of perfectly nice Muslim people who hate to see this stuff. And they, like you and Livid, rightly denounce this stuff.
But the fact is, there are Muslims who do use their religion and their holy books to help justify their actions. There are good actions, and there are also immoral ones. The unfortunate fact is there is a small noteworthy minority who commit some pretty damn serious religiously-inspired/justified crimes. And, as opinion polling shows, there's a substantial number of Muslims in certain countries who support some pretty damn serious crimes. There are certain issues where the majority of Muslims hold radical positions - the exception is that this not true in North America.
You and Livid rightly denounce this stuff - I just think you should go the extra step and denounce them for doing awful, violent, immoral, religiously-inspired acts. You can't say "these people aren't true Muslims" when they commit heinous crimes. They think they're Muslims, they say they're Muslims, they openly say they do what they do for religious reasons. They are Muslims. To say otherwise is fallacious (The No True Scotsman logical fallacy). And I think it's incredibly important for Muslims to call out other Muslims for doing horrible things in the name of their religion, rather than try to act like they aren't Muslims. Consider checking out why you should reconsider this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Here's a video of the 2013 Norway Peace Conference where the speaker is trying to show that the majority of Muslims aren't radical, but then goes ahead and gets the Muslim audience to prove that the vast majority of them hold radical views towards women, and punishment by stoning and death. Are they all real Muslims? They say they are.
https://youtu.be/EYAcLudBbhg
And if you think I'm making up this "majority hold radical religious views in many countries" thing, I'm really not. This is a Pew poll, and it's just one example:
(http://i.imgur.com/78J93gv.png)
I'm glad most Muslims are now openly against ISIS/Daesh, and I'm glad you guys are against what happened in Istanbul. Please don't pretend this trend isn't a religious one, or isn't a Muslim one - It is. And I don't think my perception is at all misinterpreted or misguided, I try to be very objective and to actively correct my own prejudices where they may exist, and I hope I helped clear up some confusion.
Post by: EnderEssence on 19 January 2016, 03:21:42 PM
No, I'm not saying that Nigerians aren't real Muslims, but rather, the influx of terrorist ideals as influenced them a bit more than others. The further away you get from the heartland of certain terrorist groups, the less people you see supporting sharia law, or at least terrorists' interpretation of it (let's just say they messed it up). Look at countries further away from terroristic origins (ex: Turkey, Azerbaijan). Notice a pattern?
And as for other countries in that list that happen to be a considerable distance away and still support "sharia law", (Egypt, Iraq) their leaders are corrupt and take pride in ruining their respective countries. Their mass propaganda of crap has unfortunately brainwashed many of their people (Hitler, anyone?). Either that or they say they support implementing it out of fear that the interviewer is affiliated with their government in some way (this might be the more realistic out of the two reasons why, but don't quote me on that.)
Anyways, just sayin'.
Post by: Lividup64 on 19 January 2016, 04:11:03 PM
Post by: Akomine on 19 January 2016, 04:12:29 PM
I've seen that Pew report too. While I'm not co testing the credibility of the survey itself, one could argue that most of the Muslim countries there have been influenced by terror groups some way or another.
No, I'm not saying that Nigerians aren't real Muslims, but rather, the influx of terrorist ideals as influenced them a bit more than others. The further away you get from the heartland of certain terrorist groups, the less people you see supporting sharia law, or at least terrorists' interpretation of it (let's just say they messed it up). Look at countries further away from terroristic origins (ex: Turkey, Azerbaijan). Notice a pattern?
And as for other countries in that list that happen to be a considerable distance away and still support "sharia law", (Egypt, Iraq) their leaders are corrupt and take pride in ruining their respective countries. Their mass propaganda of crap has unfortunately brainwashed many of their people (Hitler, anyone?). Either that or they say they support implementing it out of fear that the interviewer is affiliated with their government in some way (this might be the more realistic out of the two reasons why, but don't quote me on that.)
Anyways, just sayin'.
Pardon me, I don't quite understand. Turkey, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Iraq are all extremely close in proximity to terrorist activities (with active terrorism taking place in all 4 of them, and with ISIS operating in at least 2 of them). You said Egypt and Iraq are a considerable distance away? I can only assume that you're confusing your geography. Here's a map:
(http://i.imgur.com/2IWnfzz.png)
They're all right there. I don't quite see the proximity/distance trend.
What about the video in Norway? That's nowhere near those other countries.
You're right about propaganda, you're right about corruption, but I still don't see the disconnect. These people are Muslims who hold radical religious positions and do bad things based on those positions.
The influx of terrorist ideals in those regions is rooted in Islam. They aren't shy about saying that.
Quote
The further away you get from the heartland of certain terrorist groups, the less people you see supporting sharia lawISIS/ISIL mean Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/the Levant. Support for sharia in Iraq: 91%
Are these people or are they not Muslims?
Is their religion influencing/informing their radical views and actions?
Post by: Akomine on 19 January 2016, 04:14:57 PM
We should go around to every Norwegian person and ask if they denounce that insane man who shot up a camp. I mean, why not, people go around to every Muslim they know and ask if they denounce crimes committed by a few.
What point are you trying to get across with this?
Post by: Lividup64 on 19 January 2016, 04:14:57 PM
Post by: Lividup64 on 19 January 2016, 04:18:55 PM
Post by: Lividup64 on 19 January 2016, 04:20:40 PM
We should go around to every Norwegian person and ask if they denounce that insane man who shot up a camp. I mean, why not, people go around to every Muslim they know and ask if they denounce crimes committed by a few.
What point are you trying to get across with this?
I find that, over the world, whenever an attack by a Muslim occurs people just ask Muslims if they condemn it or not, like the attacker represents them. ISIS does not represent me but I refuse to comment on my condemnations of their actions are not. Why? They do not represent me and that should be a statement enough.
Post by: Akomine on 19 January 2016, 04:21:40 PM
By the way, one fails to understand that Sharia Law, despite its name, is not strictly a political legislative body. Sharia Law contains many things for a Muslim to do to become more spiritual, such as clarification and rules on fasting, diet, hygiene, sex and more. A Muslim must understand that Sharia Law is not strictly a body for political governance but to a large extent for personal reasons so you can be as close to God as possible.
And yet majorities in several countries want it to be the law of the country.
Source: Pew.
I find that, over the world, whenever an attack by a Muslim occurs people just ask Muslims if they condemn it or not, like the attacker represents them. ISIS does not represent me but I refuse to comment on my condemnations of their actions are not. Why? They do not represent me and that should be a statement enough.This seems like a reasonable thing to ask, especially considering so many Muslims hold radical views, as I keep stating.
Is there something wrong with asking people for their opinion? Isn't that a good thing?
There was never any question as to whether or not ISIS represents you. I already knew they don't.
Post by: Lividup64 on 19 January 2016, 04:24:43 PM
By the way, one fails to understand that Sharia Law, despite its name, is not strictly a political legislative body. Sharia Law contains many things for a Muslim to do to become more spiritual, such as clarification and rules on fasting, diet, hygiene, sex and more. A Muslim must understand that Sharia Law is not strictly a body for political governance but to a large extent for personal reasons so you can be as close to God as possible.
And yet majorities in several countries want it to be the law of the country.
Source: Pew.
Well they should really understand that it is for the most part for personal reasons. That is why the Qur'an was created, to be a personal guide, not the legislative texts of a country.
Post by: Akomine on 19 January 2016, 04:28:39 PM
By the way, one fails to understand that Sharia Law, despite its name, is not strictly a political legislative body. Sharia Law contains many things for a Muslim to do to become more spiritual, such as clarification and rules on fasting, diet, hygiene, sex and more. A Muslim must understand that Sharia Law is not strictly a body for political governance but to a large extent for personal reasons so you can be as close to God as possible.
And yet majorities in several countries want it to be the law of the country.
Source: Pew.
Well they should really understand that it is for the most part for personal reasons. That is why the Qur'an was created, to be a personal guide, not the legislative texts of a country.
I have no idea if you're right, but you should tell that to other Muslims who aren't secular as you seem to be.
Post by: Lividup64 on 19 January 2016, 04:31:26 PM
By the way, one fails to understand that Sharia Law, despite its name, is not strictly a political legislative body. Sharia Law contains many things for a Muslim to do to become more spiritual, such as clarification and rules on fasting, diet, hygiene, sex and more. A Muslim must understand that Sharia Law is not strictly a body for political governance but to a large extent for personal reasons so you can be as close to God as possible.
And yet majorities in several countries want it to be the law of the country.
Source: Pew.I find that, over the world, whenever an attack by a Muslim occurs people just ask Muslims if they condemn it or not, like the attacker represents them. ISIS does not represent me but I refuse to comment on my condemnations of their actions are not. Why? They do not represent me and that should be a statement enough.This seems like a reasonable thing to ask, especially considering so many Muslims hold radical views, as I keep stating.
Is there something wrong with asking people for their opinion? Isn't that a good thing?
There was never any question as to whether or not ISIS represents you. I already knew they don't.
Wasn't talking about you specifically, but normally people tend to ask me and others whether I condemn them and their actions or not. I haven't seen anyone asking all Jews if the condemn Israel. it's that generalisation some people have in the back of their heads which makes them ask.
Post by: Akomine on 19 January 2016, 04:34:18 PM
Wasn't talking about you specifically, but normally people tend to ask me and others whether I condemn them and their actions or not. I haven't seen anyone asking all Jews if the condemn Israel. it's that generalisation some people have in the back of their heads which makes them ask.
Dude, people ask Jews that sort of question all the time.
I still don't get what's wrong with asking. If they have a generalization and are asking you to clarify your position, then you are helping to educate them. Why would you refuse? Share your ideas.
Post by: EnderEssence on 19 January 2016, 05:07:13 PM
Sure, terrorists may claim they're Muslims, and Fox News can relish that all they want, but they're considered pagans by those who refuse to commit such heinous actions (what I'm referring to as "real Muslims"). Islam is not the root of these terrorists' ideals. Nothing in Islam says you can crash into two twin towers in NYC, behead Christians at will, or go suicide bomb terrorists. The media seems to think otherwise, and if they use the term "Islamic terrorists" one more time, I'm probably going to implode. Livid can read my obituary at my funeral along with the remains of my severed body.
What drives these terrorists to do such things is the exact same thing that drives terrorist groups "representing" other religions. There are retarded rednecks out there who think al-Qaeda represents Islam. Does that mean the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church represent Christianity? Retards' responses: "Nooooooo that's DIFFEREEEEENT."
"Islamic" terrorists' motives are not rooted in Islam, nor has Islam ever supported such actions. These are corrupt individuals driven by the exact same thing that drives other criminals to do the same (power-hungriness, money lust, bloodlust, etc.) <---Islam does not advocate any of these. Let the media say what they want. They're not considered actual Muslims by those who adhere to the faith.
Need anything more?
Post by: Airbongo on 19 January 2016, 06:14:40 PM
I didn't say Egypt and Iraq were a considerable distance away. Sorry for any confusion.Except that it does and terrorists use that to justify their actions. Ever read the Quran?
Nothing in Islam says you can crash into two twin towers in NYC, behead Christians at will, or go suicide bomb terrorists.
Also, Livid, I don't see how Sharia can be a path of enlightenment to get closer to god because it is a fucked up vile system. Let's not pretend it only seeks " clarification and rules on fasting, diet, hygiene, sex and more". It seeks to control people's lives, make women pretty much worthless (I really hope you do not support that) and it is not fit for our modern times. Do you really want to live in a country where people get stoned to death? A place that allows "honour killings", such as a husband killing/mutilating his wife for adultery. Also the amount of Muslims in developed countries (like the UK) that support the implementation of Sharia nationwide is fucked up (not that it's ever gonna happen). Even the fact that it has been allowed in some districts is disgusting to me.
Some Sharia law shit
(http://i.imgur.com/GmUyZ0r.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/tBuD4vL.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/wXAoexy.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/DrWjKFG.png) luuuul sry but pic was funny.
Post by: EnderEssence on 19 January 2016, 06:35:58 PM
I didn't say Egypt and Iraq were a considerable distance away. Sorry for any confusion.Except that it does and terrorists use that to justify their actions. Ever read the Quran?
Nothing in Islam says you can crash into two twin towers in NYC, behead Christians at will, or go suicide bomb terrorists.
Of course I've read the Quran.
Terrorists' actions are not religiously sanctioned. For God's sake, take a break from Fox News. If you could find a verse from the Quran that supposedly supports suicide bombing, plane hijacking, and other terroristic things, I'll be happy to interpret the verse you think means that Islam supports killing "infidels". Chances are, that's gonna happen. :)
Can I get a medal for using quote references for the first time? Yuuuuuuuuus.
Post by: Airbongo on 19 January 2016, 06:40:30 PM
Seriously? "stop watching fox news". Imma find those verses and post them today, I am not lying. I will also post other fucked up verses. Also, please don't nitpick my reply and also target my other points about Sharia law. Thank you.I didn't say Egypt and Iraq were a considerable distance away. Sorry for any confusion.Except that it does and terrorists use that to justify their actions. Ever read the Quran?
Nothing in Islam says you can crash into two twin towers in NYC, behead Christians at will, or go suicide bomb terrorists.
Of course I've read the Quran.
Terrorists' actions are not religiously sanctioned. For God's sake, take a break from Fox News. If you could find a verse from the Quran that supposedly supports suicide bombing, plane hijacking, and other terroristic things, I'll be happy to interpret the verse you think means that Islam supports killing "infidels". Chances are, that's gonna happen. :)
Can I get a medal for using quote references for the first time? Yuuuuuuuuus.
Post by: Airbongo on 19 January 2016, 06:48:16 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 19 January 2016, 07:41:43 PM
Also, the Quran is filled with war mongering verses, I can't wait to post them fuckers :D
Two words:
(http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Challenge-Accepted-Imgur-02.png)
Post by: Airbongo on 19 January 2016, 08:06:28 PM
Islamic Warmongering - Justifications for Violence and Killing
1.
Quran 2:191-193 - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran)
The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
2.
Quran 2:216 - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
3.
Quran 2:193 - “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.”
Allah says that you must keep fighting until there is no more persecution and everyone on earth is a Muslim. Then you can stop killing people. But if there are any wrong-doers around after you've killed off all the disbelievers, persecutors and aggressors, then you'll have to kill them too.
4.
Quran 3:151 - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
5.
Quran 4:74 - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
6.
Quran 4:89 - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Kill non-believers. Don’t be their friends.
7.
Quran 4:95 - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward "
This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).
8.
Quran 8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
9.
Quran 8:67 - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."
Lol… warmongering.
10.
Quran 9:5 - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
11.
Quran 9:29 - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
"People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
12.
Quran 9:38-39 - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
13.
Quran 9:123 - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Yet another call to arms.
Sources:
- http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
- http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
- Not Fox News
Post by: EnderEssence on 19 January 2016, 11:34:42 PM
Me and Ako compiled a list:
Islamic Warmongering - Justifications for Violence and Killing
1.
Quran 2:191-193 - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran)
The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
2.
Quran 2:216 - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
3.
Quran 2:193 - “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.”
Allah says that you must keep fighting until there is no more persecution and everyone on earth is a Muslim. Then you can stop killing people. But if there are any wrong-doers around after you've killed off all the disbelievers, persecutors and aggressors, then you'll have to kill them too.
4.
Quran 3:151 - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
5.
Quran 4:74 - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
6.
Quran 4:89 - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Kill non-believers. Don’t be their friends.
7.
Quran 4:95 - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward "
This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).
8.
Quran 8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
9.
Quran 8:67 - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."
Lol… warmongering.
10.
Quran 9:5 - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
11.
Quran 9:29 - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
"People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
12.
Quran 9:38-39 - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
13.
Quran 9:123 - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Yet another call to arms.
Sources:
- http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
- http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
- Not Fox News
Sure thing! I'll be glad to interpret these. (Your second source, btw, the religion of peace website, I've seen before. That guy knows little to nothing about Islam is is not a credible source.) Okay, hereeeeee we gooooooo...
1. Believe it or not, these two verses are in fact a continuation of 2:190. This is in fact actually relating to defensive warfare, for Prophet Muhammad and his followers were in fact under persecution at the time by Muhammad's own tribe, the Quraysh ("idtihad" does in fact mean persecution. Not only do I know this from taking Arabic classes, but there is a Turkish word similar to this with the same meaning, for many Turkish words originated from Arabic. This is the same with the word "fitna" that is used in the verse, but it is used in the exact same context as "idtihad" in the verse.). They were in fact under Qurayshi attack even while in Medina (ex: Battle of the Trench - Google it), but what is mentioned in the verse states that if an enemy was attacking you in war (believe me, I read the Quran), don't sit there passively and let them slaughter you. Even so, the verse still states to forgive them if they desist fighting, even if they wanted your head (I can provide you with various accounts later if ya want). Status: Debunked.
2. False. Nowhere has Muhammad ever mentioned that it's good to raid and loot caravans. Second, when mentioning fighting, this was in terms of defending the faith against those who wanted the faith and its people dead (this verse was revealed during the Battle of Badr or Uhud, can't remember which. Either way, they were the first and second wars the Quraysh triggered so that they could basically destroy the Muslims, and here it is mentioned that during times of war in which you defend the faith against persecutors, which in this case are the Quraysh, God will reward you for protecting your faith.).
Oh, and this isn't a hadith, a saying/quote of Prophet Muhammad. This is a verse from the Holy Quran, the very things God ordered upon and told the Muslims Himself (not directly, but via the Angel Jibreel/Gabriel to Muhammad quite often. So yeah, hadith =/= Quranic verse. Status: Debunked.
3. False. God is not ordering Muslims to exterminate everyone until they become Muslims. Basically the same explanation as the first two in terms of the religion-protecting, do-no-harm-to-those-desisting-fighting, all that good stuff. Alrighty then. Status: Debunked.
4. Nope. When mentioning "joining companions with Allah", it is in fact talking about polytheism, or associating other gods with God, the word "associating" being replaced with "joining". It is important to note, however (this is one of the reasons why people tend to misinterpret the Quran), that the term "Unbelievers" is not referring to all non-Muslims as a whole. "Unbelievers" are mentioned frequently in the Quran, but this is in fact a term that is referring to the Quraysh and their allies (who wanted Muhammad and Islam terminated) only. This basically mentions that the "Unbelievers" (referring to the Quraysh and their allies, not non-Muslims as a whole) will one day be in fear of the soon-to-come large following of Islam, but not in terms of fearing for their lives. Mmkay? Status: Debunked.
5. Again, this is related to the whole defend-the-faith-from-those-who-are-persecuting-it-and-you dealio. Those who defended the faith from those trying to destroy it (namely, the Quraysh) were not sent out to battle to rain utter havoc on the Quraysh (which would have been near-impossible to do anyway, considering that they were greatly outnumbered during the Battle of Badr and Battle of Uhud, which is around the time these verses were revealed), but to defend the religion from being wiped off the face of the Earth, which, believe it or not, might have happened if they hadn't fought back in order to defend themselves and their religion. Oh, and as for the whether-or-not-you-die-or-are-victorious thing, that's basically God's acknowledging the person defending their faith by rewarding them in the Hereafter (y'know, the afterlife) for giving their life so that their religion may live on.
You do have a very good point, however, when you said that verses like this are often the supposed theological "flawless foundation" that terrorists turn to to justify their actions which they believe to be "in the name of God". They too see this as an excuse to inflict death and unspeakable horrors in order to "defend the religion" (really? 1.2 billion followers and you have the urge to prevent "the persecution of your faith" by suicide bombing? Completely uncalled for in Islam.) Status: Debunked.
6. Kinda just talked about this. "They" is referring to the Quraysh, not those who don't believe in Islam as a whole. Basically saying don't trust them (the Quraysh) because they wish to see Islam perish and if they come in large numbers toward you (a Muslim, because they want to eliminate the followers of Islam), don't be a sitting duck and protect yourself and your faith (because, y'know, they kinda want to see you and your relatively small religion that doesn't have many followers like you dead). 'Nuff said. Status: Debunked.
7. Whoops, neglected to mention that there is a "greater" jihad and a "lesser" jihad. "Greater jihad" - Spiritual and moral striving to become a better Muslim and overall person. "Lesser jihad" (what this verse is referring to) - Defending the religion in wartime from those who want the religion annihilated (this is what terrorists think they're doing, but I think we can all agree that it is neither "defensive" nor is it "protecting" Islam from "persecution".). We all on the same page then? Great!
Yet again, this is about the protecting-your-religion-when-it-is-in-danger-and-being-persecuted situation. This verse is basically calling out those who are too cowardly to go defend their religion when it is under persecution, for they're valuing their own lives when they should be helping to defend their religion from those who want it gone, shaming them from refusing to go. Obviously, the elderly and disabled are exempt and are not recommended to go on account of their illnesses/handicaps/etc. Kind of like how coaches make players sit out games if they're injured for their own sake. Status: Debunked.
Since it was Ako and Air who lovingly set forth these claims for Livid and I to interpret and correct their misinterpretations of certain verses, which I already have done, it is only right that Livid interprets the second half of the batch of verses you two have provided.
Livid, you're up.
Post by: Lividup64 on 20 January 2016, 10:42:31 AM
'And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them.' What does that say exactly? That's right, fight them ONLY if they fight you first. Kill them ONLY if they attempt to kill you first.
Please do not take things out of context because that is incredibly foolish and misunderstanding. That's like if someone said, 'I love children, I would kill them all if I were to hug them for too long'
>person picks out 'I would kill them all.'
Post by: Akomine on 20 January 2016, 02:21:04 PM
The point is not really how you interpret these verses, or what you consider to be the "real" interpretation. The point is that people interpret these verses in these ways, and do use them as inspiration and justification for their thoughts and actions. They would just as readily disagree with you on your interpretation.
Two different members of the same religion can spend all day arguing over what their holy books want them to do, and they can find arguments both ways and contradictions all over the place, and they can both label eachother as not real believers or followers. But at the end of the day, the verses in the books say some pretty insane shit, and people are told to believe it is the truth of the universe, so people act on that insane shit.
Quote
"Islamic" terrorists' motives are not rooted in IslamYou can say they don't root their motives in Islam, but it just isn't true. They very, very openly do. Not your interpretation of Islam? Doesn't matter. It's theirs, and they act on it. It's sticking your head in the sand if you refuse to acknowledge the religious element to this.
People like me and Air don't really care for a debate on every individual Muslim's interpretation of the verses, we don't follow the religion and don't have a stake in that argument (in fact we reject faith from the outset); what we're saying is that in the present day there is a noteworthy trend where Muslim extremists are bombing and mass shooting people for their own Islam-inspired reasons. Directly related to that trend is the statistically significant numbers of Muslims who hold radical views, even in many European countries, and how they may act and conduct themselves based on those views. The role of religion in their thinking is significant.
To be VERY clear: we are NOT generalizing, we are simply pointing out the demonstrable fact that in the present day, some Muslims are openly using their religion to inspire and justify violence, with hugely significant numbers of others holding radical religiously-taught views. I'm glad that you're on the same side as we are, that you denounce the violence.
But to argue they aren't Muslims, or to argue your interpretation of the Quran is better, or to say they don't "represent Islam" (whatever that means), doesn't solve the problem.
These are very religious people using their religion for inspiration and justification for immoral acts. Admit it. Don't dance around it.
Post by: gerrit70 on 20 January 2016, 03:27:41 PM
Btw #prayforpakistan another shooting 20 dead :'(
Post by: EnderEssence on 20 January 2016, 03:57:39 PM
Thank you for your time.
P.S.: Thanks for being courteous while trying to argue your point. Debates like these often tend to get out of hand really quickly.
Post by: Lividup64 on 20 January 2016, 04:16:01 PM
Post by: Akomine on 20 January 2016, 04:48:30 PM
@Livid: I think Air will, but it's besides the point, and I explained why.
Post by: Witchdoctor1 on 20 January 2016, 06:54:42 PM
I didn't say Egypt and Iraq were a considerable distance away. Sorry for any confusion.
Sure, terrorists may claim they're Muslims, and Fox News can relish that all they want, but they're considered pagans by those who refuse to commit such heinous actions (what I'm referring to as "real Muslims"). Islam is not the root of these terrorists' ideals. Nothing in Islam says you can crash into two twin towers in NYC, behead Christians at will, or go suicide bomb terrorists. The media seems to think otherwise, and if they use the term "Islamic terrorists" one more time, I'm probably going to implode. Livid can read my obituary at my funeral along with the remains of my severed body.
What drives these terrorists to do such things is the exact same thing that drives terrorist groups "representing" other religions. There are retarded rednecks out there who think al-Qaeda represents Islam. Does that mean the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church represent Christianity? Retards' responses: "Nooooooo that's DIFFEREEEEENT."
"Islamic" terrorists' motives are not rooted in Islam, nor has Islam ever supported such actions. These are corrupt individuals driven by the exact same thing that drives other criminals to do the same (power-hungriness, money lust, bloodlust, etc.) <---Islam does not advocate any of these. Let the media say what they want. They're not considered actual Muslims by those who adhere to the faith.
Need anything more?
Actually, yes. When the KKK and WBC perform heinous acts in the name if christianity, they are, in fact, representing a part of christianity. It, just like islam, is made up of many factions with differing beliefs, whether they are orthodoxic or orthopraxic to "scripture", religious "law", or what not. Do they represent ALL christians? No, but they do help to piece together the puzzle that christianity is, as a whole. Same with religious radicals of ALL religions. They do represent some splinter or faction of the religious whole. I do agree that the majority of those who control the various islamic factions that sponsor terrorism do not, in fact, have their motivations rooted in the religion as a whole. In fact, terrorism is a growth industry with much money to be made (more on that topic later), it is a secondary socio-political entity in addition to legitimate nation-states, and it preys upon the undereducated, overzealous, underemployed, disillusioned or angry. Basically you have a bunch of very eloquent and charismatic persons convincing a bunch of cretins to do their bidding, all in the name of a "higher cause" (see ANY links to pretty much the whole of the 20th century?). So yes, when the KKK burn a cross in someone's yard, they ARE representing christianity. When skinheads in Germany kill a Turkish immigrant by beating him to death in the name of the christian national socialist movement going on over there? Yep, that is christianity. When a misguided fool who is convinced that driving a car laden full of explosives into a souk frequented by Westerners, regardless of the machinations or motivations of his handlers, he is representing islam. Not all of christianity/islam/judaism/zoroastrianism/tengriism/buddhism/hinduism/whothefuckcaresism is evil, but evil acts are not uncommonly conducted in their names (yes even buddhism. Look at the Khmer Rouge or Myanmar.)
Post by: EnderEssence on 20 January 2016, 07:20:10 PM
I'm not defining them out of the religion. Islam itself defines them as out of the religion.
Thanks again.
Post by: Akomine on 20 January 2016, 07:31:36 PM
Witch, excellent reply, thank you.
Post by: EnderEssence on 20 January 2016, 07:34:36 PM
And yes, Witch (have we met?) definitely brought up a good point.
Post by: Akomine on 20 January 2016, 07:37:24 PM
@Akomine - Saying terrorists are out of the religion isn't a "theoretical" scriptural definition. If it was theoretical, I would clarify otherwise. Both the Quran and Prophet Muhammad mention that those who commit blasphemous crimes are out of the religion. "Blasphemous" means anything that results in one no longer being part of the religion - idolatry, terrorism, etc. Being a Muslim, I think I would know what would and would not result in someone no longer being a Muslim.
I'm not defining them out of the religion. Islam itself defines them as out of the religion.
Thanks again.
Oh okay good, glad we solved that. They aren't in the religion because you've decided your interpretation is the most correct one.
I'm sure they'll stop fighting for a global caliphate now.
Post by: EnderEssence on 20 January 2016, 08:59:47 PM
They're not in the religion because a 1400+ religious doctrine says they're not. Unless you think I made up this doctrine?
Pretty sure we can all agree on the fact that every religion has its misguided lunatics, right? Good.
Post by: Akomine on 20 January 2016, 09:48:04 PM
No Ako, they're not in the religion because I said so.
They're not in the religion because a 1400+ religious doctrine says they're not. Unless you think I made up this doctrine?
Again, you're claiming your interpretation is the correct one. And again, my point is that it doesn't change reality.
Quote
Pretty sure we can all agree on the fact that every religion has its misguided lunatics, right? Good.
So which one is it - Does your religion have misguided lunatics or not?
Are they or are they not in the religion?
Do you see how you're missing the point? lol
Post by: EnderEssence on 20 January 2016, 11:08:48 PM
No Ako, they're not in the religion because I said so.
They're not in the religion because a 1400+ religious doctrine says they're not. Unless you think I made up this doctrine?
Again, you're claiming your interpretation is the correct one. And again, my point is that it doesn't change reality.QuotePretty sure we can all agree on the fact that every religion has its misguided lunatics, right? Good.
So which one is it - Does your religion have misguided lunatics or not?
Are they or are they not in the religion?
Do you see how you're missing the point? lol
Frankly, saying that a religious doctrine clearly states that terrorists are no longer part of the religion as result of their horrible deeds isn't an interpretation. It's a fact. What were interpretations were the verses you and I both attempted to explain.
And "misguided lunatics" does not necessarily equate to "terrorists". All terrorists are misguided lunatics that end up being out of the religion regardless, but not all "misguided lunatics" are terrorists. Y'know, people who don't do certain required and fundamental things, etc. It's not "one-size-fits-all" as you seem to imply.
Chances are, this is probably the most substantial topic in all of the Off-Topic Forums. Explanations being tossed out and about. Important real-life issues being discussed. I always love a good debate. Don't you, dear Ako?
Post by: Akomine on 21 January 2016, 10:03:58 PM
No Ako, they're not in the religion because I said so.
They're not in the religion because a 1400+ religious doctrine says they're not. Unless you think I made up this doctrine?
Again, you're claiming your interpretation is the correct one. And again, my point is that it doesn't change reality.QuotePretty sure we can all agree on the fact that every religion has its misguided lunatics, right? Good.
So which one is it - Does your religion have misguided lunatics or not?
Are they or are they not in the religion?
Do you see how you're missing the point? lol
Frankly, saying that a religious doctrine clearly states that terrorists are no longer part of the religion as result of their horrible deeds isn't an interpretation. It's a fact. What were interpretations were the verses you and I both attempted to explain.
And "misguided lunatics" does not necessarily equate to "terrorists". All terrorists are misguided lunatics that end up being out of the religion regardless, but not all "misguided lunatics" are terrorists. Y'know, people who don't do certain required and fundamental things, etc. It's not "one-size-fits-all" as you seem to imply.
Chances are, this is probably the most substantial topic in all of the Off-Topic Forums. Explanations being tossed out and about. Important real-life issues being discussed. I always love a good debate. Don't you, dear Ako?
It's your interpretation. Other people interpret it differently. I don't know how else to word that. And I ask you again to familiarize yourself with why your claim is fallacious. It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy, and you keep committing it time and time and time again in this thread. Even if you are somehow correct, your argument is still unhelpful to the discussion.
Here's a list of resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=No_true_Scotsman_fallacy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
And here's a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I
Post by: EnderEssence on 24 January 2016, 03:14:16 AM
Again, it's not a claim if the religion's foundations don't support it to begin with.
Post by: Airbongo on 24 January 2016, 03:48:28 AM
I am familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy.Holy fuck, you are stubborn, please broaden your mind a little bit and try to understand Ako's point. Your interpretation or opinion of it means shit, the point is that people, extremist Muslims, use the religion to justify its atrocities. There is no magic finger pointing at people and saying "ok, you're a muslim, you aren't". There isn't some sort of intangible force deciding who is being blasphemous and who isn't, and you saying they aren't Muslims is an OPINION, your opinion or interpretation of it isn't a fact. They call themselves Muslims, they read the Quran or whatever, they take what it says, do their own interpretation (very literal interpretation, ironically) and then they shove some explosives up their bum and they blow a little kid's school or a plane up.
Again, it's not a claim if the religion's foundations don't support it to begin with.
Post by: EnderEssence on 24 January 2016, 03:58:24 AM
I am familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy.Holy fuck, you are stubborn, please broaden your mind a little bit and try to understand Ako's point. Your interpretation or opinion of it means shit, the point is that people, extremist Muslims, use the religion to justify its atrocities. There is no magic finger pointing at people and saying "ok, you're a muslim, you aren't". There isn't some sort of intangible force deciding who is being blasphemous and who isn't, and you saying they aren't Muslims is an OPINION, your opinion or interpretation of it isn't a fact. They call themselves Muslims, they read the Quran or whatever, they take what it says, do their own interpretation (very literal interpretation, ironically) and then they shove some explosives up their bum and they blow a little kid's school or a plane up.
Again, it's not a claim if the religion's foundations don't support it to begin with.
Wouldn't this be a bit more stubborn?
I am in fact taking your opinions into consideration. Yet again, if the foundation disclaims it, then how is it opinion-based? I can see that if the source were to be some highly-regarded contemporary scholar, but if the very original source (God and the Quran) disprove such things, how is it an interpretation?
Do you need me to provide evidence or what? Not evidence from interpretations as you seem to suggest, but quotes from the Quran and/or hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad). If you don't want to hear my perspective (which I have been trying to limit the bias of to begin with), then gosh, don't.
But again, thanks for the civility, gentlemen (don't you dare ruin that Airbo :) ).
Post by: Akomine on 24 January 2016, 04:37:41 AM
Wouldn't this be a bit more stubborn?
I am in fact taking your opinions into consideration. Yet again, if the foundation disclaims it, then how is it opinion-based? I can see that if the source were to be some highly-regarded contemporary scholar, but if the very original source (God and the Quran) disprove such things, how is it an interpretation?
Do you need me to provide evidence or what? Not evidence from interpretations as you seem to suggest, but quotes from the Quran and/or hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad). If you don't want to hear my perspective (which I have been trying to limit the bias of to begin with), then gosh, don't.
But again, thanks for the civility, gentlemen (don't you dare ruin that Airbo :) ).
Maaaaan. You aren't listening. You aren't considering what we're saying.
I'm going to put some things in caps lock now, please enjoy:
It is YOUR INTERPRETATION that your god and your holy book stipulates that they aren't Muslims. It is YOUR OPINION that YOUR INTERPRETATION is correct. There are other Muslims whose opinions don't line up with your interpretation. Just like you've decided yours is correct, they've decided theirs is correct. And yet it DOESN'T MATTER. Not only is it a FALLACY, which you don't seem to understand, but it isn't even HELPFUL to the conversation, and it DOESN'T CHANGE REALITY whatsoever.
No, we don't care to see lines from the Quran, we already told you that two members of a religion with different opinions can find as much scripture as they want, and that scripture will contradict and argue both sides... and they can both say to eachother "You aren't a real Muslim" all they want, IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
Okay so they're not a Muslim. So what? What does this argument accomplish? How does this progress anything? It doesn't, it's a waste of time and an endless circle, which is exactly what this logical fallacy does. That's why I was trying to point it out to you, but you just keep going with it.
Post by: EnderEssence on 24 January 2016, 03:23:39 PM
Since what I'm saying is supposedly opinion-based no matter what source I seemingly provide, then please take care to explain how the sources you provide are somehow more valid than mine.
There are other Muslims whose opinions don't line up with your interpretation.
Care to provide some examples from people who aren't "Islamic terrorists"? Thanks.
Y'know, we could come to a conclusion a lot more quicker if you didn't use the fallacy argument repeatedly. Thanks again.
Post by: Akomine on 24 January 2016, 04:01:28 PM
True, Ako. We do indeed keep cycling over, and over, and over again.
Since what I'm saying is supposedly opinion-based no matter what source I seemingly provide, then please take care to explain how the sources you provide are somehow more valid than mine.
I never claimed the sources we provided are "more valid than yours", I tried to make it clear that two members of the same religion can argue all they want over scripture but that me and air don't have a stake in that game, and furthermore those sources are to help illustrate where some people derive inspiration and justification. I don't know if it'll help, but I'd like to point out that you've just committed another logical fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Quote
Care to provide some examples from people who aren't "Islamic terrorists"? Thanks.
The examples we provided earlier aren't from Islamic terrorists.
Quote
Y'know, we could come to a conclusion a lot more quicker if you didn't use the fallacy argument repeatedly. Thanks again.
Y'know, we could come to a conclusion a lot quicker if you didn't use a fallacious argument repeatedly, despite it being pointed out to you every time. The fallacy is what creates the endless circle. You're making a logical error which is what is leading to it. I was just trying to point it out to you.
-------
So let's move on to something else,
A couple messages ago, you seemed to claim your god is the "original source":
Quote
I can see that if the source were to be some highly-regarded contemporary scholar, but if the very original source (God and the Quran) disprove such things, how is it an interpretation?
So I'm just curious,
Do you have evidence of your god's existence?
Post by: EnderEssence on 24 January 2016, 04:26:26 PM
So let's move on to something else,
A couple messages ago, you seemed to claim your god is the "original source":QuoteI can see that if the source were to be some highly-regarded contemporary scholar, but if the very original source (God and the Quran) disprove such things, how is it an interpretation?
So I'm just curious,
Do you have evidence of your god's existence?
I most definitely do. Tell ya what.
Not that I'm lacking evidence for God's existence, but I'm kinda busy atm, so as soon as I'm free, I'll replace this message with the evidence and whatnot. In other words, just don't respond until I change this very post accordingly.
Mmkay? Thaaaaaaaaaanks.
Post by: Airbongo on 24 January 2016, 04:30:24 PM
Lol this should be good.
So let's move on to something else,
A couple messages ago, you seemed to claim your god is the "original source":QuoteI can see that if the source were to be some highly-regarded contemporary scholar, but if the very original source (God and the Quran) disprove such things, how is it an interpretation?
So I'm just curious,
Do you have evidence of your god's existence?
I most definitely do. Tell ya what.
Not that I'm lacking evidence for God's existence, but I'm kinda busy atm, so as soon as I'm free, I'll replace this message with the evidence and whatnot. In other words, just don't respond until I change this very post accordingly.
Mmkay? Thaaaaaaaaaanks.
Post by: Akomine on 30 January 2016, 11:24:12 PM
Lol this should be good.
So let's move on to something else,
A couple messages ago, you seemed to claim your god is the "original source":QuoteI can see that if the source were to be some highly-regarded contemporary scholar, but if the very original source (God and the Quran) disprove such things, how is it an interpretation?
So I'm just curious,
Do you have evidence of your god's existence?
I most definitely do. Tell ya what.
Not that I'm lacking evidence for God's existence, but I'm kinda busy atm, so as soon as I'm free, I'll replace this message with the evidence and whatnot. In other words, just don't respond until I change this very post accordingly.
Mmkay? Thaaaaaaaaaanks.
(http://i.imgur.com/phrl12s.gif)
Post by: EnderEssence on 31 January 2016, 03:11:28 AM
Lol this should be good.
So let's move on to something else,
A couple messages ago, you seemed to claim your god is the "original source":QuoteI can see that if the source were to be some highly-regarded contemporary scholar, but if the very original source (God and the Quran) disprove such things, how is it an interpretation?
So I'm just curious,
Do you have evidence of your god's existence?
I most definitely do. Tell ya what.
Not that I'm lacking evidence for God's existence, but I'm kinda busy atm, so as soon as I'm free, I'll replace this message with the evidence and whatnot. In other words, just don't respond until I change this very post accordingly.
Mmkay? Thaaaaaaaaaanks.
(http://i.imgur.com/phrl12s.gif)
Don't get your hopes up. I'll cut to the chase when I have time...
...as soon as I finish other priorities that you don't need to know about.
Well, I have a life too. Be patient please. Thaaaaaaaanks.
You haven't won. >:)
Post by: Akomine on 2 February 2016, 05:47:55 PM
Plz focus your time into replying to Istanbul thread, thx.
... I'll respond whenever I have the time to write an absurdly long post at once, thank you very much. ...
Why do you have to write an absurdly long post?
Post by: EnderEssence on 6 February 2016, 09:29:27 PM
From the Fine Bros thread:Plz focus your time into replying to Istanbul thread, thx.
... I'll respond whenever I have the time to write an absurdly long post at once, thank you very much. ...
Why do you have to write an absurdly long post?
Reasons.
acknowledge dis if u cri everytiem
Post by: Airbongo on 7 February 2016, 09:30:19 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 8 February 2016, 08:49:29 PM
I'll get to it when I have a good amount of time on my hands.
Post by: Akomine on 8 February 2016, 11:43:25 PM
I HAVE THINGS TO DO. I HAVE A LIFE.
I'll get to it when I have a good amount of time on my hands.
You better be careful with those llamas, mate.
Post by: EnderEssence on 16 February 2016, 11:24:33 PM
I HAVE THINGS TO DO. I HAVE A LIFE.
I'll get to it when I have a good amount of time on my hands.
You better be careful with those llamas, mate.
Thirty more llamas please. I do not approve of your exploitation of one of my rightfully-given llamas in that sadistic, communist tone of yours.
Back to the debate...
Proof God exists, gentlemen? Oh, I have your "proof". Assuming you'll read all of it.
Let's cover a few basic laws of nature that we all know and love. Take the Law of Conservation of Matter. It essentially states that matter can neither be created or destroyed. We again know that matter is what makes up planets, galaxies, trees, the universe, etc. Please tell me how one can get the universe (clearly made up of matter), or even the Big Bang (still made up of matter) to exist if the matter needed to compose them to begin with cannot even be created (Law of Conservation of Matter). One cannot simply create or naturally have the conditions to make matter out of nothingness, can they?
Unless you're God. An almighty deity that is an (and most probably the only) exception to this rule. Since we both know that God (whether you choose to believe in Him or not) can basically create whatever, it's blatantly obvious that without some sort of Creator to actually "create" something out of nothing, the universe, which most scientists believe came from the Big Bang (What came from that again? Did that too "magically" come from nothingness and break the Law of Conservation of Matter too?), cannot have existed to begin with. Modern-day scientists themselves have no idea what caused the "sudden" explosion of light and matter known as the Big Bang.
This is only my first argument.
There'll be more coming. Seeing your impatience, I've decided that I'll do this bit by bit.
I'll talk to you gentlemen later.
Post by: Akomine on 17 February 2016, 12:45:31 AM
1- You are assuming the universe began to exist at the Big Bang. There is no scientific model that makes this prediction, so you must be misunderstanding something, or you haven't done enough reading on the subject, because that isn't the claim. If you were to ask a theoretical physicist (the people who study this stuff) if the universe started at the big bang, they'd say they don't know.
2- Why do you assume the universe/big bang was created by a god?
3- If your god created it, who or what created your god?
4- If you're going to reference science, and specifically the matter that makes up the universe, then how do you suppose your god exists if not in the form of matter?
Quote
Since we both know that God (whether you choose to believe in Him or not) can basically create whatever...
No we don't both know that. Don't put words in my (or Air's) mouth again, you've done it too many times in this thread. You can speak on behalf of yourself, but you do not speak on behalf of me (or Air). This is an assumption that you have made, not me, not air. You.
Now, evidence please. You haven't provided any evidence that your god exists. Or even any evidence for any of the claims you made in this post.
Cheers.
Post by: Airbongo on 17 February 2016, 02:05:21 AM
Also, if there is a god out there, why would it be your god? Why not Cthulhu or the spaghetti monster? Do you have evidence, beside faith, that your god is that powerful being that created the universe?
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 February 2016, 09:16:57 AM
We waited for like a month and you give us this generic reply? "We don't know what created the universe so let's just call it god." Just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean a magical entity is responsible for it. And who created your god?!?! He just appeared out of thin air or was he created by another god. I try to put my muslim thinking hat on and look at things from your perspective and it is hard. How can you settle for "we don't know how it was made so god surely made it". I don't even want to get into the whole matter of how do you go from "god created it all" to writing whole books about how god expects you to live your life. It's just all so void of logic.
Also, if there is a god out there, why would it be your god? Why not Cthulhu or the spaghetti monster? Do you have evidence, beside faith, that your god is that powerful being that created the universe?
Again, I have things to do, but with your impatience, I thought I might as well make the argument piece by piece instead.
I'll get to other arguments when I have time. First, answer my question using the "logic" you claim contradicts the Law of Conservation of Matter that, at the same time, is also founded upon the very same principles.
Please read the whole post. I clearly said I was doing this bit by bit. I have a life. I've had things coming up you don't need to know about. Now answer this before I move on to other arguments.
Thanks.
Post by: Lividup64 on 17 February 2016, 01:09:01 PM
Post by: Akomine on 17 February 2016, 02:55:27 PM
First, answer my question using the "logic" you claim contradicts the Law of Conservation of Matter that, at the same time, is also founded upon the very same principles.
Answer which question? I responded to your post pointing out the problems with your argument, did you read it?
I just wanted to raise awareness about the attack in Istanbul ...
Lol #Hijacked
I could actually split the post
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 February 2016, 05:03:19 PM
First, answer my question using the "logic" you claim contradicts the Law of Conservation of Matter that, at the same time, is also founded upon the very same principles.
Answer which question? I responded to your post pointing out the problems with your argument, did you read it?I just wanted to raise awareness about the attack in Istanbul ...
Lol #Hijacked
I could actually split the post
Sorry, I must have posted this right before you have and didn't see it for some reason.
Your argument sounds awfully similar to the infamous Cosmological Argument (or more specifically, the Argument from the Big Bang). Here's some very basic problems with this argument:
1- You are assuming the universe began to exist at the Big Bang. There is no scientific model that makes this prediction, so you must be misunderstanding something, or you haven't done enough reading on the subject, because that isn't the claim. If you were to ask a theoretical physicist (the people who study this stuff) if the universe started at the big bang, they'd say they don't know.
2- Why do you assume the universe/big bang was created by a god?
3- If your god created it, who or what created your god?
4- If you're going to reference science, and specifically the matter that makes up the universe, then how do you suppose your god exists if not in the form of matter?QuoteSince we both know that God (whether you choose to believe in Him or not) can basically create whatever...
No we don't both know that. Don't put words in my (or Air's) mouth again, you've done it too many times in this thread. You can speak on behalf of yourself, but you do not speak on behalf of me (or Air). This is an assumption that you have made, not me, not air. You.
Now, evidence please. You haven't provided any evidence that your god exists. Or even any evidence for any of the claims you made in this post.
Cheers.
1. What I'm pointing out is that one cannot "magically" have a "sudden" explosion of light and matter out of nothing (the Big Bang). I never said I was an advocate of that theory.
If you were to ask a theoretical physicist (the people who study this stuff) if the universe started at the big bang, they'd say they don't know.Why can't they know? You seem to think that logic and reasoning that leaves God out of the picture suffices to explain the universe, so why can't you give me an answer?
2. Why do I claim that the universe was created by God? There's a lot of depth to this one, and I may get more into it later, but please do tell me how you can create something out of nothing if you do not have some form of omnipotency. Doesn't science (yeah, I'm bring up the Law of Conservation of Matter again, deal with it) state that matter cannot be created from nothingness. Seriously, stop evading the question and tell me, from an atheist's perspective, how to create something from nothing from a "scientific" standpoint (yet science states that it isn't possible to begin with).
3. I'm going to clear up something for a second. Not "my God". There are different interpretations and perspectives of God (through Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., why else do you think there are contradicting arguments about God and His ways?), but it's the same God mentioned in the Bible, Quran, etc., but differing writings about Him, (Allah, Christian God, Yahweh, same deity). We'll leave that argument for another day for the sake of not derailing the debate.
Oh and also:
We don't believe in Thor (the Norse god), but we both know he can summon lightning. We don't believe in vampires, but we both know they provide sustenance for themselves via the blood of others. And finally, we both know that a god of any sort is omnipotent, but knowing about it =/= believing. It's not putting words in people's mouths.QuoteSince we both know that God (whether you choose to believe in Him or not) can basically create whatever...
No we don't both know that. Don't put words in my (or Air's) mouth again, you've done it too many times in this thread. You can speak on behalf of yourself, but you do not speak on behalf of me (or Air). This is an assumption that you have made, not me, not air. You.
Back on topic.
Being an omnipotent divine being, one could argue that "God" exists outside of time and space, for since "creating whatever" falls into omnipotence, this would mean that God created time and space itself too. It would additionally mean that having created time, cause and effect do not apply to His existence. Either that or He exists in more than one dimension of time. Two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.
4. I think I just answered that in the process too.
Best of luck, fellas.
Post by: Akomine on 17 February 2016, 06:19:37 PM
Secondly, you seem to say that you can't have the Big Bang "magically" happen, yet apparently your god can "magically" happen. What's with the double standard?
Lastly, I didn't say that scientists can't know, I said they will tell you they don't know, because they honestly don't know. They don't want to make claims that aren't based on evidence, so they won't. This is an emerging field of science that is rather incomplete, and we're learning more every day. We don't know, yet. How's that?
2. I never said you can create something from nothing (stop putting words in my mouth!). If it could happen, why would it require a being to do it? I don't understand why a being makes this prospect possible.
3. Yes, your god. I don't believe in any gods. You believe in one god, many other people believe in multiple gods. When you speak, I assume you're speaking about YOUR god that you believe in. I'm sure the ancient Egyptian polytheists would not consider Allah to be a "different interpretation and perspective of God", that barely makes sense. They didn't have "God", they had many gods. I say "your god" because you don't speak on behalf of me, and I don't believe in things without evidence, such as your claim of god.
Okay, I understand the concept of Thor and vampires and things, but I don't know that they actually exist. You said we both know god can just create anything, and I said I don't know that, because I don't see any evidence of that being the case. I understand the concept and the claim, but I reject it, which is what I mean by I don't know it. I don't know god exists = I don't claim to have knowledge that god exists. Do you understand? This gets into gnosticism (having or claiming knowledge) and agnosticism (not having or claiming of knowledge). It's distinct from simply understanding a concept. That's what I meant. I'm agnostic towards the omnipotent god claim, you're gnostic towards the omnipotent god claim. Please let me know if you understand.
Back on topic:
4. Are you claiming something can exist outside of time and space? Evidence please.
Post by: luisc99 on 17 February 2016, 07:25:12 PM
I'm not getting involved in this debate, just sharing some science. If you want to know more, there are plenty of papers on the subject avaliable online
Sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.eg5081rcc
Post by: Akomine on 17 February 2016, 07:33:14 PM
Also, Ender, you should just look up the Big Bang theory, because you need to do more reading on it. You clearly show a lack of understanding right from the get-go. I'm not trying to be rude.
Post by: EnderEssence on 18 February 2016, 12:23:43 AM
4. Are you claiming something can exist outside of time and space? Evidence please.
Being an omnipotent divine being, one could argue that "God" exists outside of time and space, for since "creating whatever" falls into omnipotence, this would mean that God created time and space itself too. It would additionally mean that having created time, cause and effect do not apply to His existence. Either that or He exists in more than one dimension of time. Two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.
You apparently pulled a tl;dr there, didn't you. Please read my whole post next time.
I understand that you're not trying to be rude, but please do not act as the authority figure in this debate. Not to be offensive, but that's kind of what's radiating off of your arguments at this point. Moving on.
@luisc99 Yes, it's possible that the matter that formed the "Big Bang" (if it's even a thing at all) came from energy. Please tell me where this energy came from then. Otherwise, it's contradicting science (Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy) with more science (Quantum Fluctuation). Thanks for sharing info regardless.
Could you please look up how having multiple dimensions, and even planes, of time work?
Lastly, I didn't say that scientists can't know, I said they will tell you they don't know, because they honestly don't know. They don't want to make claims that aren't based on evidence, so they won't. This is an emerging field of science that is rather incomplete, and we're learning more every day. We don't know, yet. How's that?
Seeing that atheistic science has no way of proving anything in this regard (at least yet, as you claim), I'd like you to come with a theory that somehow disowns both having an omnipotent being create the universe and atheistic science. Good luck. Otherwise, that kinda leaves your argument at a stub (no offense).
Post by: luisc99 on 18 February 2016, 02:21:05 AM
I didn't mention anything about multiple time dimensions, but they work similar to how spartial dimensions work. Our brains have difficulty understanding it as we evolved and grew up in s 3+1D universe, and anything else is beyond comprehension for most people. That's why it's difficult for you to imagine a 4D or 5D object.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-what-would-the-universe-be-like-with-additional-temporal-dimensions/
http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html
Post by: Akomine on 18 February 2016, 04:31:03 AM
4. Are you claiming something can exist outside of time and space? Evidence please.Being an omnipotent divine being, one could argue that "God" exists outside of time and space, for since "creating whatever" falls into omnipotence, this would mean that God created time and space itself too. It would additionally mean that having created time, cause and effect do not apply to His existence. Either that or He exists in more than one dimension of time. Two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.
You apparently pulled a tl;dr there, didn't you. Please read my whole post next time.
So apparently responding to your entire post, point by point, is somehow not reading your whole post. What the hell man? Just answer my points, what is this strange deflection? This comes across as a very dishonest way of having a debate on your part.
Interestingly, you've decided not to respond to the vast majority of my post. It's almost as if you pulled a tl;dr! Funny how that works.
Quote
I understand that you're not trying to be rude, but please do not act as the authority figure in this debate. Not to be offensive, but that's kind of what's radiating off of your arguments at this point. Moving on.
I'm not in any way trying to act as an authority figure. We're both presenting arguments and ideas. How am I acting as an authority figure?
Quote
@luisc99 Yes, it's possible that the matter that formed the "Big Bang" (if it's even a thing at all) came from energy. Please tell me where this energy came from then. Otherwise, it's contradicting science (Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy) with more science (Quantum Fluctuation). Thanks for sharing info regardless.
The Laws of Thermodynamics do not contradict the theory of Quantum Fluctuation. Furthermore, Luis is not making any claim of what created matter and energy in the first place (if it was created), he was just adding some info about how energy and matter can convert.
And again, the Big Bang theory at no point claims that anything was magically created. It only deals with the explosion and expansion of our universe that started 13.8 billion years ago. It does not go beyond that or make any claim of what might have brought this on. By arguing as if it does make this claim (it doesn't!), you are arguing a straw man.
Quote
Could you please look up how having multiple dimensions, and even planes, of time work?
Look up what exactly? There are various debated multiverse hypotheses, do you specifically believe in one of them? It's totally interesting that you don't seem to believe in the Big Bang theory, yet you seem to believe in a multiverse hypothesis. Please tell us which one, I'm interested.
-------
THE INTERESTING PART OF THE POST:
Quote
Lastly, I didn't say that scientists can't know, I said they will tell you they don't know, because they honestly don't know. They don't want to make claims that aren't based on evidence, so they won't. This is an emerging field of science that is rather incomplete, and we're learning more every day. We don't know, yet. How's that?
Seeing that atheistic science has no way of proving anything in this regard (at least yet, as you claim), I'd like you to come with a theory that somehow disowns both having an omnipotent being create the universe and atheistic science. Good luck. Otherwise, that kinda leaves your argument at a stub (no offense).
This is, annoyingly, the only part of your post that actually responds to one of my points. By the way, no, I'm not going to "come up with a theory that somehow disowns both having an omnipotent being create the universe and atheistic science". I don't know why I have to make that claim, and to honest I'm very comfortable in not making evidence-devoid claims. I'm very comfortable with not knowing.
So here's your binary way of looking at this:
Either science (or me apparently) must explain how the universe came into existence... or god did it.
Problems with this argument:
A) The Big Bang theory or Science (or me) not having the answer to this is not proof of your god. All claims require evidence. When one claim gets refuted (or was never even claimed), it's not like the other claim just gets to be the correct one. It still needs evidence too.
B) You claim the universe came into existence, yet you provide no evidence that it came into existence. Strangely you keep talking about the Big Bang theory, which doesn't even claim this. Even stranger, you don't seem to agree with the Big Bang theory, so why are you talking about it so much? Oh, right, because you think refuting it somehow makes your god claim true (it doesn't! see A!).
C) You claim that your god has always existed. For some reason the universe always existing isn't acceptable, but your god always existing is apparently perfectly acceptable. Double standard.
D) You provide no evidence that a god created the universe. You wrote some information about how two dimensions form a plane of time, and how you think your god exists in a plane of time, and that a being that exists in a plane of time can time travel freely, and that a plane of time has no starting point, and that your god is omnipotent, and that your god created time, and a bunch of other things. And yet... you provide no evidence of any of this actually being reality. You got annoyed with me for apparently TL;DRing over this part of your post (which I read), because it's apparently your evidence (how can this be considered evidence?). So, uh, where's the evidence for your evidence? (lol)
E) You claim your god exists outside of space and time, yet you provide no evidence that things can exist outside of space and time. What exactly is "outside of space and time" anyways? What does that even mean? Everything we understand to be reality exists in space and time. That's what existing is. Oddly, you also argue your god travels time freely in a plane of time or something, which would mean he exists in space and time, so I don't quite understand. He exists in space and time, he doesn't exist in space and time, he's a male, he can do anything. All these interesting things you say, all these claims you make, no evidence for any of them.
F) You provide no information as to why a god must have done it. You never explain why it must have been a singular being. You just seem to have decided this must be the case. Why? Why must it have been a being?
Every time you say something I have so many more questions, and I'm so curious what your evidence is. It sounds like you have all the answers to the biggest mysteries, and I just want to learn... but... evidence is so much more reliable than faith, and you said you have evidence. So where's your evidence man? Or are you really just using faith?
Why is refuting the Big Bang so important to your provision of evidence? What does it have to do with anything? We never even mentioned it. Sure, the Big Bang is false. Or it's true. I don't care. Prove your god exists.
Post by: EnderEssence on 18 February 2016, 11:53:20 AM
The Laws of Thermodynamics do not contradict the theory of Quantum Fluctuation.You seem to be critical of "lack of evidence" on my part, yet could you at least provide solid proof on this then?
Very well. Since we obviously can't come to an agreement from all this bantering, shall we move on to something else?
Let me just state something extremely elementary. Still universe related.
Say you have a cake. You know what's in a basic cake, right? Flour, sugar, eggs, etc.
I go to you and tell you that a bowl just happened to fall out of a cupboard and onto the floor due to an earthquake happening at the time. As a result, the sugar and flour happen to come out of a pantry, eggs somehow get out of a refrigerator that was somehow opening at just the right time. From there, all the ingredients manage to get projected directly and perfectly onto the bowl. Just then, a hurricane happens to be on a trajectory straight into the house the kitchen is in and the gush of water and wind get the bowl (with the ingredients mixed in perfectly from all that wind) directly into the oven. A spoon then falls from the cupboard and happens to turn the temperature to 360 degrees Fahrenheit. After 25 minutes, the winds suddenly disappear, but not before managing to somehow turn the temperature knob of the oven off and open the oven again.
Sounds absolutely ridiculous, right? You clearly need someone to bake that cake. You can't just expect to have a cake by chance with that absurd story. Someone has to make that cake.
Let's look at this from a bigger scale. How do you expect for energy and matter to suddenly appear from nowhere. From there, how do you just happen to have a star (the Sun) that just so happens to be the perfect size for and distance away from Earth for life, due to collisions in a giant disc-shaped cloud of various material that all happened by chance? Speaking of Earth, how is it that it just happens to be at the right tilt degree for a stable climate for life to occur, and that a few degrees off in either direction would cause all life on earth to either freeze away or be incinerated? From there, how does an organism (in the form of microbes) just happen to start existing?
See the analogy? How do you know, and what proof do you have, that none of this was made by someone too?
It's absolute nonsense when put on a small scale, but put on a large scale, things happening by absolute chance just happen to be passed off as legitimate?
Cheers.
Post by: luisc99 on 18 February 2016, 12:33:23 PM
Also there was a source and mathematical proof for quantum fluctuations not violating the laws of energy conservation in one of the Wikipedia articles I linked, which you must not have read. Maybe you took my post as a tl;dr. Either way, it's here again for your convenience.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Oh, and these are a nice read:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
Post by: Airbongo on 18 February 2016, 02:04:41 PM
I still wanna know how "universe was created by god" = The quran/bible/whatever is the word of god. How about we get some evidence about the existence of god that isn't just related to making the universe. Let's see some EARTHLY evidence about the existence of god.
Post by: Akomine on 18 February 2016, 03:23:29 PM
The Laws of Thermodynamics do not contradict the theory of Quantum Fluctuation....
See the analogy? How do you know, and what proof do you have, that none of this was made by someone too?
...
Thanks for your random analogy. For the 50th fucking time, you're arguing a strawman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
All we want is proof of your god. I never made a claim, I just requested evidence for your god.
For a guy who accuses me of TL;DRing his post, you seem to have ignored all but one line of mine. Did you read this part?:
Quote from: Akomine
The Big Bang theory or Science (or me) not having the answer to this is not proof of your god. All claims require evidence. When one claim gets refuted (or was never even claimed), it's not like the other claim just gets to be the correct one. It still needs evidence too.
So let me be clear:
I never made a claim about a god. You did make a claim: you've claimed that a god exists. I have not even claimed your god doesn't exist; I've just requested that you provide evidence for your claim.
The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim with evidence. It's not my responsibility to refute every random claim every random person makes. They can provide evidence to convince me their claim is true.
So at the end of the day, all I want is for you to provide evidence of your god. Where is it? Let's hear it. We can talk about our thoughts on theoretical physics another day. Refuting theoretical physics doesn't suddenly mean your god exists. That would be ridiculous.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here, to simplify things, I made a little chart. I've highlighted, in yellow, the part that you're supposed to fill in:
(http://i.imgur.com/zxkxxMz.png)
Please take the time in your next post to fill that part in.
Thanks!
Post by: gerrit70 on 19 February 2016, 09:57:03 PM
Post by: Akomine on 19 February 2016, 10:43:14 PM
Godslasterlijk varkens, Ako is the only true god.
I haven't seen any evidence that I'm not the only true god, therefore I'm the only true god.
Post by: gerrit70 on 22 February 2016, 03:15:51 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 22 February 2016, 04:21:07 PM
Post by: gerrit70 on 22 February 2016, 05:42:27 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 24 February 2016, 10:33:20 PM
Ender lost this debate.
Stop rushing to conclusions. I've had important things coming up over the past few weeks.
Be patient, Air the Pleb.
HEIL AKO!
We'll see about that... ;)
@Akomine I'll add to this debate, just not immediately. Please be patient as I have things IRL.
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 February 2016, 06:33:25 AM
Post by: Lividup64 on 25 February 2016, 12:01:54 PM
Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.
go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.
Post by: Akomine on 25 February 2016, 02:29:40 PM
Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.
go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.
Jeeeez, your comment is the scummy one Livid.
And I don't think this has been a nice debate, Ender has been conducting his side of the debate in a totally dishonest manner, avoiding answering to the points I raise, putting words in my mouth, demanding that I prove claims that I never made, and just generally avoiding answering. This is one of the most dishonest debates I've engaged in, it's quite frustrating. I actually took time and care with my responses.
Post by: luisc99 on 25 February 2016, 03:18:54 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 February 2016, 09:16:29 PM
Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.
go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.
Jeeeez, your comment is the scummy one Livid.
And I don't think this has been a nice debate, Ender has been conducting his side of the debate in a totally dishonest manner, avoiding answering to the points I raise, putting words in my mouth, demanding that I prove claims that I never made, and just generally avoiding answering. This is one of the most dishonest debates I've engaged in, it's quite frustrating. I actually took time and care with my responses.
Frankly, you've been putting words in my mouth too.
Dishonest? This is assuming your and your argument only is correct?
Answer this single question before putting forth all those times I was "dishonest". Let's start anew, since your salt levels are obviously above the legal safety limit.
If a cake can't bake itself, why do you believe that the universe can exist from nothing?
Take the time to actually respond to all of my points in the previous post. You haven't, and your only response is an "I don't know." Provide some sort of counter-argument before rushing to the conclusion that I'm pulling a strawman.
Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.@gerrit70 I'd ask that you kindly leave before any cancer spreads. Thaaaaanks.
@Lividup64 You might want to contribute some stuff too before @Airbongus Van Winkledorf rushes to any more inaccurate conclusions. You know, actually help out. I'm only one person and have time for only so much.
Post by: Akomine on 25 February 2016, 10:37:33 PM
Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.
go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.
Jeeeez, your comment is the scummy one Livid.
And I don't think this has been a nice debate, Ender has been conducting his side of the debate in a totally dishonest manner, avoiding answering to the points I raise, putting words in my mouth, demanding that I prove claims that I never made, and just generally avoiding answering. This is one of the most dishonest debates I've engaged in, it's quite frustrating. I actually took time and care with my responses.
Frankly, you've been putting words in my mouth too.
Dishonest? This is assuming your and your argument only is correct?
Answer this single question before putting forth all those times I was "dishonest". Let's start anew, since your salt levels are obviously above the legal safety limit.
If a cake can't bake itself, why do you believe that the universe can exist from nothing?
Take the time to actually respond to all of my points in the previous post. You haven't, and your only response is an "I don't know." Provide some sort of counter-argument before rushing to the conclusion that I'm pulling a strawman.
Name one time I put words in your mouth. Name one.
And then the rest of your post goes on to repeat the strawman argument yet again that I've pointed out to you like 4 times now. I've put it in bold.
How many times do I have to tell you that:
a) The Big Bang Theory does not claim "the universe can exist from nothing".
b) I never claimed "the universe can exist from nothing".
You are arguing a strawman.
And you accuse me of not reading your posts? Good grief. Respond to some of my points before acting like I haven't bothered to present any! How rude of you. How dishonest.
Quote from: EnderEssence
Dishonest? This is assuming your and your argument only is correct?
NO - Dishonest as in, you keep putting words in my mouth, like you literally just did again, which I've pointed out above.
You've been dishonestly conducting this debate in other ways as well, which I've also pointed out several times, though you seem to ignore most of what I say.
Reminder, please fill in the yellow box of this chart:
(http://i.imgur.com/zxkxxMz.png)
Post by: Airbongo on 25 February 2016, 11:53:04 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 February 2016, 09:23:38 AM
Give me a few days. I'll get back to you.
Post by: Akomine on 2 March 2016, 09:16:14 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 7 March 2016, 10:10:02 PM
Sorry, I've just been quite busy over the past few weeks (and next couple to come at least) and haven't been able to do much VC-related.
(This is not affiliated with evidence-searching in any way, just to clarify.)
Until then, later.
Post by: Lividup64 on 8 March 2016, 02:36:57 AM
I'll take a look as soon as I can.
Sorry, I've just been quite busy over the past few weeks (and next couple to come at least) and haven't been able to do much VC-related.
(This is not affiliated with evidence-searching in any way, just to clarify.)
Until then, later.
With all due respect, this is entirely a useless post. Sorry to sound harsh, but people aren't waiting around to read your posts. Also, we didn't need to know that you'll absent unless you'll be gone for two months.
To put it short:
We don't care.
Post by: EnderEssence on 9 March 2016, 11:55:44 AM
I'll take a look as soon as I can.
Sorry, I've just been quite busy over the past few weeks (and next couple to come at least) and haven't been able to do much VC-related.
(This is not affiliated with evidence-searching in any way, just to clarify.)
Until then, later.
With all due respect, this is entirely a useless post. Sorry to sound harsh, but people aren't waiting around to read your posts. Also, we didn't need to know that you'll absent unless you'll be gone for two months.
To put it short:
We don't care.
@Lividup64
Ahem...
This is what happened when I didn't mention that I would be absent.
It's been two weeks m8, where's the proof?
Following that, this happened:
Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.
Why are you even commenting here if you're not even contributing to this? Maybe you could, I don't know, help a little instead of sitting there while there's a bombardment of comments from Ako, Air, Gerrit (albeit idiotic), and to a limited extent, Luis? Seeing that you are far more active on the forums, maybe a kind suggestion like that would work? I'm only one person with so much time.
#PleaseGetYourFactsStraight
Post by: Akomine on 9 March 2016, 04:07:13 PM
#ThatsApparentlyHowThisWorks
Post by: OctoGamer on 14 March 2016, 02:47:09 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 March 2016, 08:26:56 AM
ender why do you have to specify you not being here has nothing to do with evidence searching.
Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo.
Well to be fair to Gerrit, seeing as how the Big Bang has been disproved in this thread, that clearly means the only other option is that I, Ako, am god.
#ThatsApparentlyHowThisWorks
This is literally getting nowhere.
Post by: OctoGamer on 17 March 2016, 04:01:48 PM
ender why do you have to specify you not being here has nothing to do with evidence searching.
Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo.Well to be fair to Gerrit, seeing as how the Big Bang has been disproved in this thread, that clearly means the only other option is that I, Ako, am god.
#ThatsApparentlyHowThisWorks
This is literally getting nowhere.
Well if i recall i can post on any goddamn thread i want.
Post by: Airbongo on 17 March 2016, 05:11:39 PM
Post by: Akomine on 17 March 2016, 05:48:35 PM
Quote
Well to be fair to Gerrit, seeing as how the Big Bang has been disproved in this thread, that clearly means the only other option is that I, Ako, am god.
#ThatsApparentlyHowThisWorks
This is literally getting nowhere.
I used the exact same argument you did, seems to have got us just as far.
Where's da evidence
^
Post by: EnderEssence on 18 March 2016, 11:22:35 AM
QuoteWell to be fair to Gerrit, seeing as how the Big Bang has been disproved in this thread, that clearly means the only other option is that I, Ako, am god.
#ThatsApparentlyHowThisWorks
This is literally getting nowhere.
I used the exact same argument you did, seems to have got us just as far.Where's da evidence
^
Not sure if that was supposed to be a roast or not @Akomine.
@Airbongus Van Winkledorf I've provided arguments that you still haven't been able to answer on your own (Big Bang coming from literally nothing, and a cake being unable to bake itself and putting that on a larger scale, which you have only been able to provide theoretical, rather than solid, comebacks for).
With your ideology, you might as well disprove the existence of pain, since there's only evidence of pain (outbursts, stimulation of receptors, etc.). There is no "physical proof" of pain, only quite blatantly obvious evidence of its effects.
You may as well disprove that love exists as well, since there's no "physical proof" of that either.
You're asking me to provide such proof, but with God.
Post by: Akomine on 18 March 2016, 01:36:33 PM
Not sure if that was supposed to be a roast or not @Akomine.
@Airbongus Van Winkledorf I've provided arguments that you still haven't been able to answer on your own (Big Bang coming from literally nothing, and a cake being unable to bake itself and putting that on a larger scale, which you have only been able to provide theoretical, rather than solid, comebacks for).
With your ideology, you might as well disprove the existence of pain, since there's only evidence of pain (outbursts, stimulation of receptors, etc.). There is no "physical proof" of pain, only quite blatantly obvious evidence of its effects.
You may as well disprove that love exists as well, since there's no "physical proof" of that either.
You're asking me to provide such proof, but with God.
Again, for the 32,677th time, the big bang "coming from literally nothing" argument of yours is:
a) incorrect, the big bang theory never claims that.
b) irrelevant, as disproving the big bang does not somehow prove your god exists (I'm not sure why you think it does).
Your cake argument reminds me of the watchmaker argument, only you're using a cake rather than a watch. It's a human-made object and doesn't occur naturally, which makes it a bad comparison to the universe, which we can't just bake in an oven. No, a cake can't bake itself, but a river can carve out a path through the landscape by itself without being created by anyone. We are all aware of cakes being created by humans, and in fact we have evidence of humans making cakes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENdgyD7Uar4
But where's the evidence of the universe being created by someone?
And for whatever it's worth: you're wrong about pain and love. There absolutely is physical proof of both of these things occurring in the brain, which is part of the study of neuroscience.
Post by: EnderEssence on 18 March 2016, 05:55:57 PM
Perhaps we should take this by a step-by-step approach.
...but a river can carve out a path through the landscape by itself without being created by anyone.
I'm going to ask you where that original landscape came from, which you're going to say that it came from the process of the Earth's creation 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in a giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun, and then I'm going to ask you how and where that giant disc-shaped material possibly appeared and afterwards came to have Earth at exactly the right degrees away from the Sun with just the right aspects for life to start occurring (and how life even came to be from intangible materials) purely by scientific coincidence.
Dear Ako, please explain to me how this process just happened to be. Not pulling a double standard here, but "I don't know" doesn't quite make the cut. Neither does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Seriously, the Romans invented pasta.
Post by: PengBunny on 18 March 2016, 06:18:53 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 18 March 2016, 06:24:45 PM
Allow me to reiterate on pain and love. There are signs of their existence, but there is no such thing as a "pain particle" or "love particle". The blatantly obvious signs of their existence are, as you just mentioned, the stimulation they cause within the brain and such."I don't know" is sure as fuck better than thinking god did it.
Perhaps we should take this by a step-by-step approach.
...but a river can carve out a path through the landscape by itself without being created by anyone.
I'm going to ask you where that original landscape came from, which you're going to say that it came from the process of the Earth's creation 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in a giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun, and then I'm going to ask you how and where that giant disc-shaped material possibly appeared and afterwards came to have Earth at exactly the right degrees away from the Sun with just the right aspects for life to start occurring (and how life even came to be from intangible materials) purely by scientific coincidence.
Dear Ako, please explain to me how this process just happened to be. Not pulling a double standard here, but "I don't know" doesn't quite make the cut. Neither does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Seriously, the Romans invented pasta.
Post by: Akomine on 18 March 2016, 07:00:00 PM
Allow me to reiterate on pain and love. There are signs of their existence, but there is no such thing as a "pain particle" or "love particle". The blatantly obvious signs of their existence are, as you just mentioned, the stimulation they cause within the brain and such.
Pain and love are caused by physical transmissions of chemicals and electricity that communicate within the body with a network of receptors and synapses. Everything physically exists in this process, there's no magic involved. To be clear: "pain" and "love" are just the words we use to describe the physical phenomena that we feel, and which takes place inside of us. It's not just that there's signs of their existence, it's that these communications inside of our body actually physically exist as matter and energy, and neuroscience studies how this physically works.
Quote
Perhaps we should take this by a step-by-step approach.
...but a river can carve out a path through the landscape by itself without being created by anyone.
I'm going to ask you where that original landscape came from, which you're going to say that it came from the process of the Earth's creation 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in a giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun, and then I'm going to ask you how and where that giant disc-shaped material possibly appeared and afterwards came to have Earth at exactly the right degrees away from the Sun with just the right aspects for life to start occurring (and how life even came to be from intangible materials) purely by scientific coincidence.
Dear Ako, please explain to me how this process just happened to be. Not pulling a double standard here, but "I don't know" doesn't quite make the cut. Neither does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Seriously, the Romans invented pasta.
You have made the claim that a god exists and created the universe. I have made no claims and have no burden to prove anything. You have a burden to prove your claim.
I am comfortable with saying I don't know. That's my honest, humble position on this: I don't know. This position is preferable to me rather than making a claim without evidence. I agree with Airbo.
Do you have any evidence your god exists?
Post by: Lividup64 on 18 March 2016, 07:10:59 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 18 March 2016, 07:19:43 PM
I am comfortable with saying I don't know. That's my honest, humble position on this: I don't know.
I'm going to switch things up a bit.
I'm going to get to the argument in the next post, but I'm going to need you (and @Airbongus Van Winkledorf) to acknowledge that the Quran is over 1370 years old. (No divination arguments or anything, just that simple fact.)
Post by: Airbongo on 18 March 2016, 07:56:06 PM
Let's start off with something simple:Yeah so what? Couldn't you just make your point.I am comfortable with saying I don't know. That's my honest, humble position on this: I don't know.
I'm going to switch things up a bit.
I'm going to get to the argument in the next post, but I'm going to need you (and @Airbongus Van Winkledorf) to acknowledge that the Quran is over 1370 years old. (No divination arguments or anything, just that simple fact.)
Post by: Akomine on 18 March 2016, 08:18:16 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 18 March 2016, 09:55:58 PM
he doesn't have a point.Let's start off with something simple:Yeah so what? Couldn't you just make your point.I am comfortable with saying I don't know. That's my honest, humble position on this: I don't know.
I'm going to switch things up a bit.
I'm going to get to the argument in the next post, but I'm going to need you (and @Airbongus Van Winkledorf) to acknowledge that the Quran is over 1370 years old. (No divination arguments or anything, just that simple fact.)
Post by: EnderEssence on 19 March 2016, 04:42:00 PM
he doesn't have a point.@OctoGamer
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/1c/1c964f733a52a26c0d1e04995f7b0052241fa31973a89ea2985012646006e1dc.jpg)
Ahem...
Do you acknowledge it, Air?
Post by: Airbongo on 19 March 2016, 05:07:04 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 19 March 2016, 06:53:18 PM
I don't really see how this thread is yours kid.he doesn't have a point.@OctoGamer
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/1c/1c964f733a52a26c0d1e04995f7b0052241fa31973a89ea2985012646006e1dc.jpg)
Ahem...
Do you acknowledge it, Air?
Post by: Shensley on 19 March 2016, 07:29:02 PM
he doesn't have a point.@OctoGamer
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/1c/1c964f733a52a26c0d1e04995f7b0052241fa31973a89ea2985012646006e1dc.jpg)
Ahem...
Do you acknowledge it, Air?
@EnderEssence Just checked.... You didn't make the thread, So don't tell people to get off a PUBLIC post. If a post is public everyone can post on it and just because the post wasn't for a person doesn't mean they are not allowed to post. AND octo posted before you so doesn't that make it his thread????
Post by: EnderEssence on 19 March 2016, 08:49:14 PM
Sorry, couldn't find anything that said "this" instead of "my"...I searched for a good fifteen minutes.
I should probably stop searching for meme responses now.
Post by: Shensley on 19 March 2016, 09:50:01 PM
@shensley and @OctoGamer
Sorry, couldn't find anything that said "this" instead of "my"...I searched for a good fifteen minutes.
I should probably stop searching for meme responses now.
Its cool, Just next time understand that everyone can post on a public thread.
Also: https://makeameme.org/
^Good Place to make memes :)
Post by: Airbongo on 20 March 2016, 01:18:07 AM
Post by: OctoGamer on 20 March 2016, 05:06:42 PM
Still not making your point, I see.because he doesn't have one
Post by: Akomine on 21 March 2016, 08:36:38 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 27 March 2016, 02:05:40 AM
Still not making your point, I see.
Oh, sorry. Was taking a break from the forums and completely forgot about this.
I'll get back to you two soon.
Post by: Airbongo on 27 March 2016, 01:01:03 PM
Mhm I'm sure that will happen "soon".Still not making your point, I see.
Oh, sorry. Was taking a break from the forums and completely forgot about this.
I'll get back to you two soon.
Post by: OctoGamer on 27 March 2016, 01:14:25 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 27 March 2016, 05:26:43 PM
enders probs researching "taking a break from the fourms" thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Shut the hell up Octo.
When I say I'm taking a forum break, I mean it.
You're not contributing in any way with your presence.
Post by: luisc99 on 27 March 2016, 05:57:55 PM
enders probs researching "taking a break from the fourms" thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Shut the hell up Octo.
When I say I'm taking a forum break, I mean it.
You're not contributing in any way with your presence.
And "I'll get back to you two soon" is?
Post by: Lividup64 on 27 March 2016, 06:43:44 PM
enders probs researching "taking a break from the fourms" thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Shut the hell up Octo.
When I say I'm taking a forum break, I mean it.
You're not contributing in any way with your presence.
In the words of Mitt Romney talking about Donald Trump, "You are very, very not smart."
Post by: OctoGamer on 27 March 2016, 07:09:43 PM
Post by: Shensley on 27 March 2016, 08:34:07 PM
Hello from the other side Other side of the pillow, Cool side says Hi
Post by: EnderEssence on 27 March 2016, 08:39:16 PM
lol ender salty boy, you just "take a break" when someones waiting for you to make a point.
Sure, believe that. Ignorance is bliss.
Please, this is a cancer-free zone.
Post by: OctoGamer on 28 March 2016, 03:03:41 PM
what you think your better than me?lol ender salty boy, you just "take a break" when someones waiting for you to make a point.
Sure, believe that. Ignorance is bliss.
Please, this is a cancer-free zone.
Post by: Shensley on 28 March 2016, 03:13:31 PM
May I ask why you're here then??
Post by: Akomine on 28 March 2016, 04:13:48 PM
Post by: Lividup64 on 28 March 2016, 04:21:50 PM
Ender, the book is old af, me and air agree, 'nuff lollygagging, now please make your point. Kindof bullshitty to say you'll make an argument, but require us to acknowledge something first, then when we do you just "take a break". Rude. What does that even mean? It's just a forum, you can pop on and give a response, it's not like a big commitment. What are you so busy with anyways? Doesn't even take that long to kill infidels, jeez.
Infidels make the best pizza.
Post by: EnderEssence on 31 March 2016, 08:04:10 PM
Ender, the book is old af, me and air agree, 'nuff lollygagging, now please make your point.
Okay, I'll hold onto that for future reference.
Let me make my argument clear-cut:
I'm going to attempt to prove the existence of God via the Quran. What I intend to do below is prove that some of the information in the Quran (which you have agreed is over 1370 years old) proves that the Quran comes from God (and thus proves God's existence as well) due to those pieces of information only recently being discovered via other methods and being nearly impossible to know back then.
I'm going to cite verses from the Quran (in English, of course, for everyone's convenience) displaying the information. I'm also going to ask you in advance how else that only recently discovered information ended up in an almost 1400 year old collection of scriptures without a divine being (God) revealing it beforehand. I'm genuinely curious as to what your response will be. No Air, "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "magic space monkeys" don't cut it. Get real. And @OctoGamer, you really need some milk.
Are we all on the same page? Great.
Now, the actual argument:
1. Today we know that the Earth is oval shaped, bulging at the equator. Thirteen centuries ago, it was thought that the Earth was flat. In other words, it was not known then that the Earth was round, let alone oval.
Verse: "and the Earth, after that, He made it like a deheya (egg)" (79:30)
The word "deheya" in Arabic means an egg, hence the oval shape. But the verse also includes a further remarkably accurate scientific fact. The words 'after that' clearly indicate that the Earth acquired the oval shape at a later stage in its formation. Modern science will testify that the bulging of the Earth at the equator is a result of the continuous spinning of the Earth on its axis, and thus had to occur sometime after the formation of the Earth. The Earth spins on its axis at a speed of one thousand miles per hour.
2. The movement of Earth in space.
Verse: "When you look at the mountains, you think that they are standing still. But they are moving, like the clouds. Such is the manufacture of God, who perfected everything. He is fully Cognizant of everything you do." (27:88)
Since the Earth is moving in space, everything on Earth is moving with it, including the mountains mentioned.
3. The Romans (Byzantines) were defeated in battle in the lowest land on Earth.
Verse: "The Romans were defeated in the lowest of the lands" (30:2-3)
In 613-614, the Persians had severely defeated Christian Byzantium in battle in the area near the Dead Sea. At 399 meters below sea level, the Dead Sea is the "lowest" place on Earth's surface, something that was not known by anyone at the time.
4. Where two different seas meet, they do not mix together.
Verse: "He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through." (55:19-20)
Because of surface tension, the waters of neighboring seas do not mix (Their temperature, salinity, and densities do not change). Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.
5. Living creatures (like humans) are made up of mostly water.
Verse: "Allah created every [living] creature from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things." (24:45)
The words "Water is the main component of organic matter. 50-90% of the weight of living things consists of water" appear regularly in encyclopedias. Furthermore, 80% of the cytoplasm of a standard animal cell is described as water in biology textbooks. The analysis of cytoplasm and its appearance in textbooks took place hundreds of years after the revelation of the Quran. It is therefore impossible for this fact, now accepted by the scientific community, to have been known at the time the Quran was revealed. Yet, attention was drawn to it in the Quran 1400 years before its discovery.
Your turn, Ako.
Post by: luisc99 on 31 March 2016, 08:30:58 PM
The King James Bible was published in 1610 when William Shakespere was 46 years old. If we take the aforementioned book and go to Psalm 46 and count the 46th word from the beginning this will be 'shake' - 'though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof.' If we then count 46 words from the end of Psalm 46 the word is spear - 'and cutteth the spear in sunder'. A similar thing has been found in the same book for the word William too.
Due to the nature of randomness and the vast amount of time human history has existed for, there is an almost zero chance that things like this have never occurred. Links between modern facts and historical points exist, and there are people who find them as a hobby. They don't prove anything. It's just pure coincidence. Nothing more
Post by: EnderEssence on 31 March 2016, 09:00:31 PM
The Great Pyramid of Guza, which was built around 4000 years ago, has the geographical coordinates of 29.9792458, 31.134658. What's that got to do with anything? It just happens to be the exact speed of light. 299,792,458 m/s.
The King James Bible was published in 1610 when William Shakespere was 46 years old. If we take the aforementioned book and go to Psalm 46 and count the 46th word from the beginning this will be 'shake' - 'though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof.' If we then count 46 words from the end of Psalm 46 the word is spear - 'and cutteth the spear in sunder'. A similar thing has been found in the same book for the word William too.
Due to the nature of randomness and the vast amount of time human history has existed for, there is an almost zero chance that things like this have never occurred. Links between modern facts and historical points exist, and there are people who find them as a hobby. They don't prove anything. It's just pure coincidence. Nothing more
Yeah, I like reading up on stuff like that from time to time.
Please don't tell me that what I just wrote and those stuff fall under the same category. They don't.
Post by: Lividup64 on 31 March 2016, 09:26:56 PM
The Great Pyramid of Guza, which was built around 4000 years ago, has the geographical coordinates of 29.9792458, 31.134658. What's that got to do with anything? It just happens to be the exact speed of light. 299,792,458 m/s.
The King James Bible was published in 1610 when William Shakespere was 46 years old. If we take the aforementioned book and go to Psalm 46 and count the 46th word from the beginning this will be 'shake' - 'though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof.' If we then count 46 words from the end of Psalm 46 the word is spear - 'and cutteth the spear in sunder'. A similar thing has been found in the same book for the word William too.
Due to the nature of randomness and the vast amount of time human history has existed for, there is an almost zero chance that things like this have never occurred. Links between modern facts and historical points exist, and there are people who find them as a hobby. They don't prove anything. It's just pure coincidence. Nothing more
Guza!
Post by: Akomine on 31 March 2016, 11:13:34 PM
I'd like to mention that you've ignored my point by point posts for the most part, which I find rude. You've also engaged in a completely dishonest form of discussion several times in this thread, which bothers me to no end, so I do this for the readers of this forum more than I do it for you.
Ender, the book is old af, me and air agree, 'nuff lollygagging, now please make your point.
Okay, I'll hold onto that for future reference.
Let me make my argument clear-cut:
I'm going to attempt to prove the existence of God via the Quran. What I intend to do below is prove that some of the information in the Quran (which you have agreed is over 1370 years old) proves that the Quran comes from God (and thus proves God's existence as well) due to those pieces of information only recently being discovered via other methods and being nearly impossible to know back then.
I'm going to cite verses from the Quran (in English, of course, for everyone's convenience) displaying the information. I'm also going to ask you in advance how else that only recently discovered information ended up in an almost 1400 year old collection of scriptures without a divine being (God) revealing it beforehand. I'm genuinely curious as to what your response will be. No Air, "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "magic space monkeys" don't cut it. Get real. And @OctoGamer, you really need some milk.
Are we all on the same page? Great.
Now, the actual argument:
1. Today we know that the Earth is oval shaped, bulging at the equator. Thirteen centuries ago, it was thought that the Earth was flat. In other words, it was not known then that the Earth was round, let alone oval.
Demonstrably incorrect. The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to at least the ancient Greeks in the 6th century BCE, a very long time before the Quran ever came about.
Read the first line of this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
Quote
Verse: "and the Earth, after that, He made it like a deheya (egg)" (79:30)
The word "deheya" in Arabic means an egg, hence the oval shape. But the verse also includes a further remarkably accurate scientific fact. The words 'after that' clearly indicate that the Earth acquired the oval shape at a later stage in its formation. Modern science will testify that the bulging of the Earth at the equator is a result of the continuous spinning of the Earth on its axis, and thus had to occur sometime after the formation of the Earth. The Earth spins on its axis at a speed of one thousand miles per hour.
The Earth is a sphere with a slight protrusion at the equator, yes. This makes it slightly an oblate spheroid (not oval, that's a 2D shape). Some eggs are prolate spheroids (not oblate like the Earth), and many are closer to just being spheres, so I'm not quite sure how this verse is evidence of anything. It isn't even correct.
To be clear: The earth is an oblate spheroid, while eggs range from being prolate spheroids, to spheroids, to whatever the fuck a chicken egg is. I don't know of any oblate spheroid eggs (like the Earth).
Here's some information on these terms and how they are different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid
And again, the concept of a spherical Earth predates the Quran by many centuries.
Quote
2. The movement of Earth in space.
Verse: "When you look at the mountains, you think that they are standing still. But they are moving, like the clouds. Such is the manufacture of God, who perfected everything. He is fully Cognizant of everything you do." (27:88)
Since the Earth is moving in space, everything on Earth is moving with it, including the mountains mentioned.
This verse could mean so many things, like talking about tectonic motion or erosion or anything. How do you jump to it meaning moving through space? Especially when it's compared to the clouds. It doesn't seem to be talking about astrophysics at all.
Furthermore, again, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians studied a lot about space, and might have been able to tell you this long before the Quran existed. I don't know, this is really vague.
Quote
3. The Romans (Byzantines) were defeated in battle in the lowest land on Earth.
Verse: "The Romans were defeated in the lowest of the lands" (30:2-3)
In 613-614, the Persians had severely defeated Christian Byzantium in battle in the area near the Dead Sea. At 399 meters below sea level, the Dead Sea is the "lowest" place on Earth's surface, something that was not known by anyone at the time.
That part of history took place in and around that region, and the Dead Sea region would have been what they considered the "lowest of lands". The fact that the Dead Sea region is the lowest area on the planet is an interesting piece of information I suppose...
If you're claiming the Quran is stating that the Dead Sea region is the lowest place on Earth, then you're not only making a reaching claim (that verse doesn't say that), but you're also ignoring the historical reality of where this book what written. It's the lowest place in that region where the Roman Empire was toiling. It's a noteworthy fact. Moving on.
There's no reason to believe that the concept of the Dead Sea being the lowest place in the region didn't predate the Quran.
Quote
4. Where two different seas meet, they do not mix together.
Verse: "He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through." (55:19-20)
Because of surface tension, the waters of neighboring seas do not mix (Their temperature, salinity, and densities do not change). Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.
This is incorrect, the seas do mix. There is an interesting phenomenon where water of differing properties resist mixing, however they do mix, and it is an extremely important aspect of the Earth's hydrological cycle.
I studied this in university, but there's no reason to get into this here because it seems to have nothing to do with proving your god. Why did you include this? What does this have to do with anything?
Quote
5. Living creatures (like humans) are made up of mostly water.
Verse: "Allah created every [living] creature from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things." (24:45)
The words "Water is the main component of organic matter. 50-90% of the weight of living things consists of water" appear regularly in encyclopedias. Furthermore, 80% of the cytoplasm of a standard animal cell is described as water in biology textbooks. The analysis of cytoplasm and its appearance in textbooks took place hundreds of years after the revelation of the Quran. It is therefore impossible for this fact, now accepted by the scientific community, to have been known at the time the Quran was revealed. Yet, attention was drawn to it in the Quran 1400 years before its discovery.
Your turn, Ako.
Allah created every living creature from water... somehow has something to do with cell cytoplasm? I'm pretty sure the understanding that there's water inside of living things predates the Quran, man. What is this?
Super weak arguments here. I don't even begin to understand how this proves your god exists.
These are barely even arguments. They're what Luis said; loosely connecting modern scientific facts to historical points.
We waited months for this!?
Post by: Airbongo on 31 March 2016, 11:21:06 PM
Post by: luisc99 on 1 April 2016, 03:59:49 AM
Yeah, I like reading up on stuff like that from time to time.
Please don't tell me that what I just wrote and those stuff fall under the same category? They don't.
How do they not fall under the same category. Both my points and your points use historical things to prove modern things. If someone tries hard enough, they can use coincidence to find "proof" for anything.
Ako's right. Many of your points were known before the Quran in one way or another. Plus, depending on translations, it's possible it doesn't mean the same point in the original text. The Greeks knew about the Earth in space and could've probably predicted it moving. If the lowest point on land was in that bit of Italy, there's quite a high chance that the lowest part of the ocean is somewhere close by. And although it's said we thought the Earth was flat, evidence suggests that more people believed it was round all throughout history.
Oh and Livid, stop picking out my spelling mistakes. It was 1:30 and I was typing on a phone
Post by: OctoGamer on 1 April 2016, 06:26:56 AM
Post by: Lividup64 on 1 April 2016, 06:31:52 AM
Yeah, I like reading up on stuff like that from time to time.
Please don't tell me that what I just wrote and those stuff fall under the same category? They don't.
How do they not fall under the same category. Both my points and your points use historical things to prove modern things. If someone tries hard enough, they can use coincidence to find "proof" for anything.
Ako's right. Many of your points were known before the Quran in one way or another. Plus, depending on translations, it's possible it doesn't mean the same point in the original text. The Greeks knew about the Earth in space and could've probably predicted it moving. If the lowest point on land was in that bit of Italy, there's quite a high chance that the lowest part of the ocean is somewhere close by. And although it's said we thought the Earth was flat, evidence suggests that more people believed it was round all throughout history.
Oh and Livid, stop picking out my spelling mistakes. It was 1:30 and I was typing on a phone
But Guza was funny, sorry. :(
Post by: Airbongo on 2 April 2016, 01:03:30 AM
Wait a week to reply and he will say he is taking a break from the forums and will get back to us.
Post by: EnderEssence on 2 April 2016, 08:05:04 AM
took ender like a month to find this copy and paste reply. and ako replied so quickly lol. ender it seems like half of the stuff in your argument has to do with science.Octo, you couldn't debate anything if your life depended on it, so you might as well shut up. :)
What Ender is gonna do:I have a life outside the forums. I don't think you have the right to come to any conclusions as of now, no offense.
Wait a week to reply and he will say he is taking a break from the forums and will get back to us.
So Luis's reply is already excellent, but I'll take it point by point for you.I've read this point for point, thank you kindly.
I'd like to mention that you've ignored my point by point posts for the most part, which I find rude. You've also engaged in a completely dishonest form of discussion several times in this thread, which bothers me to no end, so I do this for the readers of this forum more than I do it for you.Ender, the book is old af, me and air agree, 'nuff lollygagging, now please make your point.
Okay, I'll hold onto that for future reference.
Let me make my argument clear-cut:
I'm going to attempt to prove the existence of God via the Quran. What I intend to do below is prove that some of the information in the Quran (which you have agreed is over 1370 years old) proves that the Quran comes from God (and thus proves God's existence as well) due to those pieces of information only recently being discovered via other methods and being nearly impossible to know back then.
I'm going to cite verses from the Quran (in English, of course, for everyone's convenience) displaying the information. I'm also going to ask you in advance how else that only recently discovered information ended up in an almost 1400 year old collection of scriptures without a divine being (God) revealing it beforehand. I'm genuinely curious as to what your response will be. No Air, "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "magic space monkeys" don't cut it. Get real. And @OctoGamer, you really need some milk.
Are we all on the same page? Great.
Now, the actual argument:
1. Today we know that the Earth is oval shaped, bulging at the equator. Thirteen centuries ago, it was thought that the Earth was flat. In other words, it was not known then that the Earth was round, let alone oval.
Demonstrably incorrect. The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to at least the ancient Greeks in the 6th century BCE, a very long time before the Quran ever came about.
Read the first line of this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_EarthQuoteVerse: "and the Earth, after that, He made it like a deheya (egg)" (79:30)
The word "deheya" in Arabic means an egg, hence the oval shape. But the verse also includes a further remarkably accurate scientific fact. The words 'after that' clearly indicate that the Earth acquired the oval shape at a later stage in its formation. Modern science will testify that the bulging of the Earth at the equator is a result of the continuous spinning of the Earth on its axis, and thus had to occur sometime after the formation of the Earth. The Earth spins on its axis at a speed of one thousand miles per hour.
The Earth is a sphere with a slight protrusion at the equator, yes. This makes it slightly an oblate spheroid (not oval, that's a 2D shape). Some eggs are prolate spheroids (not oblate like the Earth), and many are closer to just being spheres, so I'm not quite sure how this verse is evidence of anything. It isn't even correct.
To be clear: The earth is an oblate spheroid, while eggs range from being prolate spheroids, to spheroids, to whatever the fuck a chicken egg is. I don't know of any oblate spheroid eggs (like the Earth).
Here's some information on these terms and how they are different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid
And again, the concept of a spherical Earth predates the Quran by many centuries.Quote2. The movement of Earth in space.
Verse: "When you look at the mountains, you think that they are standing still. But they are moving, like the clouds. Such is the manufacture of God, who perfected everything. He is fully Cognizant of everything you do." (27:88)
Since the Earth is moving in space, everything on Earth is moving with it, including the mountains mentioned.
This verse could mean so many things, like talking about tectonic motion or erosion or anything. How do you jump to it meaning moving through space? Especially when it's compared to the clouds. It doesn't seem to be talking about astrophysics at all.
Furthermore, again, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians studied a lot about space, and might have been able to tell you this long before the Quran existed. I don't know, this is really vague.Quote3. The Romans (Byzantines) were defeated in battle in the lowest land on Earth.
Verse: "The Romans were defeated in the lowest of the lands" (30:2-3)
In 613-614, the Persians had severely defeated Christian Byzantium in battle in the area near the Dead Sea. At 399 meters below sea level, the Dead Sea is the "lowest" place on Earth's surface, something that was not known by anyone at the time.
That part of history took place in and around that region, and the Dead Sea region would have been what they considered the "lowest of lands". The fact that the Dead Sea region is the lowest area on the planet is an interesting piece of information I suppose...
If you're claiming the Quran is stating that the Dead Sea region is the lowest place on Earth, then you're not only making a reaching claim (that verse doesn't say that), but you're also ignoring the historical reality of where this book what written. It's the lowest place in that region where the Roman Empire was toiling. It's a noteworthy fact. Moving on.
There's no reason to believe that the concept of the Dead Sea being the lowest place in the region didn't predate the Quran.Quote4. Where two different seas meet, they do not mix together.
Verse: "He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through." (55:19-20)
Because of surface tension, the waters of neighboring seas do not mix (Their temperature, salinity, and densities do not change). Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.
This is incorrect, the seas do mix. There is an interesting phenomenon where water of differing properties resist mixing, however they do mix, and it is an extremely important aspect of the Earth's hydrological cycle.
I studied this in university, but there's no reason to get into this here because it seems to have nothing to do with proving your god. Why did you include this? What does this have to do with anything?Quote5. Living creatures (like humans) are made up of mostly water.
Verse: "Allah created every [living] creature from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things." (24:45)
The words "Water is the main component of organic matter. 50-90% of the weight of living things consists of water" appear regularly in encyclopedias. Furthermore, 80% of the cytoplasm of a standard animal cell is described as water in biology textbooks. The analysis of cytoplasm and its appearance in textbooks took place hundreds of years after the revelation of the Quran. It is therefore impossible for this fact, now accepted by the scientific community, to have been known at the time the Quran was revealed. Yet, attention was drawn to it in the Quran 1400 years before its discovery.
Your turn, Ako.
Allah created every living creature from water... somehow has something to do with cell cytoplasm? I'm pretty sure the understanding that there's water inside of living things predates the Quran, man. What is this?
Super weak arguments here. I don't even begin to understand how this proves your god exists.
These are barely even arguments. They're what Luis said; loosely connecting modern scientific facts to historical points.
I'll provide more evidence ( I was lazy and limited myself to five). Octo needs some milk first, however.
Post by: Lividup64 on 2 April 2016, 08:37:02 AM
Post by: OctoGamer on 2 April 2016, 08:41:31 AM
Post by: Airbongo on 2 April 2016, 03:11:54 PM
Quote
I've read this point for point, thank you kindly.No, you won't provide more "evidence" what the fuck. You will provide a counter argument to Ako and Luis, who disproved your points. This is why Ako says you debate dishonestly. If you try to provide more evidence and you don't even bother defending your own previous evidence that got proven incorrect, then what weight will your future points hold?
I'll provide more evidence ( I was lazy and limited myself to five). Octo needs some milk first, however.
At this point it seems it would be easier to accept defeat and use the faith card. "I have faith that it is true, blah blah blah"
Post by: Akomine on 2 April 2016, 03:57:07 PM
QuoteI've read this point for point, thank you kindly.No, you won't provide more "evidence" what the fuck. You will provide a counter argument to Ako and Luis, who disproved your points. This is why Ako says you debate dishonestly. If you try to provide more evidence and you don't even bother defending your own previous evidence that got proven incorrect, then what weight will your future points hold?
I'll provide more evidence ( I was lazy and limited myself to five). Octo needs some milk first, however.
At this point it seems it would be easier to accept defeat and use the faith card. "I have faith that it is true, blah blah blah"
Yeah, why don't you respond to our points, you fuckleduck?
The "evidence" you provided was bullshit. Wasn't even close to being worthy of being called evidence. Do you acknowledge this?
Here, let me try an argument as weak as one of yours:
Quote
4. Where two different seas meet, they do not mix together.(How the FUCK is this evidence in your mind!?!?)
The faded and ripped instruction label on an old can of pasta sauce I found in the back of my cupboard says that you can mix sauce with pasta and it will be delicious. Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.
Checkmate.
Your turn, Ender.
Post by: EnderEssence on 3 April 2016, 01:18:00 AM
Quote5. Living creatures (like humans) are made up of mostly water.
Verse: "Allah created every [living] creature from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things." (24:45)
The words "Water is the main component of organic matter. 50-90% of the weight of living things consists of water" appear regularly in encyclopedias. Furthermore, 80% of the cytoplasm of a standard animal cell is described as water in biology textbooks. The analysis of cytoplasm and its appearance in textbooks took place hundreds of years after the revelation of the Quran. It is therefore impossible for this fact, now accepted by the scientific community, to have been known at the time the Quran was revealed. Yet, attention was drawn to it in the Quran 1400 years before its discovery.
Allah created every living creature from water... somehow has something to do with cell cytoplasm? I'm pretty sure the understanding that there's water inside of living things predates the Quran, man.
Sorry, that last one was a bit less explanatory than the other four. As for the words highlighted in bold, I'd like to ask you one thing, keeping in mind that the Quran has been around since the 6th century CE:
Proof?
Not a checkmate, Ako. Simply a check, which I hope to have countered. Do you play chess? I'd love to take you on someday.
Post by: Akomine on 3 April 2016, 02:17:03 AM
Quote5. Living creatures (like humans) are made up of mostly water.
Verse: "Allah created every [living] creature from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things." (24:45)
The words "Water is the main component of organic matter. 50-90% of the weight of living things consists of water" appear regularly in encyclopedias. Furthermore, 80% of the cytoplasm of a standard animal cell is described as water in biology textbooks. The analysis of cytoplasm and its appearance in textbooks took place hundreds of years after the revelation of the Quran. It is therefore impossible for this fact, now accepted by the scientific community, to have been known at the time the Quran was revealed. Yet, attention was drawn to it in the Quran 1400 years before its discovery.
Allah created every living creature from water... somehow has something to do with cell cytoplasm? I'm pretty sure the understanding that there's water inside of living things predates the Quran, man.
Sorry, that last one was a bit less explanatory than the other four. As for the words highlighted in bold, I'd like to ask you one thing, keeping in mind that the Quran has been around since the 6th century CE:
Proof?
Not a checkmate, Ako. Simply a check, which I hope to have countered. Do you play chess? I'd love to take you on someday.
Proof of... ancient humans understanding the concept that there's water in living things?
- Basic human survival in the wilderness, like drinking water from vines/cacti/organs.
- There's water in our eyes, mouths, urine.
You can't honestly think the Quran came up with this concept.
Please respond to some of my points rebutting your other arguments.
Post by: Airbongo on 3 April 2016, 02:34:43 AM
Post by: Akomine on 3 April 2016, 03:27:48 AM
Post by: EnderEssence on 3 April 2016, 12:47:59 PM
Are you shitting me? Honestly, are you just trolling at this point? What happens when you cut yourself? You bleed blood, a liquid. What happens when you stab an animal, it bleeds blood, a liquid. What happens when you fucking urinate? WATER COMES OUT! WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN ANIMAL URINATES? WATER COMES OUT. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU STEP ON A BUG? JUICES COME OUT. EAT A FRUIT, JUICES COME OUT. I MEAN, HAVE YOU EVER EATEN A GRAPE? Fucking pocket of water. WE ARE SURROUNDED BY WATER, VISIBLE WATER IS FUCKING EVERYWHERE!! Geee, I wonder where did they get the inspiration to say god made us out of water. God damn, I'm so tired of your stubborn nonsense.
I feel like an idiot, all of a sudden.
I'm going to provide something else then (with pictures!). Please let me know if the following has been known regarding embryology before 600 CE:
Verse: "We (God) created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)..." (23:12-14)
Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot.
In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two as we can see in Figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.
(http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img1.jpg)
Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others. Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)
The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in Figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.
(http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img2.jpg)
Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.)
(http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img3.jpg)
Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother. The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)
The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week. Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.
(http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img4.jpg)
Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage. The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.) So, uh, yeah, sources.
So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage, unless you'd like to argue otherwise?
The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.” (see Figures 5 and 6).
(http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img5.jpg)
Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old). The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance. The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.) I feel like it's really unnecessary to cite these, yet I'm still doing it anyway.
(http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img6.jpg)
Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.
A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)
B) Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed.
How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract. Hmm?
@Lividup64, feel free to add anything more (if you're still actually a part of this anymore).
Post by: Shensley on 3 April 2016, 12:57:11 PM
Post by: luisc99 on 3 April 2016, 01:22:44 PM
I'm going to provide something else then (with pictures!).
Hereby doing exactly what we've been saying all along, and you refuse to accept. Also, the fact you've used pictures makes no difference. You can use pictures to prove anything. If I say that this spoon (https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54d6d464e4b0b41c024949ac/54d70ff1e4b0e2c0ce537060/54d71017e4b01c3fbc005a54/1447783598741/CylaSpoonRenderSide.JPG%253Fformat%253D1000w&imgrefurl=http://www.barentroth.com/infant-spoon/&h=441&w=990&tbnid=hYOnQpxnP36A2M:&docid=CKXqTz1y-uckfM&ei=S00BV-r7M8nyUPn3k-gE&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwiqzcrt-fLLAhVJORQKHfn7BE0QMwhQKCkwKQ) resembles an embryo, your brain will probably see the resemblance.
As we've said before, coincidences happen. The Quran is a large document, and it's written in a different language. Due to translations over the centuries, the way language has developed, and the vast amount of time we've had to discover things as a species, it's almost certain things like this will happen.
Also, great use of copying and pasting other people's arguments, both text and images, directly into this thread. We go through the effort of writing our own posts in 10 mins max, and yet you still take a week to find something online and copy it. Interesting.
I have a life outside the forums.
We all have lives outside of the forums. If you look at Ako, who is currently the person on the forums with the most online time as shown in the stats page (http://www.villagecraft-server.com/forum/index.php?action=stats) (which by the way, this thread is on), joined the forums on February 11, 2012, 03:37:34 AM. At the time I'm writing this, that's 130,775,804 seconds since he joined. He's been on the forums for 3,129,660 seconds overall, which is only 2.393% of his time over the past 4 years. Considering he's also the owner of the server, one of the major moderators of the forums, sets up mods for it, helps sort arguments, and does other things on here which will take time, that's not that much. For comparison, you have spent 2.283% of your time since you joined the forums, actually on the forums. If you span that out over, say, 1 year, that's 8d 18h 12m 21s for Ako, and 8d 8h 31m 54s for you. Get mathed son.
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 April 2016, 02:19:47 PM
Post by: Akomine on 3 April 2016, 02:25:26 PM
What in the honest fuck. This is among the most retarded barf I've ever seen spewed in place of an argument.
Luis is right, you copy and pasted it. And you didn't even give a source. Here's your source: http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm
Or here: http://researchislam.com/science-in-islam/
Or a bunch of others. Seems there's a collection of sites that all plagiarize this nonsense from eachother.
The Quran is not a science book. The Quran is not a history book. If you want to learn about science, you are going to need to do it separately from awful, uninformed islamic websites. This is embarrassing. How could you have posted this and not realized how dumb this is? You have gotten science and history massively wrong consistently throughout this thread BECAUSE YOU ARE GETTING YOUR INFORMATION FROM COMPROMISED RELIGIOUS SOURCES.
Again, the Quran is not a science book. The Quran is not a history book. Stop trying to pull science or history from it.
An embryo looks like chewed gum therefore the quran is fact and god is real!
Fuck me.
Post by: Airbongo on 3 April 2016, 02:43:47 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 3 April 2016, 04:03:56 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 3 April 2016, 06:45:29 PM
It's ok, you aren't dumb, just really brainwashed.Nah, that's just a false alarm caused by the tingling of your MexiSenses.
No I can't take this seriously any more. What in the fuck did I just read!? THAT IS EVIDENCE TO YOU!? Your belief hinges on this nonsensical bullshit? An embryo looks like a piece of chewed gum?! HAHAI don't think you're even analyzing my posts anymore.
What in the honest fuck. This is among the most retarded barf I've ever seen spewed in place of an argument.
Luis is right, you copy and pasted it. And you didn't even give a source. Here's your source: http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm
Or here: http://researchislam.com/science-in-islam/
Or a bunch of others. Seems there's a collection of sites that all plagiarize this nonsense from eachother.
The Quran is not a science book. The Quran is not a history book. If you want to learn about science, you are going to need to do it separately from awful, uninformed islamic websites. This is embarrassing. How could you have posted this and not realized how dumb this is? You have gotten science and history massively wrong consistently throughout this thread BECAUSE YOU ARE GETTING YOUR INFORMATION FROM COMPROMISED RELIGIOUS SOURCES.
Again, the Quran is not a science book. The Quran is not a history book. Stop trying to pull science or history from it.
An embryo looks like chewed gum therefore the quran is fact and god is real!
Fuck me.
Sorry for doing this, but I'm going to refer back to an older part of this thread.
Okay, so I'm arguing that the universe was created by an omnipotent being (God). You and Air argue that the universe was somehow magically able to come together just perfectly for life to start occurring (not to mention that you never were able to answer how life on Earth somehow started existing without omnipotent interference). I can see the reasoning behind why just because you don't know doesn't mean I'm automatically right, but for logic's sake, why aren't you considering the alternatives to the God-or-no-god theory if somehow the existence of a creator makes less sense compared to everything magically creating itself? I'm not advocating billion-handed Hindu gods here, it's just that there's just as many (if not, dare I say, more) holes in your no-god theory than what I've stated before.
You think this is over. We have a long way to go.
This sums a lot up.
(http://i.imgur.com/yTN4I4d.jpg)
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 April 2016, 07:15:51 PM
Post by: Shensley on 3 April 2016, 07:32:12 PM
ender your a dumb ass m8. go spend some time in a science class for a little bit please.
I Agree!
Post by: EnderEssence on 3 April 2016, 07:33:51 PM
ender your a dumb ass m8. go spend some time in a science class for a little bit please.
You're*
Post by: Shensley on 3 April 2016, 07:36:34 PM
ender your a dumb ass m8. go spend some time in a science class for a little bit please.
You're*
Don't start this ender.
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 April 2016, 07:53:15 PM
oh looks like we got a badass over here correcting someone who obviously hasnt been using propper grammar int he first place. congrats you get an award ender.ender your a dumb ass m8. go spend some time in a science class for a little bit please.
You're*
Post by: EnderEssence on 3 April 2016, 07:56:44 PM
Hasn't*oh looks like we got a badass over here correcting someone who obviously hasnt been using propper grammar int he first place. congrats you get an award ender.ender your a dumb ass m8. go spend some time in a science class for a little bit please.
You're*
Proper*
In the*
Apparently I haven't been using proper grammar.
Bye now.
Post by: Akomine on 3 April 2016, 07:59:10 PM
You're right, I'm not analyzing your posts anymore. I don't want to participate because you're being an asshole. You keep lying about what we believe. You just keep doing it. It doesn't seem to matter if I correct you. You just keep shoving words in our mouths. I love having debates and discussing ideas with honest people who are capable of arguing points without resorting to putting words in my mouth. But honestly? The stuff you have said in this thread is disgraceful to the spirit of debate.
Let me remind you not to put words in our mouths for probably the 12th time now, you dishonest fuck. Atheism is NOT the belief that there was nothing and nothing magically exploded, and nothing magically became something. FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, WE NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. You decided we made that claim, and despite me correcting you several times weeks ago, here you are spouting it again. Dishonest fuck. Strawman argument fuck.
For the trillionth time: atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the LACK of a belief in deities. That's it.
I have considered that there might be a deity, and I even invited you to provide evidence of your god belief (because you claimed you had evidence). Instead it has been this constant stream of randomly deciding that I (or air or whoever) hold a position, and you decide to argue against that position as if it provides evidence for your god. That is the definition of a straw man argument. It is dishonest, and I'm not willing to put up with it.
At least recently you've finally decided to provide some sort of 'evidence' that the Quran came up with modern science before modern science did. Problem is, it didn't, as I pointed out and you subsequently ignored (you're a dishonest debater). The weird part is, even if the Quran happened to get one of these claims right (which, so far it hasn't from what I've seen), it still wouldn't prove your god exists. It would just be an interesting note that the Quran had something correct in it.
Your most recent evidence post is a blatant copy and paste from some collection of pseudo-science websites. You didn't bother to source it. You probably didn't bother to read it it seems like (how could you have posted that with a straight face?). And for a guy who seems to want to prove his position with science so much, you seem to constantly dismiss many of the major aspects of scientific knowledge and study. It's so weird.
HEY LOOK CHEWED FOOD LOOKS LIKE AN EMBRYO. THERES YOUR EVIDENCE BOYS. YOUR TURN AKO. WTF NOT ANALYZING MY POSTS NOW? FUCKING ATHEIST
/rant
Respond to some of my points for fuck sakes. Your "evidence" was shit, can you acknowledge that or not? Can you? Can you have the balls to say your argument was wrong?
If you fail to respond to the points I made in an earlier point-by-point post I will no longer bother responding to you thoughtfully. What's the point in responding thoughtfully if my thoughts are ignored? Consistently ignored.
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 April 2016, 08:06:38 PM
gettin a little salt m8? would you like directions to salt lake city? bus or plane?Hasn't*oh looks like we got a badass over here correcting someone who obviously hasnt been using propper grammar int he first place. congrats you get an award ender.ender your a dumb ass m8. go spend some time in a science class for a little bit please.
You're*
Proper*
In the*
Apparently I haven't been using proper grammar.
Bye now.
Post by: EnderEssence on 3 April 2016, 08:27:12 PM
I have pointed out your dishonest way of arguing several times, but you always ignore it. Here you are again saying the same shit yet again. YET AGAIN.
You're right, I'm not analyzing your posts anymore. I don't want to participate because you're being an asshole. You keep lying about what we believe. You just keep doing it. It doesn't seem to matter if I correct you. You just keep shoving words in our mouths. I love having debates and discussing ideas with honest people who are capable of arguing points without resorting to putting words in my mouth. But honestly? The stuff you have said in this thread is disgraceful to the spirit of debate.
Let me remind you not to put words in our mouths for probably the 12th time now, you dishonest fuck. Atheism is NOT the belief that there was nothing and nothing magically exploded, and nothing magically became something. FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, WE NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. You decided we made that claim, and despite me correcting you several times weeks ago, here you are spouting it again. Dishonest fuck. Strawman argument fuck.
For the trillionth time: atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the LACK of a belief in deities. That's it.
I have considered that there might be a deity, and I even invited you to provide evidence of your god belief (because you claimed you had evidence). Instead it has been this constant stream of randomly deciding that I (or air or whoever) hold a position, and you decide to argue against that position as if it provides evidence for your god. That is the definition of a straw man argument. It is dishonest, and I'm not willing to put up with it.
At least recently you've finally decided to provide some sort of 'evidence' that the Quran came up with modern science before modern science did. Problem is, it didn't, as I pointed out and you subsequently ignored (you're a dishonest debater). The weird part is, even if the Quran happened to get one of these claims right (which, so far it hasn't from what I've seen), it still wouldn't prove your god exists. It would just be an interesting note that the Quran had something correct in it.
Your most recent evidence post is a blatant copy and paste from some collection of pseudo-science websites. You didn't bother to source it. You probably didn't bother to read it it seems like (how could you have posted that with a straight face?). And for a guy who seems to want to prove his position with science so much, you seem to constantly dismiss many of the major aspects of scientific knowledge and study. It's so weird.
HEY LOOK CHEWED FOOD LOOKS LIKE AN EMBRYO. THERES YOUR EVIDENCE BOYS. YOUR TURN AKO. WTF NOT ANALYZING MY POSTS NOW? FUCKING ATHEIST
/rant
Respond to some of my points for fuck sakes. Your "evidence" was shit, can you acknowledge that or not? Can you? Can you have the balls to say your argument was wrong?
If you fail to respond to the points I made in an earlier point-by-point post I will no longer bother responding to you thoughtfully. What's the point in responding thoughtfully if my thoughts are ignored? Consistently ignored.
I've read every bit of every post here. I admit that not all of my earlier responses took those read words into consideration. For that I apologize. I'd like to clear up that I'm not a dishonest debater, but I do understand that some of my responses here have reflected as such. I love debating as much as you do, but this does not reflect the way I normally debate. Please don't assume that just because I didn't respond to certain points directly doesn't mean I ignored them, it just means that I tried to indirectly answer them via the response posts, which I seemed to have been unable to do.
I never said that atheism was a belief system, just that people don't believe in a god (or gods), which leads one to conclude that they think the universe came to be otherwise. Stop being so pushy on that.
I'll admit once more that some of my recent posts are a bit sloppier than my earlier ones, and a lot of that is because I either didn't care much when posting or that I was rushing them. Yes, I know this sounds retarded and quite idiotic for an excuse, but now you have it, I guess.
How about we have a fresh start, before any more cancerous hate (*cough @OctoGamer cough*) spreads? I'd like to prove to you that I'm not in fact the dishonest person that you make me out to be, but that additionally requires you to stop insulting me on almost every single one of your most recent responses here. Can you work with me on that?
Great.
Please don't hate on this.
gettin a little salt m8? would you like directions to salt lake city? bus or plane?Hasn't*oh looks like we got a badass over here correcting someone who obviously hasnt been using propper grammar int he first place. congrats you get an award ender.ender your a dumb ass m8. go spend some time in a science class for a little bit please.
You're*
Proper*
In the*
Apparently I haven't been using proper grammar.
Bye now.
You're the salted one, bruh.
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 April 2016, 08:29:56 PM
Post by: Shensley on 3 April 2016, 08:30:10 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 3 April 2016, 08:31:21 PM
yo ender don't really see how im salty m8 im here for a reaction out of you and i keep sucsessfully getting them.m9* ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
You've gone to far to have a "fresh start" LOLI'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate.
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 April 2016, 08:33:19 PM
You've gone to far to have a "fresh start" LOLLOL
Post by: Airbongo on 3 April 2016, 08:44:52 PM
It's a public forum, he can join in if he wants to.yo ender don't really see how im salty m8 im here for a reaction out of you and i keep sucsessfully getting them.m9* ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)You've gone to far to have a "fresh start" LOLI'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate.
Post by: Airbongo on 3 April 2016, 09:13:08 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/bYfWrGN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/xGhpi85.png)
Post by: Akomine on 3 April 2016, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: EnderEssence
I'd like to clear up that I'm not a dishonest debater
Except you are:
Quote
You and Air argue that the universe was somehow magically able to come together just perfectly for life to start occurring
(You pulled that exact same bullshit right out of your ass, and shoved it right in our mouths countless times in this thread. Dishonest debater.)
...
Quote from: EnderEssence
I never said that atheism was a belief system ... Stop being so pushy on that.
Except YOU LITERALLY JUST POSTED THIS BULLSHIT, AGAIN!:
Quote
(http://i.imgur.com/yTN4I4d.jpg)
Dishonest debater, and blatant liar.
...
Quote
How about we have a fresh start?
Shen wrecked:
You've gone to far to have a "fresh start" LOL
Howabout you respond to my point by point posts for ONCE in this thread?
Howabout you admit your shitty plagiarized arguments are WRONG?
Howabout you APOLOGIZE for lying and constantly putting words in our mouths that we never said?
Dishonest debater.
Not worthy of thoughtful responses.
Lying dishonest asshole.
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 April 2016, 09:21:31 PM
Post by: Akomine on 3 April 2016, 09:24:45 PM
I just took a pic of Muhammed's GF with chewed food in her mouth:
(http://cdn.photonesta.com/images/3.bp.blogspot.com/-JJWHfF9QZxI/TecEOXLgA-I/AAAAAAAAG98/_m_YBgY_gng/s1600/Open%2BMouth.jpg)
I THINK SHE'S PREGNANT!!!!!!
OMG CONGRATS MUHAMMED!!!!!
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 April 2016, 09:25:42 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 3 April 2016, 09:27:15 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 3 April 2016, 11:14:37 PM
I apologize.
@EveryoneElse Quit mocking me.
Now Ako, why don't you be a dear and continue on. Let's give this a second go, and if I screw up again, then maybe you can bring forth your insults. Take care to notice I haven't directed any insults towards you this thread, while you unfortunately failed to do the same.
Now for Take Two.
Post by: OctoGamer on 4 April 2016, 06:15:21 AM
Post by: PengBunny on 4 April 2016, 10:05:19 AM
@Akomine Here, I'll put it in nice, big bold words for you:
I apologize.
@EveryoneElse Quit mocking me.@OctoGamerOctoGayboi can't spell and is too salty for his own good, @shensley is a fool with stupidity levels exceeding the legal safety limit, and @Airbongus Van Winkledorf is Mexican. Just in case y'all were too ignorant to realize, this isn't r/roastme (If anyone wants to make a thread like that on the forums, feel free to, but your crap isn't wanted here).
Now Ako, why don't you be a dear and continue on. Let's give this a second go, and if I screw up again, then maybe you can bring forth your insults. Take care to notice I haven't directed any insults towards you this thread, while you unfortunately failed to do the same.
Now for Take Two.
please no
Post by: Shensley on 4 April 2016, 03:47:09 PM
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/ender-gets-all.jpg)
Post by: Airbongo on 4 April 2016, 03:48:54 PM
Post by: gerrit70 on 4 April 2016, 04:05:59 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 4 April 2016, 04:47:12 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 4 April 2016, 04:56:12 PM
Post by: PengBunny on 4 April 2016, 05:00:00 PM
Post by: luisc99 on 4 April 2016, 05:07:58 PM
EDIT: Apologies. I forgot I changed my view settings to show 50 comments per page rather than 31. It has 7 pages
Post by: Akomine on 4 April 2016, 06:38:48 PM
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
Post by: PengBunny on 4 April 2016, 06:44:50 PM
Whadda you boys and girls say...
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
What are we? Gay?
Post by: EnderEssence on 4 April 2016, 07:43:20 PM
Whadda you boys and girls say...
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
I approve.
Let me start here.
Atheism is illogical because it means that matter created life by itself. Let's dispute this and see how far we go (PREFERABLY WITHOUT INSULTS).
no star has that record with her stupid fucking topicLink please.
Post by: Akomine on 4 April 2016, 08:12:11 PM
Whadda you boys and girls say...
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
I approve.
Let me start here.
Atheism is illogical because it means that matter created life by itself. Let's dispute this and see how far we go (PREFERABLY WITHOUT INSULTS).
EnderEssence is illogical because I keep telling him that atheism is just the lack of belief in deities and yet he still, HE STILL keeps injecting bullshit into it. It is not a position that makes any claims about how life started. (AM I DOING THIS RIGHT?)
Post by: EnderEssence on 4 April 2016, 09:55:06 PM
Whadda you boys and girls say...
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
I approve.
Let me start here.
Atheism is illogical because it means that matter created life by itself. Let's dispute this and see how far we go (PREFERABLY WITHOUT INSULTS).
EnderEssence is illogical because I keep telling him that atheism is just the lack of belief in deities and yet he still, HE STILL keeps injecting bullshit into it. It is not a position that makes any claims about how life started. (AM I DOING THIS RIGHT?)
Akomine is illogical because he refuses to refute my claims without calling them crap. He does not provide "reasonable" alternatives to Ender's monotheistic claims despite acting like he is in a position of authority to denounce them almost instantaneously *prepares for an evidence rant* (I THINK SO).
Post by: Akomine on 4 April 2016, 10:10:44 PM
Whadda you boys and girls say...
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
I approve.
Let me start here.
Atheism is illogical because it means that matter created life by itself. Let's dispute this and see how far we go (PREFERABLY WITHOUT INSULTS).
EnderEssence is illogical because I keep telling him that atheism is just the lack of belief in deities and yet he still, HE STILL keeps injecting bullshit into it. It is not a position that makes any claims about how life started. (AM I DOING THIS RIGHT?)
Akomine is illogical because he refuses to refute my claims without calling them crap. He does not provide "reasonable" alternatives to Ender's monotheistic claims despite acting like he is in a position of authority to denounce them almost instantaneously *prepares for an evidence rant* (I THINK SO).
What?
Post by: PengBunny on 4 April 2016, 10:39:38 PM
Whadda you boys and girls say...
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
I approve.
Let me start here.
Atheism is illogical because it means that matter created life by itself. Let's dispute this and see how far we go (PREFERABLY WITHOUT INSULTS).
EnderEssence is illogical because I keep telling him that atheism is just the lack of belief in deities and yet he still, HE STILL keeps injecting bullshit into it. It is not a position that makes any claims about how life started. (AM I DOING THIS RIGHT?)
Akomine is illogical because he refuses to refute my claims without calling them crap. He does not provide "reasonable" alternatives to Ender's monotheistic claims despite acting like he is in a position of authority to denounce them almost instantaneously *prepares for an evidence rant* (I THINK SO).
What?
There is corn on fields but farms dont pry the cranberries from the roof run on the wall.
Post by: Airbongo on 4 April 2016, 10:56:53 PM
He has been refuting your points for weeks, you dishonest cunt.Whadda you boys and girls say...
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
I approve.
Let me start here.
Atheism is illogical because it means that matter created life by itself. Let's dispute this and see how far we go (PREFERABLY WITHOUT INSULTS).
EnderEssence is illogical because I keep telling him that atheism is just the lack of belief in deities and yet he still, HE STILL keeps injecting bullshit into it. It is not a position that makes any claims about how life started. (AM I DOING THIS RIGHT?)
Akomine is illogical because he refuses to refute my claims without calling them crap. He does not provide "reasonable" alternatives to Ender's monotheistic claims despite acting like he is in a position of authority to denounce them almost instantaneously *prepares for an evidence rant* (I THINK SO).
Post by: EnderEssence on 4 April 2016, 11:22:32 PM
He has been refuting your points for weeks, you dishonest cunt.Whadda you boys and girls say...
WE TAKE 'ER TO EIGHT PAGES!?
I approve.
Let me start here.
Atheism is illogical because it means that matter created life by itself. Let's dispute this and see how far we go (PREFERABLY WITHOUT INSULTS).
EnderEssence is illogical because I keep telling him that atheism is just the lack of belief in deities and yet he still, HE STILL keeps injecting bullshit into it. It is not a position that makes any claims about how life started. (AM I DOING THIS RIGHT?)
Akomine is illogical because he refuses to refute my claims without calling them crap. He does not provide "reasonable" alternatives to Ender's monotheistic claims despite acting like he is in a position of authority to denounce them almost instantaneously *prepares for an evidence rant* (I THINK SO).
Ahem...
Akomine is illogical because he refuses to refute my claims without calling them crap. He does not provide "reasonable" alternatives to Ender's monotheistic claims despite acting like he is in a position of authority to denounce them almost instantaneously *prepares for an evidence rant* (I THINK SO).
Please read next time.
Post by: Akomine on 4 April 2016, 11:48:51 PM
Why should I have to provide "alternatives"? I never claimed anything. You said you have evidence for your claim.
Post by: gerrit70 on 5 April 2016, 06:30:10 AM
Post by: OctoGamer on 5 April 2016, 06:38:30 AM
Post by: Lividup64 on 5 April 2016, 07:38:50 AM
Ender, read this. https://lcogt.net/spacebook/how-did-life-start-earth/
You're a heathenous Protestant.
Post by: EnderEssence on 5 April 2016, 09:24:30 AM
I have been refuting your claims for weeks without calling them crap. Only your most recent ones have been mocked mercilessly.
Why should I have to provide "alternatives"? I never claimed anything. You said you have evidence for your claim.
You mock them for their supposed incredibility without having anything to compare them to. You don't have to have a claim for that.
Ender, read this. https://lcogt.net/spacebook/how-did-life-start-earth/
You're a heathenous Protestant.
Pretty much.
Post by: Lividup64 on 5 April 2016, 02:10:33 PM
I didn't say Egypt and Iraq were a considerable distance away. Sorry for any confusion.Except that it does and terrorists use that to justify their actions. Ever read the Quran?
Nothing in Islam says you can crash into two twin towers in NYC, behead Christians at will, or go suicide bomb terrorists.
Also, Livid, I don't see how Sharia can be a path of enlightenment to get closer to god because it is a fucked up vile system. Let's not pretend it only seeks " clarification and rules on fasting, diet, hygiene, sex and more". It seeks to control people's lives, make women pretty much worthless (I really hope you do not support that) and it is not fit for our modern times. Do you really want to live in a country where people get stoned to death? A place that allows "honour killings", such as a husband killing/mutilating his wife for adultery. Also the amount of Muslims in developed countries (like the UK) that support the implementation of Sharia nationwide is fucked up (not that it's ever gonna happen). Even the fact that it has been allowed in some districts is disgusting to me.
Some Sharia law shit
(http://i.imgur.com/GmUyZ0r.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/tBuD4vL.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/wXAoexy.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/DrWjKFG.png) luuuul sry but pic was funny.
These are isolated incidents which happen in countries where Islam is taken very literally. In Bangladesh, a majority Muslim country with laws based on Sharia Law, this does not happen. Flogging doesn't happen, limb severing doesn't happen and stoning does not occur. That said, police aren't the best, some saying that women getting raped is their own fault. That is not the case for most of them anyways. Sharia Law doesn't undermine women or dictate what they should wear, it only says that they should be modest in their clothing. What Saudia and Iran do is a literal translation of the Qur'an, which is not some sort of manual. The Qur'an is mostly made up of poetic verses.
Post by: Lividup64 on 5 April 2016, 02:16:18 PM
Post by: Akomine on 5 April 2016, 04:17:29 PM
I have been refuting your claims for weeks without calling them crap. Only your most recent ones have been mocked mercilessly.
Why should I have to provide "alternatives"? I never claimed anything. You said you have evidence for your claim.
You mock them for their supposed incredibility without having anything to compare them to. You don't have to have a claim for that.
@EnderEssence
Why must I have a comparable claim in order to question yours? I don't believe in any gods, I make no claim.
If you claim an invisible pink unicorn is standing behind me, I will ask you for evidence. I do not need to also make the claim that is is actually an invisible purple yeti standing behind me. There's no reason for me to make a comparable claim. All I want you to do is prove yours.
--
@Lividup64
Thanks for responding to some points in our posts, I appreciate that, and I'll reply to you a bit later.
Post by: gerrit70 on 5 April 2016, 05:43:26 PM
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Post by: OctoGamer on 5 April 2016, 06:32:43 PM
Just pointing out that this is a lot of countries. "Sharia is a significant source of legislation in many Muslim countries where some countries apply a majority or some of the sharia code, and these include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania."wikipedia not the best source.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Post by: Lividup64 on 5 April 2016, 06:38:50 PM
Just pointing out that this is a lot of countries. "Sharia is a significant source of legislation in many Muslim countries where some countries apply a majority or some of the sharia code, and these include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Of course, because every country which you mention severs limbs of boys using cars. I don't get what you're even trying to point out. If it was responding to the pictures or not, the comment you made wasn't very clear, sorry. Also, like Octo said, Wikipedia is not the best source.
Post by: gerrit70 on 5 April 2016, 06:59:44 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 5 April 2016, 07:20:33 PM
If you read the link I provided it said these are all countries that have some are most of sharia law in their laws.(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/powerlisting/images/5/53/What-are-you-talking-about.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131130214609)
Post by: gerrit70 on 5 April 2016, 08:20:24 PM
Post by: Lividup64 on 5 April 2016, 08:37:36 PM
(http://www.troll.me/images/facepalm-picard/really-now-can-you-not-read.jpg)
Really, can you not make a point in context?
Post by: EnderEssence on 5 April 2016, 08:44:51 PM
(http://www.troll.me/images/facepalm-picard/really-now-can-you-not-read.jpg)
Ahem...
If you read the link I provided it said these are all countries that have some are most of sharia law in their laws.
Pretty sure I know how to read.
Post by: OctoGamer on 5 April 2016, 08:51:44 PM
nice joke.(http://www.troll.me/images/facepalm-picard/really-now-can-you-not-read.jpg)
Ahem...If you read the link I provided it said these are all countries that have some are most of sharia law in their laws.
Pretty sure I know how to read.
Post by: Airbongo on 5 April 2016, 08:54:24 PM
Post by: gerrit70 on 5 April 2016, 09:17:07 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 5 April 2016, 09:43:40 PM
lol I typed that in like five seconds so excuse my spelling and stuff. Also how does me not being able to write affect your ability to read?You're joking, right? If you write badly, of course I'm not going to be able to read it.
For example, if I were to write "tehcursred", you'd have no clue what I'm writing about and be unable to read the improper sentence. However, if I were to write "The car is red", you'd have a much better time be able to read that previously near-illegible sentence.
You're welcome.
Post by: gerrit70 on 5 April 2016, 10:05:38 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 5 April 2016, 10:12:07 PM
But that doesn't affect your reading ability in general does it?You said "ability to read" as in being able to read your post, not "ability to read" in general. Get technicality'd, son.
Post by: Akomine on 6 April 2016, 12:51:58 AM
Post by: gerrit70 on 6 April 2016, 06:40:02 AM
But that doesn't affect your reading ability in general does it?You said "ability to read" as in being able to read your post, not "ability to read" in general. Get technicality'd, daddy.
Post by: EnderEssence on 6 April 2016, 02:15:17 PM
Ender, get off your undeserved high horse, thou cuntmaggot.
Sorry Ako, not in the mood for a playground insult match.
Btw you're kinda nullifying my "dishonesty" with your inexcusable insults.
But that doesn't affect your reading ability in general does it?You said "ability to read" as in being able to read your post, not "ability to read" in general. Get technicality'd, daddy.
Huehuehue, so funny.
Post by: Akomine on 6 April 2016, 02:22:19 PM
Ender, get off your undeserved high horse, thou cuntmaggot.
Sorry Ako, not in the mood for a playground insult match.
Btw you're kinda nullifying my "dishonesty" with your inexcusable insults.
Haha, my playground insults do NOT nullify your dishonesty. Your dishonesty is unshakeable, dweeb.
Post by: OctoGamer on 6 April 2016, 03:10:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZHvd0ks7EsEnder, get off your undeserved high horse, thou cuntmaggot.
Sorry Ako, not in the mood for a playground insult match.
Btw you're kinda nullifying my "dishonesty" with your inexcusable insults.
Haha, my playground insults do NOT nullify your dishonesty. Your dishonesty is unshakeable, dweeb.
this is everyones reaction to ender getting roasted lol.
Post by: EnderEssence on 6 April 2016, 05:52:40 PM
Ender, get off your undeserved high horse, thou cuntmaggot.
Sorry Ako, not in the mood for a playground insult match.
Btw you're kinda nullifying my "dishonesty" with your inexcusable insults.
Haha, my playground insults do NOT nullify your dishonesty. Your dishonesty is unshakeable, dweeb.
"Dishonesty" is one thing, trying to imply an overall answer without directly responding to specific points (but you failing to notice) is another. You're the one on the high horse, by the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZHvd0ks7EsReusing the target's joke. How funny and original.
this is everyones reaction to ender getting roasted lol.
Post by: gerrit70 on 6 April 2016, 06:06:23 PM
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7FriQgP-3DM/maxresdefault.jpg)
Post by: EnderEssence on 6 April 2016, 06:14:01 PM
OHHH REKT OHHH ERMERGRD MUCH ROAST SUCH WOW!!! 2 kewl 4 meYou have an unhealthy obsession with Shrek.
(Insert Gerrit's second stupid Shrek picture here)
Do you want a medal or something?
Post by: OctoGamer on 6 April 2016, 06:56:56 PM
thats the point. you fucking scrub.Ender, get off your undeserved high horse, thou cuntmaggot.
Sorry Ako, not in the mood for a playground insult match.
Btw you're kinda nullifying my "dishonesty" with your inexcusable insults.
Haha, my playground insults do NOT nullify your dishonesty. Your dishonesty is unshakeable, dweeb.
"Dishonesty" is one thing, trying to imply an overall answer without directly responding to specific points (but you failing to notice) is another. You're the one on the high horse, by the way.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZHvd0ks7EsReusing the target's joke. How funny and original.
this is everyones reaction to ender getting roasted lol.
Post by: Akomine on 6 April 2016, 07:51:36 PM
I didn't say Egypt and Iraq were a considerable distance away. Sorry for any confusion.Except that it does and terrorists use that to justify their actions. Ever read the Quran?
Nothing in Islam says you can crash into two twin towers in NYC, behead Christians at will, or go suicide bomb terrorists.
Also, Livid, I don't see how Sharia can be a path of enlightenment to get closer to god because it is a fucked up vile system. Let's not pretend it only seeks " clarification and rules on fasting, diet, hygiene, sex and more". It seeks to control people's lives, make women pretty much worthless (I really hope you do not support that) and it is not fit for our modern times. Do you really want to live in a country where people get stoned to death? A place that allows "honour killings", such as a husband killing/mutilating his wife for adultery. Also the amount of Muslims in developed countries (like the UK) that support the implementation of Sharia nationwide is fucked up (not that it's ever gonna happen). Even the fact that it has been allowed in some districts is disgusting to me.
Some Sharia law shit
(PICTURES WERE HERE)
luuuul sry but pic was funny.
These are isolated incidents which happen in countries where Islam is taken very literally. In Bangladesh, a majority Muslim country with laws based on Sharia Law, this does not happen. Flogging doesn't happen, limb severing doesn't happen and stoning does not occur. That said, police aren't the best, some saying that women getting raped is their own fault. That is not the case for most of them anyways. Sharia Law doesn't undermine women or dictate what they should wear, it only says that they should be modest in their clothing. What Saudia and Iran do is a literal translation of the Qur'an, which is not some sort of manual. The Qur'an is mostly made up of poetic verses.
Just to be clear, we fully understand these incidents are not common in every part of the world with every Muslim. They are just examples of the extreme to show a point.
I don't know nearly enough about Bangladesh to argue with you, but some google searches seem to show that some stonings and lashings (in one case a 14 year old girl) do occur.
Your sentence that, "Sharia Law doesn't undermine women or dictate what they should wear, it only says that they should be modest in their clothing", clearly contradicts itself. I mentioned this to you on Steam, so maybe you've had time to think about this? It sounds like it tells women to dress modestly, which is obviously a restriction. So it does restrict, and you shouldn't say it doesn't.
Of course there are (literal) interpretations of Islamic scripture that lead to what most of us consider horrid, evil behaviour. The original point we were trying to make is that you shouldn't ignore this fact. Part of the problem is the very religion that helps inform these views and practices. To say otherwise is just factually incorrect and, in my opinion, really not helpful to solving these problems. To do what Ender does and play the No True Scotsman Fallacy game by saying "oh, they aren't Muslims because my interpretation says so" as if that somehow solves anything... also isn't helping.
Farthermore, I looked at some Pew polls and found out that a mere 0.00625% of Muslims identify with Extremism. I was reading some older posts and wanted to share some of my opinions. Also, I'd really like to know what kind or form of Sharia Law these people are talking about. Did Pew ask if Muslims wanted strict and literal Sharia Law, taken directly from the Qur'an with literal meaning or some form of reformed version seen in Bangladesh?
The Pew polls I've seen blatantly show that it is MUCH higher than 0.00625%. I have no idea what you looked at, or how you arrived at that number.
From Wikipedia, sourcing Pew:
(http://i.imgur.com/gQ02aaJ.png)
This is very specifically about suicide bombing, and is just one example, but it clearly shows it can't possibly be only 0.00625%.
Oh, and whoever said Wikipedia isn't a good source - You're wrong - Wikipedia is an excellent source when the article is well-sourced and maintained, and there is no reason to write it off outright.
Post by: Lividup64 on 7 April 2016, 05:24:25 AM
I didn't say Egypt and Iraq were a considerable distance away. Sorry for any confusion.Except that it does and terrorists use that to justify their actions. Ever read the Quran?
Nothing in Islam says you can crash into two twin towers in NYC, behead Christians at will, or go suicide bomb terrorists.
Also, Livid, I don't see how Sharia can be a path of enlightenment to get closer to god because it is a fucked up vile system. Let's not pretend it only seeks " clarification and rules on fasting, diet, hygiene, sex and more". It seeks to control people's lives, make women pretty much worthless (I really hope you do not support that) and it is not fit for our modern times. Do you really want to live in a country where people get stoned to death? A place that allows "honour killings", such as a husband killing/mutilating his wife for adultery. Also the amount of Muslims in developed countries (like the UK) that support the implementation of Sharia nationwide is fucked up (not that it's ever gonna happen). Even the fact that it has been allowed in some districts is disgusting to me.
Some Sharia law shit
(PICTURES WERE HERE)
luuuul sry but pic was funny.
These are isolated incidents which happen in countries where Islam is taken very literally. In Bangladesh, a majority Muslim country with laws based on Sharia Law, this does not happen. Flogging doesn't happen, limb severing doesn't happen and stoning does not occur. That said, police aren't the best, some saying that women getting raped is their own fault. That is not the case for most of them anyways. Sharia Law doesn't undermine women or dictate what they should wear, it only says that they should be modest in their clothing. What Saudia and Iran do is a literal translation of the Qur'an, which is not some sort of manual. The Qur'an is mostly made up of poetic verses.
Just to be clear, we fully understand these incidents are not common in every part of the world with every Muslim. They are just examples of the extreme to show a point.
I don't know nearly enough about Bangladesh to argue with you, but some google searches seem to show that some stonings and lashings (in one case a 14 year old girl) do occur.
Your sentence that, "Sharia Law doesn't undermine women or dictate what they should wear, it only says that they should be modest in their clothing", clearly contradicts itself. I mentioned this to you on Steam, so maybe you've had time to think about this? It sounds like it tells women to dress modestly, which is obviously a restriction. So it does restrict, and you shouldn't say it doesn't.
Of course there are (literal) interpretations of Islamic scripture that lead to what most of us consider horrid, evil behaviour. The original point we were trying to make is that you shouldn't ignore this fact. Part of the problem is the very religion that helps inform these views and practices. To say otherwise is just factually incorrect and, in my opinion, really not helpful to solving these problems. To do what Ender does and play the No True Scotsman Fallacy game by saying "oh, they aren't Muslims because my interpretation says so" as if that somehow solves anything... also isn't helping.Farthermore, I looked at some Pew polls and found out that a mere 0.00625% of Muslims identify with Extremism. I was reading some older posts and wanted to share some of my opinions. Also, I'd really like to know what kind or form of Sharia Law these people are talking about. Did Pew ask if Muslims wanted strict and literal Sharia Law, taken directly from the Qur'an with literal meaning or some form of reformed version seen in Bangladesh?
The Pew polls I've seen blatantly show that it is MUCH higher than 0.00625%. I have no idea what you looked at, or how you arrived at that number.
From Wikipedia, sourcing Pew:
(http://i.imgur.com/gQ02aaJ.png)
This is very specifically about suicide bombing, and is just one example, but it clearly shows it can't possibly be only 0.00625%.
Oh, and whoever said Wikipedia isn't a good source - You're wrong - Wikipedia is an excellent source when the article is well-sourced and maintained, and there is no reason to write it off outright.
Hey, thanks for your response. The pew poll you showed is showing how many people think that suicide bombings are justifiable. I was talking about how many Muslims are ope extremists, sorry for not making it clear. Whilst it's true many hold radical views it isn't likely for them to put it into practice but most Muslims completely disagree with this. The assimilation rate of Muslims into Europe shows this because after they've been truely assimilated they usually drop radical views if they have any and adopt mlre western values such as lowering the birth rate. However, it is worth noting that radicalism isn't solely inspired from Islam but also encouraged by far right policies from the West. For example the ban on religious clothing in France, even though most Muslim women choose to wear the burqa (unless you're in Saudi Arabia). Or the sweeping fascist movements across Europe.
On the Bangladesh thing I'd say that that's very odd.. I'm not familiar with other Muslim country legislation but in Bangladesh you go to jail for theft.. You also get hanged for war crimes.
Post by: Witchdoctor1 on 8 April 2016, 10:24:06 PM
Post by: Akomine on 9 April 2016, 01:05:38 AM
I too believe in a religion founded on a child-molesting pedophile sociopath who believed that those who follow him should take all non-believers and "strike them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." Oh. No I don't. In fact, I have fought, in the political, social, and physical arena, against those who do believe in that. And I know, blah-blah something battle against the kaffir and all that, but aren't all non-muslims kaffir? Well, fuck your caliphate. Fuck your holy see. Fuck your vatican. Fuck your tree of life. Fuck your valhalla. Fuck your special ships that crazy scientologists chill on. Fuck your church, synagogue, masjid, temple, pagoda, shrine, or anything else that chooses to brainwash the uneducated masses in order to mold them into good believers. Fuck your jizya tax. Fuck your practice of taqiyyah. Fuck your ayatollahs. Furthermore, fuck the pope and the cardinals. Fuck the church. Fuck the jewish oligarchy that forces apartheid in israel. Fuck ANYTHING that goes against the basic tenets of human rights and secular civil liberties. Ender, have you ever been to the middle east? The home of your precious allah and his shill mohammed?
Wait, so you're saying iron age lies told to illiterate peasants by egotistical power-hungry tyrants over 1000 years ago shouldn't be followed by modern humans? That the value structures in these organizations are corrupt, tainted, immoral, and evil? That they consistently exploit, indoctrinate, lie to, steal from, and rape their very adherents? That they force unequal class systems upon poor people to enrich the "holy" few? That they steer people away from the virtues of critical thinking and instead brain wash them into narrow streams of knowledge and existence? That there are far, far better ideas than those perpetuated by religions? That those religions almost always fight tooth and nail to keep humanity from bettering ourselves and try to stop us from ever progressing into a fairer, freer, happier society that holds a place for everyone, rather than just those who bow to a specific god? That we should speak up and do something about this bullshit?
That being called illogical by religious adherents who can't provide evidence for their own god, which they claim to have, is ironic?
Yeah I'd say so too.
We should all know damn well what happens when a religion holds a stranglehold on a society. We should all, at every step of the way, do everything we can to avoid that kind of dystopia.
Post by: Airbongo on 9 April 2016, 03:13:37 AM
I too believe in a religion founded on a child-molesting pedophile sociopath who believed that those who follow him should take all non-believers and "strike them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." Oh. No I don't. In fact, I have fought, in the political, social, and physical arena, against those who do believe in that. And I know, blah-blah something battle against the kaffir and all that, but aren't all non-muslims kaffir? Well, fuck your caliphate. Fuck your holy see. Fuck your vatican. Fuck your tree of life. Fuck your valhalla. Fuck your special ships that crazy scientologists chill on. Fuck your church, synagogue, masjid, temple, pagoda, shrine, or anything else that chooses to brainwash the uneducated masses in order to mold them into good believers. Fuck your jizya tax. Fuck your practice of taqiyyah. Fuck your ayatollahs. Furthermore, fuck the pope and the cardinals. Fuck the church. Fuck the jewish oligarchy that forces apartheid in israel. Fuck ANYTHING that goes against the basic tenets of human rights and secular civil liberties. Ender, have you ever been to the middle east? The home of your precious allah and his shill mohammed?Damn, that is a fine reply.
Post by: EnderEssence on 9 April 2016, 04:05:33 PM
Nah, I don't think he can tell the difference between radical and actual Islam.I too believe in a religion founded on a child-molesting pedophile sociopath who believed that those who follow him should take all non-believers and "strike them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." Oh. No I don't. In fact, I have fought, in the political, social, and physical arena, against those who do believe in that. And I know, blah-blah something battle against the kaffir and all that, but aren't all non-muslims kaffir? Well, fuck your caliphate. Fuck your holy see. Fuck your vatican. Fuck your tree of life. Fuck your valhalla. Fuck your special ships that crazy scientologists chill on. Fuck your church, synagogue, masjid, temple, pagoda, shrine, or anything else that chooses to brainwash the uneducated masses in order to mold them into good believers. Fuck your jizya tax. Fuck your practice of taqiyyah. Fuck your ayatollahs. Furthermore, fuck the pope and the cardinals. Fuck the church. Fuck the jewish oligarchy that forces apartheid in israel. Fuck ANYTHING that goes against the basic tenets of human rights and secular civil liberties. Ender, have you ever been to the middle east? The home of your precious allah and his shill mohammed?Damn, that is a fine reply.
Post by: Airbongo on 9 April 2016, 04:43:42 PM
Says the little kid to the Iraq war veteran. Also, you can keep using your shitty true muslim fallacy all you want, doesn't make it any more true. You're an idiot. Also everything he said about Mohammad is true, be in denial all you want.Nah, I don't think he can tell the difference between radical and actual Islam.I too believe in a religion founded on a child-molesting pedophile sociopath who believed that those who follow him should take all non-believers and "strike them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." Oh. No I don't. In fact, I have fought, in the political, social, and physical arena, against those who do believe in that. And I know, blah-blah something battle against the kaffir and all that, but aren't all non-muslims kaffir? Well, fuck your caliphate. Fuck your holy see. Fuck your vatican. Fuck your tree of life. Fuck your valhalla. Fuck your special ships that crazy scientologists chill on. Fuck your church, synagogue, masjid, temple, pagoda, shrine, or anything else that chooses to brainwash the uneducated masses in order to mold them into good believers. Fuck your jizya tax. Fuck your practice of taqiyyah. Fuck your ayatollahs. Furthermore, fuck the pope and the cardinals. Fuck the church. Fuck the jewish oligarchy that forces apartheid in israel. Fuck ANYTHING that goes against the basic tenets of human rights and secular civil liberties. Ender, have you ever been to the middle east? The home of your precious allah and his shill mohammed?Damn, that is a fine reply.
Post by: EnderEssence on 9 April 2016, 07:26:22 PM
Says the little kid to the Iraq war veteran. Also, you can keep using your shitty true muslim fallacy all you want, doesn't make it any more true. You're an idiot. Also everything he said about Mohammad is true, be in denial all you want.Nah, I don't think he can tell the difference between radical and actual Islam.I too believe in a religion founded on a child-molesting pedophile sociopath who believed that those who follow him should take all non-believers and "strike them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." Oh. No I don't. In fact, I have fought, in the political, social, and physical arena, against those who do believe in that. And I know, blah-blah something battle against the kaffir and all that, but aren't all non-muslims kaffir? Well, fuck your caliphate. Fuck your holy see. Fuck your vatican. Fuck your tree of life. Fuck your valhalla. Fuck your special ships that crazy scientologists chill on. Fuck your church, synagogue, masjid, temple, pagoda, shrine, or anything else that chooses to brainwash the uneducated masses in order to mold them into good believers. Fuck your jizya tax. Fuck your practice of taqiyyah. Fuck your ayatollahs. Furthermore, fuck the pope and the cardinals. Fuck the church. Fuck the jewish oligarchy that forces apartheid in israel. Fuck ANYTHING that goes against the basic tenets of human rights and secular civil liberties. Ender, have you ever been to the middle east? The home of your precious allah and his shill mohammed?Damn, that is a fine reply.
Denial? Look who's talking.
lol he called me a little kid
Post by: OctoGamer on 9 April 2016, 08:23:05 PM
Post by: PengBunny on 9 April 2016, 08:51:33 PM
Says the little kid to the Iraq war veteran. Also, you can keep using your shitty true muslim fallacy all you want, doesn't make it any more true. You're an idiot. Also everything he said about Mohammad is true, be in denial all you want.Nah, I don't think he can tell the difference between radical and actual Islam.I too believe in a religion founded on a child-molesting pedophile sociopath who believed that those who follow him should take all non-believers and "strike them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." Oh. No I don't. In fact, I have fought, in the political, social, and physical arena, against those who do believe in that. And I know, blah-blah something battle against the kaffir and all that, but aren't all non-muslims kaffir? Well, fuck your caliphate. Fuck your holy see. Fuck your vatican. Fuck your tree of life. Fuck your valhalla. Fuck your special ships that crazy scientologists chill on. Fuck your church, synagogue, masjid, temple, pagoda, shrine, or anything else that chooses to brainwash the uneducated masses in order to mold them into good believers. Fuck your jizya tax. Fuck your practice of taqiyyah. Fuck your ayatollahs. Furthermore, fuck the pope and the cardinals. Fuck the church. Fuck the jewish oligarchy that forces apartheid in israel. Fuck ANYTHING that goes against the basic tenets of human rights and secular civil liberties. Ender, have you ever been to the middle east? The home of your precious allah and his shill mohammed?Damn, that is a fine reply.
Denial? Look who's talking.
lol he called me a little kid
I thought that was a fucking scratch on my screen because it was so small, what the fuck pussy you are paying for my monitor now
Post by: Airbongo on 9 April 2016, 09:31:43 PM
Post by: sophsparks on 9 April 2016, 09:57:09 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 10 April 2016, 06:39:52 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 10 April 2016, 06:56:34 PM
Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitchhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
my reaction exact
Post by: EnderEssence on 10 April 2016, 07:10:36 PM
Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
Post by: OctoGamer on 10 April 2016, 07:20:48 PM
that is a shitty comebackThats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
Post by: Airbongo on 10 April 2016, 07:25:50 PM
Can't even explain your own comebacks. I ask again, how am I in denial?Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
Post by: OctoGamer on 10 April 2016, 07:27:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4Can't even explain your own comebacks. I ask again, how am I in denial?Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
Post by: Dave on 10 April 2016, 07:41:38 PM
Post by: Akomine on 10 April 2016, 07:47:29 PM
If its not too much trouble can we add dislikes... I feel like ender deserves a load.. and it would not be fair leaving him out.
We tried but the mod that added upvote/downvote isn't compatible... so we settled for this :/
Post by: Die_Endermen on 10 April 2016, 08:34:05 PM
this thread gave me cancer
#DerailPolice
ps. this is how I feel after going through this thread
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7w78gYejD1rqzwo0o2_400.gif)
and I bet that this is @Akomine right now
(http://t.fod4.com/t/b0b7be0256/c1920x1080_20.jpg)
Post by: OctoGamer on 10 April 2016, 08:39:36 PM
If its not too much trouble can we add dislikes... I feel like ender deserves a load.. and it would not be fair leaving him out.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
Post by: EnderEssence on 10 April 2016, 09:16:20 PM
If its not too much trouble can we add dislikes... I feel like ender deserves a load.. and it would not be fair leaving him out.
No need to torture me further...I'm not the next Rainy here. I'm behind enough on likes as it already stands.
Also, you're not asking "again", you're just asking for the first time. That's being dishonest right there. that you'll most probably insult me again if I say anything, I'll leave it up to you to reason why I think you're in denial.Can't even explain your own comebacks. I ask again, how am I in denial?Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
Shout-out to @OctoGamer for repetitively harassing me, stalking every post I write and leaving hate on them, and overall just degrading my self-esteem every time I log onto the forums.
Post by: OctoGamer on 10 April 2016, 09:25:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
Post by: Airbongo on 10 April 2016, 09:28:53 PM
fagIf its not too much trouble can we add dislikes... I feel like ender deserves a load.. and it would not be fair leaving him out.
No need to torture me further...I'm not the next Rainy here. I'm behind enough on likes as it already stands.Also, you're not asking "again", you're just asking for the first time. That's being dishonest right there. that you'll most probably insult me again if I say anything, I'll leave it up to you to reason why I think you're in denial.Can't even explain your own comebacks. I ask again, how am I in denial?Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
Shout-out to @OctoGamer for repetitively harassing me, stalking every post I write and leaving hate on them, and overall just degrading my self-esteem every time I log onto the forums.
Post by: Akomine on 10 April 2016, 09:34:05 PM
How am I in denial, explain the shit spouting out of your mouth for once.
Can't even explain your own comebacks. I ask again, how am I in denial?
Also, you're not asking "again", you're just asking for the first time. That's being dishonest right there. that you'll most probably insult me again if I say anything, I'll leave it up to you to reason why I think you're in denial.
1+1=1?
Post by: EnderEssence on 10 April 2016, 09:58:11 PM
thanks dawg, not sure how my mindless trolls are getting to you. But if you can't take stuff like that VC is not the place for you sweetheart. :)Lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
Pretty sure 1+1=2. OrHow am I in denial, explain the shit spouting out of your mouth for once.Can't even explain your own comebacks. I ask again, how am I in denial?Also, you're not asking "again", you're just asking for the first time. That's being dishonest right there. that you'll most probably insult me again if I say anything, I'll leave it up to you to reason why I think you're in denial.
1+1=1?
. Not sure.Psst...he's asking me to explain my position in the first one and why I think he's in denial in the second.
Post by: Lividup64 on 11 April 2016, 02:27:57 AM
Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
You're really kind of dumb.
Post by: OctoGamer on 11 April 2016, 06:08:52 AM
better not insult ender you might degrade his self esteem.Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
You're really kind of dumb.
Post by: gerrit70 on 11 April 2016, 06:39:26 AM
http://giphy.com/gifs/justin-g-shake-fist-shakes-l0NwKtGNJH1t2XyNO
Post by: EnderEssence on 11 April 2016, 09:25:57 PM
better not insult ender you might degrade his self esteem.Thats what I thought, no reply. Punk ass bitch
Thou art not worthy of reply, ye plebian.
You're really kind of dumb.
This kid makes me laugh.
Ender RN
http://giphy.com/gifs/justin-g-shake-fist-shakes-l0NwKtGNJH1t2XyNO
6.5/10 for effort. Had to knock a few points a way due to unrealistic post.
Welp, this debate's gone to hell. *prepares for "hell's nonexistent" rants*
No matter what, Ako's still been unable to disprove my universe-creation argument. That, if anything, is noteworthy. That and the fact that I've gotten a lot of unnecessary hate.
Since my Quranic arguments have been *so* successful, I'm going to try another one just for the sake of seeing how you'll disprove it. Rip me.
Now @Akomine, please tell me how the concept of orbits (in space) was known in the Quran (600 CE) be.
So, verses (I have two of these):
"It is He (God) Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit." (21:33)
It should be quite obvious that while referring to the sun and the moon in the Quran in this verse, it's emphasized that each moves in a definite orbit.
Quote from: a source
These facts communicated in the Qur'an have been discovered by astronomical observations in our age. According to the calculations of experts on astronomy, the Sun is traveling at the enormous speed of 720,000 kilometers an hour in the direction of the star Vega in a particular orbit called the Solar Apex. This means that the sun travels roughly 17,280,000 kilometers a day. Along with the Sun, and all planets and satellites within the gravitational system of the Sun also travel the same distance. In addition, all the stars in the universe are in a similar planned motion.
It's also mentioned here that the entire universe is full of paths and orbits (sounds kinda generic ik):
"By the sky full of paths and orbits." (51:7)
Now you.
Post by: Akomine on 11 April 2016, 11:17:27 PM
No matter what, Ako's still been unable to disprove my universe-creation argument. That, if anything, is noteworthy. That and the fact that I've gotten a lot of unnecessary hate.
What? What argument are you talking about? You've posted a handful of arguments, many of them I've been able to disprove, with many of them displaying you have a terribly compromised/narrow understanding of basic science and history. I don't understand how, of all the things in this thread, you can cheaply claim some sort of victory that it's notable that I haven't disproved something. Fuck off, you dishonest rat.
Quote
Since my Quranic arguments have been *so* successful, I'm going to try another one just for the sake of seeing how you'll disprove it. Rip me.
Now @Akomine, please tell me how the concept of orbits (in space) was known in the Quran (600 CE) be.
So, verses (I have two of these):
"It is He (God) Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit." (21:33)
It should be quite obvious that while referring to the sun and the moon in the Quran in this verse, it's emphasized that each moves in a definite orbit.Quote from: a sourceThese facts communicated in the Qur'an have been discovered by astronomical observations in our age. According to the calculations of experts on astronomy, the Sun is traveling at the enormous speed of 720,000 kilometers an hour in the direction of the star Vega in a particular orbit called the Solar Apex. This means that the sun travels roughly 17,280,000 kilometers a day. Along with the Sun, and all planets and satellites within the gravitational system of the Sun also travel the same distance. In addition, all the stars in the universe are in a similar planned motion.
It's also mentioned here that the entire universe is full of paths and orbits (sounds kinda generic ik):
"By the sky full of paths and orbits." (51:7)
Now you.
Are you FUCKING kidding me? Another blatant display of your compromised understanding of basic science and history. You seriously think this is a worthwhile argument? Where are you coming from here?
So let me get your line of thinking down here:
Quran is the first instance of the concept of orbits ever being mentioned in history -> therefore Quran beat science to the punch -> therefore the only possible conclusion is that the Quran miraculously made a correct prophecy -> therefore the Quran is fact -> therefore Allah is real.
This is where you keep coming from. That if the Quran were to make a correct prediction, therefore your god is real and everything you claim about him is true.
But you're so wrong. Since you choose to ignore my counter-evidence, here's some more counter-evidence for you to ignore:
The concept of orbits predates the Quran by hundreds of years. You could have fucking Googled this. I'm not even going to provide sources, just go read about the ancient Greek astronomers you ignorant idiot.
You come in here and act like you're so mighty? On such a high horse?
WELL I JUST SLAMMED YOU WITH A TRUTH BOMB BITCH.
BOOM!
- Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven - Ender Disproven -
ENDER'S ARGUMENT REKTDISPROVEN
ALLAH DISPROVEN
MUHAMMED DISPROVEN
MUHAMMED PEDOPHILE
ALLAH FAKE
QURAN FALSE
ENDER IGNORANT
ANCIENT GREEKS FOR THE WIN
- Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans - Ancient Greeks Rek Qurans -
Post by: Airbongo on 11 April 2016, 11:20:11 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 12 April 2016, 06:56:41 AM
once again my reaction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
Post by: EnderEssence on 12 April 2016, 07:48:05 PM
No matter what, Ako's still been unable to disprove my universe-creation argument. That, if anything, is noteworthy. That and the fact that I've gotten a lot of unnecessary hate.
What? What argument are you talking about? You've posted a handful of arguments, many of them I've been able to disprove, with many of them displaying you have a terribly compromised/narrow understanding of basic science and history. I don't understand how, of all the things in this thread, you can cheaply claim some sort of victory that it's notable that I haven't disproved something. Fuck off, you dishonest rat.QuoteSince my Quranic arguments have been *so* successful, I'm going to try another one just for the sake of seeing how you'll disprove it. Rip me.
Now @Akomine, please tell me how the concept of orbits (in space) was known in the Quran (600 CE) be.
So, verses (I have two of these):
"It is He (God) Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit." (21:33)
It should be quite obvious that while referring to the sun and the moon in the Quran in this verse, it's emphasized that each moves in a definite orbit.Quote from: a sourceThese facts communicated in the Qur'an have been discovered by astronomical observations in our age. According to the calculations of experts on astronomy, the Sun is traveling at the enormous speed of 720,000 kilometers an hour in the direction of the star Vega in a particular orbit called the Solar Apex. This means that the sun travels roughly 17,280,000 kilometers a day. Along with the Sun, and all planets and satellites within the gravitational system of the Sun also travel the same distance. In addition, all the stars in the universe are in a similar planned motion.
It's also mentioned here that the entire universe is full of paths and orbits (sounds kinda generic ik):
"By the sky full of paths and orbits." (51:7)
Now you.
Are you FUCKING kidding me? Another blatant display of your compromised understanding of basic science and history. You seriously think this is a worthwhile argument? Where are you coming from here?
So let me get your line of thinking down here:
Quran is the first instance of the concept of orbits ever being mentioned in history -> therefore Quran beat science to the punch -> therefore the only possible conclusion is that the Quran miraculously made a correct prophecy -> therefore the Quran is fact -> therefore Allah is real.
This is where you keep coming from. That if the Quran were to make a correct prediction, therefore your god is real and everything you claim about him is true.
But you're so wrong. Since you choose to ignore my counter-evidence, here's some more counter-evidence for you to ignore:
The concept of orbits predates the Quran by hundreds of years. You could have fucking Googled this. I'm not even going to provide sources, just go read about the ancient Greek astronomers you ignorant idiot.
You come in here and act like you're so mighty? On such a high horse?
WELL I JUST SLAMMED YOU WITH A TRUTH BOMB BITCH.
BOOM!
(INSERT AKO'S STUPID, ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT RANT HERE)
The ancient Greeks mentioned that the sun was in an orbit of its own and wasn't stagnant? I haven't been able to find that via Google. Read all of my freaking post.
Ako is falsely saying I have lied. Trying to imply a whole answer indirectly =/= dishonesty. I have never ignored a single piece of counter-evidence. Stop being that guy. Quit your injustifiable, stupid insults.
Ako is falsely saying I have lied. Trying to imply a whole answer indirectly =/= dishonesty. I have never ignored a single piece of counter-evidence. Stop being that guy. Quit your injustifiable, stupid insults.
Ako is falsely saying I have lied. Trying to imply a whole answer indirectly =/= dishonesty. I have never ignored a single piece of counter-evidence. Stop being that guy. Quit your injustifiable, stupid insults.
Now quit talking irrelevant trash. Now that I think about it, your whole "no claim, therefore burden of proof is on you" is nothing but a dirty, cheap debating strategy. Here's some food for thought, which I'm sure you're about to immediately defy while you're most likely already pressing the "Reply" button as you're reading this:
AKO'S ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL: Atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. They lack belief in God. The burden of proof for God is on the theist, not the atheist.
This is nothing but a technicality you're using to try to put the burden on the other side. Since “atheism” means “without a belief in God”, you're not claiming anything and therefore supposedly do not have to prove anything. And thus you claim the burden of proof is on me, who claims that God exists.
However, this makes little difference either way because your core philosophy toward God is still the same. You believe that there is no God, and you know it. You emphasize this in order to try to put yourself in an unattackable position. It’s a semantic ploy. To try to be consistent with it, you keep saying “There is no evidence for God” rather than “God doesn't exist”.
You can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because I can’t prove a negative. Regardless, you obviously believe that deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway, which is prevalent in your attempts to debunk and refute every single argument for the existence of God. Therefore, this trivial debate about the implications of the word “atheism” seems pointless in substance.
And now to wait for you to attack me with a copy-paste claim.
LOL ENDER GOT REKT FOR LIKE THE 20th TIME THIS THREAD! LOL!
once again my reaction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
dis kid
Post by: OctoGamer on 12 April 2016, 07:51:23 PM
theirs no evidence that prove god exists, although I believe in god, their is no evidence. its a belief, people choose to believe in god. stop trying to prove god exists to someone who obviously doesn't believe in god.
Post by: gerrit70 on 12 April 2016, 08:49:28 PM
No matter what, Ako's still been unable to disprove my universe-creation argument. That, if anything, is noteworthy. That and the fact that I've gotten a lot of unnecessary hate.
What? What argument are you talking about? You've posted a handful of arguments, many of them I've been able to disprove, with many of them displaying you have a terribly compromised/narrow understanding of basic science and history. I don't understand how, of all the things in this thread, you can cheaply claim some sort of victory that it's notable that I haven't disproved something. Fuck off, you dishonest rat.QuoteSince my Quranic arguments have been *so* successful, I'm going to try another one just for the sake of seeing how you'll disprove it. Rip me.
Now @Akomine, please tell me how the concept of orbits (in space) was known in the Quran (600 CE) be.
So, verses (I have two of these):
"It is He (God) Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit." (21:33)
It should be quite obvious that while referring to the sun and the moon in the Quran in this verse, it's emphasized that each moves in a definite orbit.Quote from: a sourceThese facts communicated in the Qur'an have been discovered by astronomical observations in our age. According to the calculations of experts on astronomy, the Sun is traveling at the enormous speed of 720,000 kilometers an hour in the direction of the star Vega in a particular orbit called the Solar Apex. This means that the sun travels roughly 17,280,000 kilometers a day. Along with the Sun, and all planets and satellites within the gravitational system of the Sun also travel the same distance. In addition, all the stars in the universe are in a similar planned motion.
It's also mentioned here that the entire universe is full of paths and orbits (sounds kinda generic ik):
"By the sky full of paths and orbits." (51:7)
Now you.
Are you FUCKING kidding me? Another blatant display of your compromised understanding of basic science and history. You seriously think this is a worthwhile argument? Where are you coming from here?
So let me get your line of thinking down here:
Quran is the first instance of the concept of orbits ever being mentioned in history -> therefore Quran beat science to the punch -> therefore the only possible conclusion is that the Quran miraculously made a correct prophecy -> therefore the Quran is fact -> therefore Allah is real.
This is where you keep coming from. That if the Quran were to make a correct prediction, therefore your god is real and everything you claim about him is true.
But you're so wrong. Since you choose to ignore my counter-evidence, here's some more counter-evidence for you to ignore:
The concept of orbits predates the Quran by hundreds of years. You could have fucking Googled this. I'm not even going to provide sources, just go read about the ancient Greek astronomers you ignorant idiot.
You come in here and act like you're so mighty? On such a high horse?
WELL I JUST SLAMMED YOU WITH A TRUTH BOMB BITCH.
BOOM!
(INSERT AKO'S STUPID, ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT RANT HERE)
The ancient Greeks mentioned that the sun was in an orbit of its own and wasn't stagnant? I haven't been able to find that via Google. Read all of my freaking post.Ako is falsely saying I have lied. Trying to imply a whole answer indirectly =/= dishonesty. I have never ignored a single piece of counter-evidence. Stop being that guy. Quit your injustifiable, stupid insults.Ako is falsely saying I have lied. Trying to imply a whole answer indirectly =/= dishonesty. I have never ignored a single piece of counter-evidence. Stop being that guy. Quit your injustifiable, stupid insults.Ako is falsely saying I have lied. Trying to imply a whole answer indirectly =/= dishonesty. I have never ignored a single piece of counter-evidence. Stop being that guy. Quit your injustifiable, stupid insults.
Now quit talking irrelevant trash. Now that I think about it, your whole "no claim, therefore burden of proof is on you" is nothing but a dirty, cheap debating strategy. Here's some food for thought, which I'm sure you're about to immediately defy while you're most likely already pressing the "Reply" button as you're reading this:
AKO'S ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL: Atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. They lack belief in God. The burden of proof for God is on the theist, not the atheist.
This is nothing but a technicality you're using to try to put the burden on the other side. Since “atheism” means “without a belief in God”, you're not claiming anything and therefore supposedly do not have to prove anything. And thus you claim the burden of proof is on me, who claims that God exists.
However, this makes little difference either way because your core philosophy toward God is still the same. You believe that there is no God, and you know it. You emphasize this in order to try to put yourself in an unattackable position. It’s a semantic ploy. To try to be consistent with it, you keep saying “There is no evidence for God” rather than “God doesn't exist”.
You can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because I can’t prove a negative. Regardless, you obviously believe that deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway, which is prevalent in your attempts to debunk and refute every single argument for the existence of God. Therefore, this trivial debate about the implications of the word “atheism” seems pointless in substance.
And now to wait for you to attack me with a copy-paste claim.LOL ENDER GOT REKT FOR LIKE THE 20th TIME THIS THREAD! LOL!
once again my reaction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
dis kid
^ And is this just a fancy way of saying I cant come up with anything to prove my point so now its your turn? ???
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RmHNgIK5k6g/VZTJdK-bICI/AAAAAAAALhg/BbptiALwOUQ/s1600/aa6.jpg)
Post by: EnderEssence on 12 April 2016, 09:03:16 PM
you shouldn't call people kid when you are a kid also.Apparently I'm a kid now.
theirs no evidence that prove god exists, although I believe in god, their is no evidence. its a belief, people choose to believe in god. stop trying to prove god exists to someone who obviously doesn't believe in god.
You're kinda defeating the purpose of the debate by saying that. Plus, it was Ako that asked me to prove, not the other way around.
Silly Ender, use Tor google doesnt work.
(CONVOS WERE HERE)
^ And is this just a fancy way of saying I cant come up with anything to prove my point so now its your turn? ???
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RmHNgIK5k6g/VZTJdK-bICI/AAAAAAAALhg/BbptiALwOUQ/s1600/aa6.jpg)
Everything written here is "fancy" to you, and I'm pretty sure you don't understand nearly all of the substance in this debate to immediately rush to assumptive conclusions. Your argument's kinda invalid that way.
Never heard of Tor. Will take a look.
And you're right on one thing: Anime was and forever will be a mistake.
Post by: OctoGamer on 12 April 2016, 09:06:34 PM
lol you are a kid. don't try to say other wise, some 13 year old kid sits in the back of the fuckin class room, got his minecraft shirt on, thinks hes smart but gets really shit grades.you shouldn't call people kid when you are a kid also.Apparently I'm a kid now.
theirs no evidence that prove god exists, although I believe in god, their is no evidence. its a belief, people choose to believe in god. stop trying to prove god exists to someone who obviously doesn't believe in god.
You're kinda defeating the purpose of the debate by saying that. Plus, it was Ako that asked me to prove, not the other way around.Silly Ender, use Tor google doesnt work.
(CONVOS WERE HERE)
^ And is this just a fancy way of saying I cant come up with anything to prove my point so now its your turn? ???
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RmHNgIK5k6g/VZTJdK-bICI/AAAAAAAALhg/BbptiALwOUQ/s1600/aa6.jpg)
Everything written here is "fancy" to you, and I'm pretty sure you don't understand nearly all of the substance in this debate to immediately rush to assumptive conclusions. Your argument's kinda invalid that way.
Never heard of Tor. Will take a look.
And you're right on one thing: Anime was and forever will be a mistake.
thats you ender.
Post by: Akomine on 12 April 2016, 09:20:55 PM
The ancient Greeks mentioned that the sun was in an orbit of its own and wasn't stagnant? I haven't been able to find that via Google. Read all of my freaking post.
Yes, it's called the Geocentric Model, from Aristotle (Ancient Greek, born 384 BCE) and Ptolemy (Ancient Greco-Egyptian, born circa 100 CE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model - Aristotle used 800 years of research that came prior to him, along with his own observations to arrive at his model.
Sometimes called the Ptolemaic Model, it claims the Moon, Sun, and other planets orbit in a circular motion around the Earth. The Quran verses you shared seem to mention the Sun and Moon in orbits, which certainly wouldn't be new information by the time the Quran was written. It just comes across as a product of the times that the book was written. That would have been knowledge at that time in history, it's not something new that the Quran amazingly predicted. Nor does it somehow prove your god is real.
It's worth noting that Aristotle and Ptolemy were partially incorrect in two major ways: Orbits are usually elliptical rather than circular, and it's the Sun in the middle rather than the Earth. But still, the point is that the concept of orbits predates the Quran by over 1000 years.
Quote
Ako is falsely saying I have lied. Trying to imply a whole answer indirectly =/= dishonesty. I have never ignored a single piece of counter-evidence. Stop being that guy. Quit your injustifiable, stupid insults.
If you've never ignored any counter-evidence, then why haven't you admitted your arguments are incorrect? Will you admit your arguments are incorrect?
Quote
Now quit talking irrelevant trash. Now that I think about it, your whole "no claim, therefore burden of proof is on you" is nothing but a dirty, cheap debating strategy.
That is basic logic. I haven't made a claim so I have nothing to prove. You have made a claim, so the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim.
Remember, you're the one who said you have evidence that your god is real.
Imagine if the burden of proof didn't work like this. I could just say: I hereby claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster, full of sauce and cheese, is the creator of everything and the only true deity. Now, without providing evidence for my own claim, it is apparently your burden to disprove my claim. Have fun. I guess I can just make any claim and get away with it!
Quote
Here's some food for thought, which I'm sure you're about to immediately defy while you're most likely already pressing the "Reply" button as you're reading this:
AKO'S ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL: Atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. They lack belief in God. The burden of proof for God is on the theist, not the atheist.
This isn't so much an argument, it's just the position I'm in. I didn't make a claim. That's it.
But you're exactly right, and you worded that pretty well. I'm so glad you've FINALLY acknowledged this position without inserting words into my mouth. Took, what, 3 months?
Quote
This is nothing but a technicality you're using to try to put the burden on the other side. Since “atheism” means “without a belief in God”, you're not claiming anything and therefore supposedly do not have to prove anything. And thus you claim the burden of proof is on me, who claims that God exists.
Yes, you've got this right. I don't know what you mean by technicality though - I'm not trying to put the burden on the other side, because that's the only place the burden of proof ever lays: on the person who makes the claim. You mean like I'm technically correct on this basic flow of argument logic? I'll take that. Technically correct is a pretty damn good kind of correct. With my Flying Spaghetti Monster example in mind, do you honestly think the burden of proof requirement should be the other way around?
Quote
However, this makes little difference either way because your core philosophy toward God is still the same. You believe that there is no God, and you know it. You emphasize this in order to try to put yourself in an unattackable position. It’s a semantic ploy. To try to be consistent with it, you keep saying “There is no evidence for God” rather than “God doesn't exist”.
DON'T YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH YOU LITTLE FUCK. You little fuck. Fuck you. I never made the assertion that I am certain that there's no gods, and I have never claimed to have evidence that shows that there is absolutely no god. Stop being an asshole. Don't you tell me what I know. Again, if you want to actually ask my position on something, you may ask me. BUT DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Dishonest little fuck.
What is honestly the matter with you? Why do you keep doing this weird dishonest bullshit over and over again? Cut it the fuck out already. Holy shit man.
Until there is good evidence for your god, I won't believe in it. That's my position on your god.
Quote
You can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because I can’t prove a negative.
Your logic is exactly backwards. I'm the one who can't prove the negative, not you. You're making a positive claim (that your god exists). You also say you have evidence for your positive claim, which is what I want you to share. So far your evidence posts have been very weak, often displaying fundamental flaws in your understanding of science and history. You can improve on this, but viewing these subjects from such a narrow religious standpoint is hindering your understanding rather than helping you, unfortunately.
Quote
Regardless, you obviously believe that deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway, which is prevalent in your attempts to debunk and refute every single argument for the existence of God. Therefore, this trivial debate about the implications of the word “atheism” seems pointless in substance.
Again, if you want to ask me my position, ASK.
Quote
And now to wait for you to attack me with a copy-paste claim.
What? Aren't you the one who copy-pastes entire webpages without sourcing them? Wtf.
I rarely even copy-paste stuff, and almost always source my information when I feel it's relevant to do so.
-------
theirs no evidence that prove god exists, although I believe in god, their is no evidence. its a belief, people choose to believe in god. stop trying to prove god exists to someone who obviously doesn't believe in god.
Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?
I appreciate your honesty on this, Octo. I had one of these conversations with Witch once too, and he was also extremely honest, which I also appreciated greatly. It's so nice when people are honest.
Post by: OctoGamer on 12 April 2016, 09:22:22 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 12 April 2016, 09:38:02 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 12 April 2016, 10:43:39 PM
lol you are a kid. don't try to say other wise, some 13 year old kid sits in the back of the fuckin class room, got his minecraft shirt on, thinks hes smart but gets really shit grades.1. Never owned nor plan on owning any Minecraft merchandise, ever.
thats you ender.
2. I had a 4.2 GPA in high school. 'Nuff said.
Back on topic.
Ender, what the fuck are you saying with the copy paste thing, huh? You're the one who plagiarized entire replies. This is such a dishonest statement from you, because you're a dishonest cunt.
I'll admit the embryo one was a lot of info taken from somewhere else, but that's the closest thing you'll ever get to "plagiarizing entire replies". Again, quit adhering to the false alarms coming from your MexiSenses.
@Akomine, I've read the entire post (LIKE I HAVE WITH LITERALLY EVERY POST), and while I still think you're exploiting a cheap debating tactic, you do make a good counter-argument. Now don't be that guy and say I'm ignoring your other points when I only question the following:
Quote
Your logic is exactly backwards. I'm the one who can't prove the negative, not you. You're making a positive claim (that your god exists). You also say you have evidence for your positive claim, which is what I want you to share. So far your evidence posts have been very weak, often displaying fundamental flaws in your understanding of science and history. You can improve on this, but viewing these subjects from such a narrow religious standpoint is hindering your understanding rather than helping you, unfortunately.False. Your logic is backwards here. When I say I can't prove a negative, I mean that I can't disprove your disbelief, which would be negative. I don't view these subjects from a narrow religious standpoint. I'm trying to look out for anything that raises an eyebrow within this. Kinda stupid on my part, considering I already know about Ptolemy and his geocentric model of the solar system (later disproved as the Earth is obviously not at the solar system's center). If you want to get a serious discussion about say, I don't know, quantum mechanics, out of me, you easily could.
This debate was civil once. If you could quit your unnecessary, idiotic insults...that would be GREAT. As, you know, they contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the debate! Nothing whatsoever! IKR!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another argument: How did the Quran know about the universe's expansion? I don't recall the ancient Greeks knowing about this.
Verse: "And it is We (God) who have constructed the heaven (universe) with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (51:47)
If I'm correct, I think it was Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre who first theoretically calculated that the universe is constantly expanding.
Cheers.
BE CIVIL YOU FOOLS.
Post by: OctoGamer on 12 April 2016, 10:52:09 PM
begging for invincible chickens
begging for knockback sticks
plagiarizing articles
copy and pasting your arguments.
complaining when someone threatens to report you for pvp log
screaming at that person for killing you when you log back in arena
you also thought it was illegal to kill while in arena?
huh, sure seems like a bunch of shit a 13 year old would do. 4.2 gpa in highschool my ass.
Post by: Airbongo on 12 April 2016, 10:59:30 PM
Quote
This debate was civil once. If you could quit your unnecessary, idiotic insults...that would be GREAT. As, you know, they contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the debate! Nothing whatsoever! IKR!
A debate is not civil when the other party is a dishonest asshole, they aren't idiotic insults, they are deserved insults.
Quote
Verse: "And it is We (God) who have constructed the heaven (universe) with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (51:47)Also, how the fuck does heaven equate to universe, it only means that to you and whatever muslim website(s) you are pulling this shit from. What a huge fucking stretch, this is no evidence, how do you even classify that as evidence? It is straight nonsense. And are you ever gonna bother replying to the other verses you posted that Luis and Ako disproved? Probably not, because again, you are a dishonest cunt. You cherry pick what you want, you reply to what you want and ignore what you don't like. Ako replies to your comments point by point and you continue to evade shit.
Post by: Akomine on 12 April 2016, 11:11:45 PM
@Akomine, I've read the entire post (LIKE I HAVE WITH LITERALLY EVERY POST), and while I still think you're exploiting a cheap debating tactic, you do make a good counter-argument. Now don't be that guy and say I'm ignoring your other points when I only question the following:QuoteYour logic is exactly backwards. I'm the one who can't prove the negative, not you. You're making a positive claim (that your god exists). You also say you have evidence for your positive claim, which is what I want you to share. So far your evidence posts have been very weak, often displaying fundamental flaws in your understanding of science and history. You can improve on this, but viewing these subjects from such a narrow religious standpoint is hindering your understanding rather than helping you, unfortunately.False. Your logic is backwards here. When I say I can't prove a negative, I mean that I can't disprove your disbelief, which would be negative.
I don't care if you READ my entire post. I want you to respond to it. Why did you pick this one paragraph to respond to?
And why would you want to "disprove my disbelief"? What the fuck? Who is asking you to do that, and for what reason would you try? This is so random.
Respond to the rest of my post.
Post by: EnderEssence on 12 April 2016, 11:48:44 PM
bullshit you got a 4.2 gpa in highschool, you have not even started highschool yet. and don't try to say you have i've seen your behavior on VC and even on the fourms.
begging for invincible chickens
begging for knockback sticks
plagiarizing articles
copy and pasting your arguments.
complaining when someone threatens to report you for pvp log
screaming at that person for killing you when you log back in arena
youalso thought it was illegal to kill while in arena?QuoteThis debate was civil once. If you could quit your unnecessary, idiotic insults...that would be GREAT. As, you know, they contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the debate! Nothing whatsoever! IKR!
A debate is not civil when the other party is a dishonest asshole, they aren't idiotic insults, they are deserved insults.QuoteVerse: "And it is We (God) who have constructed the heaven (universe) with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (51:47)Also, how the fuck does heaven equate to universe, it only means that to you and whatever muslim website(s) you are pulling this shit from. What a huge fucking stretch, this is no evidence, how do you even classify that as evidence? It is straight nonsense. And are you ever gonna bother replying to the other verses you posted that Luis and Ako disproved? Probably not, because again, you are a dishonest cunt. You cherry pick what you want, you reply to what you want and ignore what you don't like. Ako replies to your comments point by point and you continue to evade shit.
huh, sure seems like a bunch of shit a 13 year old would do. 4.2 gpa in highschool my ass.
Told you the truth. I honestly don't care whether you choose to believe me or not. You could always ask Scroogles, seeing that he's a reliable source that everyone seems to like.
Unfortunately for you, I am part of a prestigious social network known as the internet. I believe this permits me to imitate a twelve year old child as I see fit. You know absolutely nothing about me and reserve zero right to make any rigid conclusions.
QuoteThis debate was civil once. If you could quit your unnecessary, idiotic insults...that would be GREAT. As, you know, they contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the debate! Nothing whatsoever! IKR!
A debate is not civil when the other party is a dishonest asshole, they aren't idiotic insults, they are deserved insults.QuoteVerse: "And it is We (God) who have constructed the heaven (universe) with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (51:47)Also, how the fuck does heaven equate to universe, it only means that to you and whatever muslim website(s) you are pulling this shit from. What a huge fucking stretch, this is no evidence, how do you even classify that as evidence? It is straight nonsense. And are you ever gonna bother replying to the other verses you posted that Luis and Ako disproved? Probably not, because again, you are a dishonest cunt. You cherry pick what you want, you reply to what you want and ignore what you don't like. Ako replies to your comments point by point and you continue to evade shit.
Congrats, this post is an exact repetition of what I've already clarified. You're claiming I'm dishonest despite me never lying, you act as if your responses possess overall superiority compared to mine, and you're only succeeding in turning this debate to utter crap.
@Akomine, I've read the entire post (LIKE I HAVE WITH LITERALLY EVERY POST), and while I still think you're exploiting a cheap debating tactic, you do make a good counter-argument. Now don't be that guy and say I'm ignoring your other points when I only question the following:QuoteYour logic is exactly backwards. I'm the one who can't prove the negative, not you. You're making a positive claim (that your god exists). You also say you have evidence for your positive claim, which is what I want you to share. So far your evidence posts have been very weak, often displaying fundamental flaws in your understanding of science and history. You can improve on this, but viewing these subjects from such a narrow religious standpoint is hindering your understanding rather than helping you, unfortunately.False. Your logic is backwards here. When I say I can't prove a negative, I mean that I can't disprove your disbelief, which would be negative.
I don't care if you READ my entire post. I want you to respond to it. Why did you pick this one paragraph to respond to?
And why would you want to "disprove my disbelief"? What the fuck? Who is asking you to do that, and for what reason would you try? This is so random.
Respond to the rest of my post.
I can't "disprove a disbelief", that's why its negative.
I'm in the middle of something rn, give some time to respond back, as point-by-point responding by phone is quite tedious at the moment.
DON'T LEAVE A RESPONSE.
Post by: Airbongo on 13 April 2016, 12:04:49 AM
Quote
You're claiming I'm dishonest despite me never lyingI literally explained why you are dishonest.
Quote
You cherry pick what you want, you reply to what you want and ignore what you don't like. Ako replies to your comments point by point and you continue to evade shit.
Quote
Also, how the fuck does heaven equate to universe, it only means that to you and whatever muslim website(s) you are pulling this shit from. What a huge fucking stretch, this is no evidence, how do you even classify that as evidence? It is straight nonsense. And are you ever gonna bother replying to the other verses you posted that Luis and Ako disproved?I asked you two questions and as usual you ignored them. How does heaven equate to universe in your head and will you ever address your shitpoints ako and luis disproved. Answer those questions now.
Quote
and you're only succeeding in turning this debate to utter crap.You already turned this debate into utter crap long ago, bud. I await your usual lengthy reply that conveys nothing of importance and is completely empty, regardless of how lengthy it is.
Post by: PengBunny on 13 April 2016, 12:14:53 AM
you're only succeeding in turning this debate to utter crap.
debate
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 01:17:49 AM
QuoteYou're claiming I'm dishonest despite me never lyingI literally explained why you are dishonest.QuoteYou cherry pick what you want, you reply to what you want and ignore what you don't like. Ako replies to your comments point by point and you continue to evade shit.QuoteAlso, how the fuck does heaven equate to universe, it only means that to you and whatever muslim website(s) you are pulling this shit from. What a huge fucking stretch, this is no evidence, how do you even classify that as evidence? It is straight nonsense. And are you ever gonna bother replying to the other verses you posted that Luis and Ako disproved?I asked you two questions and as usual you ignored them. How does heaven equate to universe in your head and will you ever address your shitpoints ako and luis disproved. Answer those questions now.Quoteand you're only succeeding in turning this debate to utter crap.You already turned this debate into utter crap long ago, bud. I await your usual lengthy reply that conveys nothing of importance and is completely empty, regardless of how lengthy it is.
I don't know, maybe the reference of the universe as the heavens in literature hasn't rung a bell yet?
Now Ako, for the parts I haven't directly alluded to.
Quote
That is basic logic. I haven't made a claim so I have nothing to prove. You have made a claim, so the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim.Since you don't have anything to prove, what puts you in a position to disprove something that you technically haven't argued against, seeing that you don't aim to prove anything? I'd like to ask you this: What are your criteria for deciding whether a God exists, and how do you know that these criteria are correct? Until you can have confidence that you have the correct criteria, it is useless to begin investigating God's existence.
Remember, you're the one who said you have evidence that your god is real.
Imagine if the burden of proof didn't work like this. I could just say: I hereby claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster, full of sauce and cheese, is the creator of everything and the only true deity. Now, without providing evidence for my own claim, it is apparently your burden to disprove my claim. Have fun. I guess I can just make any claim and get away with it!"
Quote
DON'T YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH YOU LITTLE FUCK. You little fuck. Fuck you. I never made the assertion that I am certain that there's no gods, and I have never claimed to have evidence that shows that there is absolutely no god. Stop being an asshole. Don't you tell me what I know. Again, if you want to actually ask my position on something, you may ask me. BUT DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Dishonest little fuck.I state that you don't believe in God, which is true, but you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth? Was it because I said "and you know it"? What are you trying to imply here?
What is honestly the matter with you? Why do you keep doing this weird dishonest bullshit over and over again? Cut it the fuck out already. Holy shit man.
Until there is good evidence for your god, I won't believe in it. That's my position on your god.
And again, what are your criteria for deciding whether a God exists?
Quote
Yes, you've got this right. I don't know what you mean by technicality though - I'm not trying to put the burden on the other side, because that's the only place the burden of proof ever lays: on the person who makes the claim. You mean like I'm technically correct on this basic flow of argument logic? I'll take that. Technically correct is a pretty damn good kind of correct. With my Flying Spaghetti Monster example in mind, do you honestly think the burden of proof requirement should be the other way around?
I'm not saying the burden of proof should be the other way around. That's putting words in MY mouth. You're establishing yourself in a supposedly unattackable position, which is a cheap move.
Post by: Airbongo on 13 April 2016, 02:48:26 AM
Quote
I asked you two questions and as usual you ignored them. How does heaven equate to universe in your head and will you ever address your shitpoints ako and luis disproved. Answer those questions now.
stupid dishonest ignorant cunt
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 06:19:09 AM
Post by: gerrit70 on 13 April 2016, 06:31:40 AM
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 09:26:21 AM
I asked you this and obviously you ignored it. I ask you again:QuoteI asked you two questions and as usual you ignored them. How does heaven equate to universe in your head and will you ever address your shitpoints ako and luis disproved. Answer those questions now.
As usual, I answered them within the posts, and you haven't bothered to check. Here they are again, for your convenience:
Quote
I don't know, maybe the reference of the universe as the heavens in literature hasn't rung a bell yet?Second definition of the heavens on Google: (literary)
the sky, especially perceived as a vault in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are situated.
One of the synonyms listed for it is space. You're welcome.
Quote
If I don't further press on, consider yourself as successfully having countered the argument.
REALIZATION: I may have accidentally deleted the second one while typing on my phone, as I couldn't find it.
Says the weed-smoking Mexican
Now to wait on Ako.
Post by: Airbongo on 13 April 2016, 11:37:24 AM
Lmao you ignored one of my questions again, you dishonest idiot. Are you gonna address the shit you posted that ako and luis disproved? Also, I highly doubt the Arabic translation even means anything close to it, but you don't consider that because you are a brain washed fool.I asked you this and obviously you ignored it. I ask you again:QuoteI asked you two questions and as usual you ignored them. How does heaven equate to universe in your head and will you ever address your shitpoints ako and luis disproved. Answer those questions now.
As usual, I answered them within the posts, and you haven't bothered to check. Here they are again, for your convenience:QuoteI don't know, maybe the reference of the universe as the heavens in literature hasn't rung a bell yet?Second definition of the heavens on Google: (literary)
the sky, especially perceived as a vault in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are situated.
One of the synonyms listed for it is space. You're welcome.QuoteIf I don't further press on, consider yourself as successfully having countered the argument.
REALIZATION: I may have accidentally deleted the second one while typing on my phone, as I couldn't find it.
Says the weed-smoking Mexican
Now to wait on Ako.
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 02:44:15 PM
Lmao you ignored one of my questions again, you dishonest idiot. Are you gonna address the shit you posted that ako and luis disproved? Also, I highly doubt the Arabic translation even means anything close to it, but you don't consider that because you are a brain washed fool.I asked you this and obviously you ignored it. I ask you again:QuoteI asked you two questions and as usual you ignored them. How does heaven equate to universe in your head and will you ever address your shitpoints ako and luis disproved. Answer those questions now.
As usual, I answered them within the posts, and you haven't bothered to check. Here they are again, for your convenience:QuoteI don't know, maybe the reference of the universe as the heavens in literature hasn't rung a bell yet?Second definition of the heavens on Google: (literary)
the sky, especially perceived as a vault in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are situated.
One of the synonyms listed for it is space. You're welcome.QuoteIf I don't further press on, consider yourself as successfully having countered the argument.
REALIZATION: I may have accidentally deleted the second one while typing on my phone, as I couldn't find it.
Says the weed-smoking Mexican
Now to wait on Ako.
Why do I need to address what's already been disproved? That's like you saying the sky is purple, I respond that it's blue due to particles in the air reflecting blue light, you not pressing on further and thus acknowledging my response, and then me telling you to further talk.
As for you doubting the translation, that's your problem. Stop accusing me of being a liar. Name ONE piece of evidence I have fabricated (as in quoting something that was never stated in the Quran).
In any matter, I'm not brainwashed. You, however, have an uncontrollable desire to insult me by jumping on whatever chance you get. You essentially accomplish nothing by doing so.
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 02:58:54 PM
sure, you "deleted it" you never had it in the first place. stop lying.
Post by: gerrit70 on 13 April 2016, 03:18:04 PM
Anyhow the red shift is when you can see the universe expanding as light from stars turns red as they move further away from the point your looking at it from, or earth. Arab scholars might have known light turns red as it moves farther away and have realized that the was universe expanding.
I can do fancy things too :D
Post by: Airbongo on 13 April 2016, 04:30:39 PM
You have to address those points because they were your main evidence. Also, you are a liar and dishonest because you've been putting words in our mouths and more importantly, like I already explained but you seem to ignore it, you cherry pick what you want to reply to and ignore what you can't debate. As for the insults, you've earned my disrespect and I will continue to insult you because this thread is like beating a dead horse. You will continue being dishonest, won't recognise when you are wrong, etc.Lmao you ignored one of my questions again, you dishonest idiot. Are you gonna address the shit you posted that ako and luis disproved? Also, I highly doubt the Arabic translation even means anything close to it, but you don't consider that because you are a brain washed fool.I asked you this and obviously you ignored it. I ask you again:QuoteI asked you two questions and as usual you ignored them. How does heaven equate to universe in your head and will you ever address your shitpoints ako and luis disproved. Answer those questions now.
As usual, I answered them within the posts, and you haven't bothered to check. Here they are again, for your convenience:QuoteI don't know, maybe the reference of the universe as the heavens in literature hasn't rung a bell yet?Second definition of the heavens on Google: (literary)
the sky, especially perceived as a vault in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are situated.
One of the synonyms listed for it is space. You're welcome.QuoteIf I don't further press on, consider yourself as successfully having countered the argument.
REALIZATION: I may have accidentally deleted the second one while typing on my phone, as I couldn't find it.
Says the weed-smoking Mexican
Now to wait on Ako.
Why do I need to address what's already been disproved? That's like you saying the sky is purple, I respond that it's blue due to particles in the air reflecting blue light, you not pressing on further and thus acknowledging my response, and then me telling you to further talk.
As for you doubting the translation, that's your problem. Stop accusing me of being a liar. Name ONE piece of evidence I have fabricated (as in quoting something that was never stated in the Quran).
In any matter, I'm not brainwashed. You, however, have an uncontrollable desire to insult me by jumping on whatever chance you get. You essentially accomplish nothing by doing so.
cunt
Post by: Lividup64 on 13 April 2016, 04:31:26 PM
Post by: Akomine on 13 April 2016, 04:44:07 PM
Air just said everything I wanted to say. I don't want to respond to this thread anymore. Ender is one of the most dishonest people I've ever conversed with, and I think that has been well established at this point. I see no reason to participate any further. It isn't worth it with the way he behaves.
On the upside, he asked me a real question about my evidence requirement instead of just shoving words in my mouth. On the downside, my patience has already run out. I'm fed up with him and his dishonesty. The pseudo science is fun and easy to debunk, but the never ending dishonest bullshit is just too much. And when we point it out, he just ignores it like nothing ever happened! We get frustrated when he keeps putting words in our mouths (which is a form of LYING, Ender), someone calls him out again and insults him and then he accuses THEM of bringing down the level of debate!? For fucks sakes man. I'm done.
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 05:15:04 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 06:20:37 PM
You have to address those points because they were your main evidence. Also, you are a liar and dishonest because you've been putting words in our mouths and more importantly, like I already explained but you seem to ignore it, you cherry pick what you want to reply to and ignore what you can't debate. As for the insults, you've earned my disrespect and I will continue to insult you because this thread is like beating a dead horse. You will continue being dishonest, won't recognise when you are wrong, etc.Lmao you ignored one of my questions again, you dishonest idiot. Are you gonna address the shit you posted that ako and luis disproved? Also, I highly doubt the Arabic translation even means anything close to it, but you don't consider that because you are a brain washed fool.I asked you this and obviously you ignored it. I ask you again:QuoteI asked you two questions and as usual you ignored them. How does heaven equate to universe in your head and will you ever address your shitpoints ako and luis disproved. Answer those questions now.
As usual, I answered them within the posts, and you haven't bothered to check. Here they are again, for your convenience:QuoteI don't know, maybe the reference of the universe as the heavens in literature hasn't rung a bell yet?Second definition of the heavens on Google: (literary)
the sky, especially perceived as a vault in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are situated.
One of the synonyms listed for it is space. You're welcome.QuoteIf I don't further press on, consider yourself as successfully having countered the argument.
REALIZATION: I may have accidentally deleted the second one while typing on my phone, as I couldn't find it.
Says the weed-smoking Mexican
Now to wait on Ako.
Why do I need to address what's already been disproved? That's like you saying the sky is purple, I respond that it's blue due to particles in the air reflecting blue light, you not pressing on further and thus acknowledging my response, and then me telling you to further talk.
As for you doubting the translation, that's your problem. Stop accusing me of being a liar. Name ONE piece of evidence I have fabricated (as in quoting something that was never stated in the Quran).
In any matter, I'm not brainwashed. You, however, have an uncontrollable desire to insult me by jumping on whatever chance you get. You essentially accomplish nothing by doing so.cunt
1. I have addressed the "cherry-picking". I tried to respond to your points collectively and indirectly, which I have already clarified, but you keep refusing to acknowledge. That is your fault, not mine.
2. You refusing to acknowledge the clarifications makes the entire problem yours.
"REALIZATION: I may have accidentally deleted the second one while typing on my phone, as I couldn't find it."
sure, you "deleted it" you never had it in the first place. stop lying.
Oh, so you magically know what I type before I post?
Yeah I agree Livid.
Air just said everything I wanted to say. I don't want to respond to this thread anymore. Ender is one of the most dishonest people I've ever conversed with, and I think that has been well established at this point. I see no reason to participate any further. It isn't worth it with the way he behaves.
On the upside, he asked me a real question about my evidence requirement instead of just shoving words in my mouth. On the downside, my patience has already run out. I'm fed up with him and his dishonesty. The pseudo science is fun and easy to debunk, but the never ending dishonest bullshit is just too much. And when we point it out, he just ignores it like nothing ever happened! We get frustrated when he keeps putting words in our mouths (which is a form of LYING, Ender), someone calls him out again and insults him and then he accuses THEM of bringing down the level of debate!? For fucks sakes man. I'm done.
3. I lost interest in this debate far earlier than you did.
4. I say that you don't believe in God, and then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. What the hell??
Quote
I state that you don't believe in God, which is true, but you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth? Was it because I said "and you know it"? What are you trying to imply here?
And again, what are your criteria for deciding whether a God exists?
5. Once I ask you this, you instantly lose interest all of a sudden? Since you seem to think you have the right to demand answers, as an equal participant in this "debate", I demand that you do the same.
Quote
I'd like to ask you this: What are your criteria for deciding whether a God exists, and how do you know that these criteria are correct? Until you can have confidence that you have the correct criteria, it is useless to begin investigating God's existence.
6. Despite me clarifying everything you assumed was "dishonest" and apologizing for making it seem so, you go on to call me dishonest (which has been clarified), falsified information (which is a lie), and cherry-picking (which was clarified long ago and ignored completely). And you say I'M dishonest?
7. You've debunked a lot of information I've put up. You have not debunked everything, however. Stop acting that way.
7a. I'm still waiting on this:
Quote
How did the Quran know about the universe's expansion? I don't recall the ancient Greeks knowing about this.
Verse: "And it is We (God) who have constructed the heaven (universe) with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (51:47)
If I'm correct, I think it was Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre who first theoretically calculated that the universe is constantly expanding.
8. No matter how much you deny it, YOU turned this into a playground insult match. For logic's sake, look at the freaking page history. Hmm, I wonder who started the stupid insults? Could it have been, I don't know, you?
Post by: gerrit70 on 13 April 2016, 06:46:51 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 06:47:49 PM
Stop Talking
Take your stupidity somewhere else.
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 06:53:37 PM
Stop Talking
Take your stupidity somewhere else.
your the retard avoiding akos question, nobody likes dishonest fucks.
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 06:54:23 PM
Stop Talking
Take your stupidity somewhere else.
your the retard avoiding akos question.
I already answered his question.
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 06:57:35 PM
take your dishonesty somewhere else.Stop Talking
Take your stupidity somewhere else.
your the retard avoiding akos question.
I already answered his question.
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 07:07:47 PM
take your dishonesty somewhere else.Stop Talking
Take your stupidity somewhere else.
your the retard avoiding akos question.
I already answered his question.
Take your false claims somewhere else.
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 07:17:12 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 13 April 2016, 07:21:16 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 07:28:17 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 07:51:49 PM
What a load of bullshit, you are either really fucking stupid, trolling and trying to aggravate us or you're just fucking deluded. Either way, go fuck yourself with a cactus a thousand times until you make allah cry.
You have no idea how stupid you just made yourself look.
I have clarified what you unjustifiably insult me for.
You have refused to acknowledge the clarifications.
Therefore, you are deluded.
I love how you didn't read any of my post. Lol.
air enders so stupid i saw him use cum as mayonaise on accident. unless he actually likes cum and meant to use it.
Good grief, Octo. Learn to spell.
Post by: gerrit70 on 13 April 2016, 08:03:01 PM
#banender2k16
Epic octo shrek below
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 08:03:58 PM
Post by: Akomine on 13 April 2016, 08:05:10 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 08:07:21 PM
Ender's llamas have been given to Livid.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
GET FUCKING REKT YOU SON OF A BITCH!!
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 08:08:02 PM
#banender2k16
Epic octo shrek below
What the hell have I done to deserve being banned?
Ender's llamas have been given to Livid.
Rude. I demand compensation.
Post by: gerrit70 on 13 April 2016, 08:11:02 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 08:12:06 PM
yea, and i demand 1 million dollars but that aint happenin.#banender2k16
Epic octo shrek below
What the hell have I done to deserve being banned?Ender's llamas have been given to Livid.
Rude. I demand compensation.
Post by: gerrit70 on 13 April 2016, 08:12:43 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 08:12:47 PM
Mostly because I like doing fun things with words. Also you implied that I was an idiot, although you are the one who seems not to understand common sense: you are pretty much saying that a unicorn exists because we have no evidence that it doesn't exist. Who's the idiot now?
LEL ENDER GETS REKT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4
Post by: Akomine on 13 April 2016, 08:17:13 PM
Oh look 11 now.
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 08:19:20 PM
Livid has been awarded Ender's former 3rd llama for starting a 10 page thread. Here here, Livid.
Oh look 11 now.
I believe Becky had that third llama.
RIP her llama.
Post by: Akomine on 13 April 2016, 08:20:03 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 08:20:41 PM
cloned it
And you couldn't have cloned mine?
Post by: Akomine on 13 April 2016, 08:32:19 PM
cloned it
And you couldn't have cloned mine?
Allah doesn't allow for that!
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 09:36:15 PM
cloned it
And you couldn't have cloned mine?
Allah doesn't allow for that!
That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I will not put up with your totalitarianism. Compensate my llamas please.
Post by: Airbongo on 13 April 2016, 09:54:49 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 April 2016, 10:00:47 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 10:01:20 PM
I tried to give you -10 llamas and it doesn't let me. Shame
I hear it works if you remove the negative sign.
Post by: Airbongo on 13 April 2016, 10:27:55 PM
NaaaahI tried to give you -10 llamas and it doesn't let me. Shame
I hear it works if you remove the negative sign.
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 10:48:21 PM
NaaaahI tried to give you -10 llamas and it doesn't let me. Shame
I hear it works if you remove the negative sign.
Trust me m9 it works. No viruses at all.
If you give me 75 permanent llamas I'll enslave my soul to you for all eternity.
Post by: PengBunny on 13 April 2016, 10:56:09 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 13 April 2016, 11:32:32 PM
guys can i get llamasYou've been given 10 llamas.
Post by: EnderEssence on 13 April 2016, 11:49:29 PM
NaaaahI tried to give you -10 llamas and it doesn't let me. Shame
I hear it works if you remove the negative sign.
Trust me m9 it works. No viruses at all.
If you give me 75 permanent llamas I'll enslave my soul to you for all eternity.
@Airbongus Van Winkledorf, read the bottom footnote. Deal or no deal?
Unfortunately for me, this means that you get to abuse my soul in any way you deem fit. But, if I get the aforementioned llamas in return, it'll have been worth it.
Post by: Airbongo on 14 April 2016, 04:10:13 AM
Post by: OctoGamer on 14 April 2016, 06:40:09 AM
Post by: EnderEssence on 14 April 2016, 08:24:35 AM
I don't want your dark dishonest soul, bitchtits.
Your Mexican soul is far darker, Air.
Can I still have llamas pls.
Post by: gerrit70 on 14 April 2016, 03:08:04 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 14 April 2016, 03:54:13 PM
No.I don't want your dark dishonest soul, bitchtits.
Your Mexican soul is far darker, Air.
Can I still have llamas pls.
Post by: Lividup64 on 14 April 2016, 04:33:44 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 14 April 2016, 04:43:38 PM
No.I don't want your dark dishonest soul, bitchtits.
Your Mexican soul is far darker, Air.
Can I still have llamas pls.
10 permallamas and I won't be on the forums for two weeks.
Post by: OctoGamer on 14 April 2016, 04:59:50 PM
No.I don't want your dark dishonest soul, bitchtits.
Your Mexican soul is far darker, Air.
Can I still have llamas pls.
10 permallamas and I won't be on the forums for two weeks.
how about no.
Post by: EnderEssence on 14 April 2016, 06:04:41 PM
No.I don't want your dark dishonest soul, bitchtits.
Your Mexican soul is far darker, Air.
Can I still have llamas pls.
10 permallamas and I won't be on the forums for two weeks.
how about no.
I'm sorry. I don't recall you being Air.
Post by: Airbongo on 14 April 2016, 06:19:22 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 14 April 2016, 06:38:10 PM
Post by: PengBunny on 14 April 2016, 06:45:52 PM
Post by: luisc99 on 14 April 2016, 07:04:26 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 14 April 2016, 07:06:52 PM
Post by: PengBunny on 14 April 2016, 07:11:08 PM
Post by: Akomine on 14 April 2016, 07:48:00 PM
i agree with octo
I agree with peng agreeing with octo regarding llamas for ender, and how he will get none
Post by: EnderEssence on 14 April 2016, 08:08:49 PM
i agree with octo
I agree with peng agreeing with octo regarding llamas for ender, and how he will get none
I had dignity once.
Seriously could I have my llamas back please.
Post by: OctoGamer on 14 April 2016, 11:21:50 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 14 April 2016, 11:49:46 PM
ako can i have some llamas and not ender
Wow, selfish.
Post by: gerrit70 on 15 April 2016, 06:41:51 AM
Post by: Airbongo on 15 April 2016, 04:11:26 PM
ako can i have some llamas and not enderYou've been given 10 llamas.
Post by: OctoGamer on 15 April 2016, 04:40:20 PM
ako can i have some llamas and not enderYou've been given 10 llamas.
thanks bro.
Post by: EnderEssence on 16 April 2016, 06:11:50 AM
ako can i have some llamas and not enderYou've been given 10 llamas.
thanks bro.
LOL
Post by: OctoGamer on 16 April 2016, 08:39:42 AM
Post by: EnderEssence on 16 April 2016, 02:21:18 PM
poor ender, didn't get his llamas.
ikr
Post by: Die_Endermen on 16 April 2016, 05:34:59 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/nxJlRsc.jpg)
and not to forget @EnderEssence every day... http://youtu.be/tqZocOqQPt0 (http://youtu.be/tqZocOqQPt0)
Post by: EnderEssence on 16 April 2016, 05:40:58 PM
This thread in a nutshell
(INSERT PICTURES HERE)
Where the hell do you find these.
Post by: Akomine on 16 April 2016, 06:56:51 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 16 April 2016, 07:03:04 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/PQt0Rad.jpg)Couldn't have said it better myself.
Post by: PengBunny on 16 April 2016, 07:58:46 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/PQt0Rad.jpg)
That's not a joke Akomine. >:(
Post by: Shensley on 16 April 2016, 11:25:38 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 16 April 2016, 11:55:50 PM
@Airbongus Van Winkledorf If you would ever be so kind, Can I have 1 Llama?
NO
Post by: PengBunny on 17 April 2016, 12:27:04 AM
@Airbongus Van Winkledorf If you would ever be so kind, Can I have 1 Llama?
NO
dad can i get another llama
Post by: Airbongo on 17 April 2016, 01:14:18 AM
NO, THAT WOULD MAKE IT AN UNEVEN NUMBER. THINK ABOUT THE NUMBERS, YOU BITCH@Airbongus Van Winkledorf If you would ever be so kind, Can I have 1 Llama?
NO
dad can i get another llama
Post by: PengBunny on 17 April 2016, 10:54:20 AM
NO, THAT WOULD MAKE IT AN UNEVEN NUMBER. THINK ABOUT THE NUMBERS, YOU BITCH@Airbongus Van Winkledorf If you would ever be so kind, Can I have 1 Llama?
NO
dad can i get another llama
two more then
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 April 2016, 11:57:12 AM
NO, THAT WOULD MAKE IT AN UNEVEN NUMBER. THINK ABOUT THE NUMBERS, YOU BITCH@Airbongus Van Winkledorf If you would ever be so kind, Can I have 1 Llama?
NO
dad can i get another llama
two more then
Same pls.
Post by: Shensley on 17 April 2016, 12:05:41 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 17 April 2016, 12:11:39 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 April 2016, 02:53:34 PM
ender you will never get llamas.
Oh noes Octo can predict the future.
Post by: Airbongo on 17 April 2016, 03:25:36 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 April 2016, 03:29:25 PM
We gave ender llamas but they ran away, scared by his dishonesty. They have a new home now.
Despite me already clarifying, you're still being an ignorant peasant about it.
And you claimed to forcefully take away my llamas, not them naturally running off on their own.
Now give me llamas back pls.
Post by: OctoGamer on 17 April 2016, 03:45:57 PM
yesterday you said you have been here for 6 months when you've only been here for 5.
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 April 2016, 03:48:01 PM
ender we all know you lied.
yesterday you said you have been here for 6 months when you've only been here for 5.
HONEST MISTAKE
I thought late October was when I first joined, when it was actually November. It's incredibly dirty of you to try to use that against me.
Post by: OctoGamer on 17 April 2016, 04:29:35 PM
its incredibly dirty of you to lie about it.
Post by: Lividup64 on 17 April 2016, 05:25:39 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 April 2016, 06:16:42 PM
not really.
its incredibly dirty of you to lie about it.
How the hell is it lying when I already said it was an honest mistake.
They're MY llamas now! Mine! The llamas have been liberated from your Ottoman Imperial subjugation and oppression. They are now free llamas roaming the green fields of Lividland. Never again will they return to Enderland for that would be like committing a war crime. Like returning Jews freed from German oppression back into the hands of Hitler.
So you're basically comparing me to Hitler.
wat
Post by: Witchdoctor1 on 17 April 2016, 06:48:44 PM
They're MY llamas now! Mine! The llamas have been liberated from your Ottoman Imperial subjugation and oppression. They are now free llamas roaming the green fields of Lividland. Never again will they return to Enderland for that would be like committing a war crime. Like returning Jews freed from German oppression back into the hands of Hitler.
This made me lol. Well done.
Post by: OctoGamer on 17 April 2016, 07:24:38 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 April 2016, 09:36:46 PM
lying and honest mistakes are 2 different things ender. you were lying.
So you can both predict the future and have powers of telepathy? Gosh, I should really be more like you.
Seriously how the f*** is that lying. I thought it was 6 months, turns out to be 5, and you jump on the chance to criticize me like there's no tomorrow. With all due respect, you need some milk.
Post by: Airbongo on 17 April 2016, 09:43:33 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ZhwVooI.png)
Post by: OctoGamer on 17 April 2016, 09:59:23 PM
and yes you should be like me. im the second best person on VC and VC fourms.
Post by: Akomine on 17 April 2016, 10:43:41 PM
Post by: Die_Endermen on 17 April 2016, 11:05:26 PM
Y pienso que tú eres el "liar" peor, pinche pieza de mierda. Tú serías en Turquía y no tienes bienvenidos cuando estás en mi país y eso es America. Oíste de la lengua ingles? Tu debes aprenderla
la lección básica: Turquia es mierda y tú también serías en la basura
espero que en 10 años tu vas a volver a nuestro lado de Grecía y cambiarás a la iglesia de ortodoxa rusa
lol n'est pas un pranque je trolle
désolé
on peut parler pas français parce que je n'aime pas espagnol, c'est une langue mal et pour mexicains et les pouvres que s'habituent au Mexique
Que la force soit avec toi! ET AU REVOIR PERSONNES STUPIDES CHIENS NOIRS ( @Airbongus Van Winkledorf )
air would bang Romeo Santos for candy lel
and he likes Nicky Jam
Post by: PengBunny on 17 April 2016, 11:48:22 PM
@EnderEssence chinga tu madre puto estupido. Si Jesus fue en vida, él te mataría por 30 segundos... Corre, pinche puñeta y no devuelves. Espero que tu país va a morir. Yo voté por Trump y nosotros necesitamos un presidente bien!!! Trump es la selección ideal por los EEUU #Trump2016
Y pienso que tú eres el "liar" peor, pinche pieza de mierda. Tú serías en Turquía y no tienes bienvenidos cuando estás en mi país y eso es America. Oíste de la lengua ingles? Tu debes aprenderla
la lección básica: Turquia es mierda y tú también serías en la basura
espero que en 10 años tu vas a volver a nuestro lado de Grecía y cambiarás a la iglesia de ortodoxa rusa
lol n'est pas un pranque je trolle
désolé
on peut parler pas français parce que je n'aime pas espagnol, c'est une langue mal et pour mexicains et les pouvres que s'habituent au Mexique
Que la force soit avec toi! ET AU REVOIR PERSONNES STUPIDES CHIENS NOIRS ( @Airbongus Van Winkledorf )
air would bang Romeo Santos for candy lel
and he likes Nicky Jam
what the fuck are you even talking about
Post by: luisc99 on 18 April 2016, 02:15:51 AM
And air, why use BBC news? I mean, it's great here, but do you not have something better in Mexico?
Post by: Airbongo on 18 April 2016, 05:26:42 AM
@EnderEssence chinga tu madre puto estupido. Si Jesus fue en vida, él te mataría por 30 segundos... Corre, pinche puñeta y no devuelves. Espero que tu país va a morir. Yo voté por Trump y nosotros necesitamos un presidente bien!!! Trump es la selección ideal por los EEUU #Trump2016Holy fuck the autism.
Y pienso que tú eres el "liar" peor, pinche pieza de mierda. Tú serías en Turquía y no tienes bienvenidos cuando estás en mi país y eso es America. Oíste de la lengua ingles? Tu debes aprenderla
la lección básica: Turquia es mierda y tú también serías en la basura
espero que en 10 años tu vas a volver a nuestro lado de Grecía y cambiarás a la iglesia de ortodoxa rusa
lol n'est pas un pranque je trolle
désolé
on peut parler pas français parce que je n'aime pas espagnol, c'est une langue mal et pour mexicains et les pouvres que s'habituent au Mexique
Que la force soit avec toi! ET AU REVOIR PERSONNES STUPIDES CHIENS NOIRS ( @Airbongus Van Winkledorf )
air would bang Romeo Santos for candy lel
and he likes Nicky Jam
Post by: Airbongo on 18 April 2016, 05:28:14 AM
Die, why switch languages halfway? It makes no sense...I only use it on phone, the app is pretty good and there is a widget on my home screen with top worldwide news.
And air, why use BBC news? I mean, it's great here, but do you not have something better in Mexico?
Post by: Die_Endermen on 18 April 2016, 05:21:42 PM
@EnderEssence chinga tu madre puto estupido. Si Jesus fue en vida, él te mataría por 30 segundos... Corre, pinche puñeta y no devuelves. Espero que tu país va a morir. Yo voté por Trump y nosotros necesitamos un presidente bien!!! Trump es la selección ideal por los EEUU #Trump2016Holy fuck the autism.
Y pienso que tú eres el "liar" peor, pinche pieza de mierda. Tú serías en Turquía y no tienes bienvenidos cuando estás en mi país y eso es America. Oíste de la lengua ingles? Tu debes aprenderla
la lección básica: Turquia es mierda y tú también serías en la basura
espero que en 10 años tu vas a volver a nuestro lado de Grecía y cambiarás a la iglesia de ortodoxa rusa
lol n'est pas un pranque je trolle
désolé
on peut parler pas français parce que je n'aime pas espagnol, c'est une langue mal et pour mexicains et les pouvres que s'habituent au Mexique
Que la force soit avec toi! ET AU REVOIR PERSONNES STUPIDES CHIENS NOIRS ( @Airbongus Van Winkledorf )
air would bang Romeo Santos for candy lel
and he likes Nicky Jam
tu madre tiene autismo y ella debió estar muy cansada que te tuvo nacimiento a tú
pienso que no sabes que eres un acidente??
pinche puñeta coño cállate la boca
also @luisc99 yes they have Univision and BBC Mundo
Post by: Airbongo on 18 April 2016, 05:33:39 PM
Those 2 are an american things meant for beaners you fool. I speak perfect English, I don't need shitty spanish news.@EnderEssence chinga tu madre puto estupido. Si Jesus fue en vida, él te mataría por 30 segundos... Corre, pinche puñeta y no devuelves. Espero que tu país va a morir. Yo voté por Trump y nosotros necesitamos un presidente bien!!! Trump es la selección ideal por los EEUU #Trump2016Holy fuck the autism.
Y pienso que tú eres el "liar" peor, pinche pieza de mierda. Tú serías en Turquía y no tienes bienvenidos cuando estás en mi país y eso es America. Oíste de la lengua ingles? Tu debes aprenderla
la lección básica: Turquia es mierda y tú también serías en la basura
espero que en 10 años tu vas a volver a nuestro lado de Grecía y cambiarás a la iglesia de ortodoxa rusa
lol n'est pas un pranque je trolle
désolé
on peut parler pas français parce que je n'aime pas espagnol, c'est une langue mal et pour mexicains et les pouvres que s'habituent au Mexique
Que la force soit avec toi! ET AU REVOIR PERSONNES STUPIDES CHIENS NOIRS ( @Airbongus Van Winkledorf )
air would bang Romeo Santos for candy lel
and he likes Nicky Jam
tu madre tiene autismo y ella debió estar muy cansada que te tuvo nacimiento a tú
pienso que no sabes que eres un acidente??
pinche puñeta coño cállate la boca
also @luisc99 yes they have Univision and BBC Mundo
Post by: boylink on 19 April 2016, 03:41:53 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 19 April 2016, 03:53:40 PM
Ender's tiny text is triggering me.
it triggers everyone. its so hard to copy and paste it to see what it says
Post by: EnderEssence on 19 April 2016, 04:44:18 PM
Ender's tiny text is triggering me.
it triggers everyone. its so hard to copy and paste it to see what it says
That's the point.
Post by: OctoGamer on 19 April 2016, 04:52:33 PM
no your just to much of a pussy to say it in regular font.Ender's tiny text is triggering me.
it triggers everyone. its so hard to copy and paste it to see what it says
That's the point.
Post by: PengBunny on 19 April 2016, 04:59:52 PM
no your just to much of a pussy to say it in regular font.Ender's tiny text is triggering me.
it triggers everyone. its so hard to copy and paste it to see what it says
That's the point.
watch your mouth octo
Post by: luisc99 on 19 April 2016, 05:43:34 PM
Ender's tiny text is triggering me.
it triggers everyone. its so hard to copy and paste it to see what it says
Just press "quote" and read it in the text box, without posting it. Also you may be able to zoom in quite far, although that depends on your OS and/or browser. I know iOS Safari lets you zoom so you can see it
Post by: Airbongo on 19 April 2016, 06:59:08 PM
Safari sucksEnder's tiny text is triggering me.
it triggers everyone. its so hard to copy and paste it to see what it says
Just press "quote" and read it in the text box, without posting it. Also you may be able to zoom in quite far, although that depends on your OS and/or browser. I know iOS Safari lets you zoom so you can see it
Post by: Witchdoctor1 on 19 April 2016, 11:57:15 PM
Post by: Akomine on 20 April 2016, 12:37:58 AM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus (Paraphrased and disputed, yet widely attributed to.)
I've always loved that quote, whoever it came from.
Both sides of a sports match pray to god that they win. One team scores more points, and wins. Does god prefer that team? No, god doesn't exist. But if he did exist, and did intervene to make one team win, he's petty.
A very young European child with bone cancer and a very young African child with bone cancer pray to god that they survive. The European child with superior medical services survives, while the African child dies. Is god a shithead immoral asshole? No, god doesn't exist. If he did exist and did choose one child over the other, he's a shithead immoral asshole.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Post by: Akomine on 20 April 2016, 02:40:57 PM
His current retarded argument path is "so I said you don't believe in god, and that's me putting words in your mouth?". Like what the fuck, THAT is what he took away from all of this? What a dishonest, nitpicky way to spin my complaints about his dishonesty. Ignoring all of my other points, and he says THAT as if it's the only problem I have with what he said? That wasn't even my complaint. Such a fucking asshole.
And a dishonest cunt. Hey look small letters.
Post by: Airbongo on 20 April 2016, 04:50:36 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 20 April 2016, 09:19:43 PM
I think it's worth noting that Ender came on IRC on VC yesterday, and it seem that from his point of view he has done nothing wrong. He has never been dishonest, he has sufficiently answered all of our questions, complaints, and takedowns. He has clarified everything there is to clarify. He has acknowledged everything there is to acknowledge. And he is absolved of all of his bullshit wrongdoing. That's what he honestly thinks. Dude is delusional.
His current retarded argument path is "so I said you don't believe in god, and that's me putting words in your mouth?". Like what the fuck, THAT is what he took away from all of this? What a dishonest, nitpicky way to spin my complaints about his dishonesty. Ignoring all of my other points, and he says THAT as if it's the only problem I have with what he said? That wasn't even my complaint. Such a fucking asshole.
I made one point and you claim that's all I have to say. You keep cycling back to already talked-about topics as if they're fresh things to use against me.
I do admit, however, that some of the arguments I've put here were rushed and not as carefully thought out as some of the others. Your retarded insult sprees, however, are completely uncalled for. Shame.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/nInATFhQwrD25PPS6dXjjfHdfiAtdAhEijQTeKs0WXIdNlgPbXCXPo8FKj7jlddFJlkqOkXQsVEKwuyC0Tv5-XxkkObbw70Ipb_czhYI2IQ=w300-h232-nc)
Well put.
Post by: Akomine on 21 April 2016, 01:57:27 AM
I made one point and you claim that's all I have to say.
No, that's not what I did at all.
Quote
You keep cycling back to already talked-about topics as if they're fresh things to use against me.
I'm not acting like they're fresh. I keep cycling back to things because you often ignore, fail to acknowledge, or otherwise divert attention away from answering to rebuttals, questions, points, and complaints that are made with regards to what you say. When someone points out you doing something dishonest, and then you keep doing that very same thing, it's not like I'm going to just stop pointing it out. Being "fresh" has nothing to do with it. Being diligent does have something to do with it though.
Quote
I do admit, however, that some of the arguments I've put here were rushed and not as carefully thought out as some of the others.
Thanks for putting this in tiny text to make it harder to read. I've gone ahead and bolded it, because I think it's important.
Which arguments are the ones you're referring to?
Post by: EnderEssence on 21 April 2016, 11:35:23 AM
Quote
No, that's not what I did at all.Are you sure? It certainly came off that way.
Quote
I'm not acting like they're fresh. I keep cycling back to things because you often ignore, fail to acknowledge, or otherwise divert attention away from answering to rebuttals, questions, points, and complaints that are made with regards to what you say. When someone points out you doing something dishonest, and then you keep doing that very same thing, it's not like I'm going to just stop pointing it out. Being "fresh" has nothing to do with it. Being diligent does have something to do with it though.My question is, why do you refer to them as ignored despite me clarifying and you refusing to listen?
Quote
I've gone ahead and bolded it (note: in reference to Ender's post), because I think it's important.I haven't gone back and looked, but there are some rushed arguments in there (i.e: the orbit thing despite me already knowing about Ptolemy's geocentric solar system model). I don't think you can define them as one category, they may be scattered here and there.
Which arguments are the ones you're referring to?
Yes, I know this is quite vague. But there's no point in searching back if both sides have already quit debating.
Did somebody say...more tiny text?
Post by: Akomine on 21 April 2016, 03:24:12 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 21 April 2016, 03:53:25 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 21 April 2016, 09:08:14 PM
I think Ender's delusion stems from his brainwashed muslim ways. Ender is as dishonest as a two legged mule and that's saying something. You're as dishonest as a rodeo clown.
My "dishonesty" has nothing to do with my religion.
I didn't get the mule joke. Or the clown one.
srsly though why are we still posting here
Post by: PengBunny on 21 April 2016, 09:16:32 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 22 April 2016, 01:31:34 AM
can you stop with the fucking ass tiny text you stupid fucking :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
I'm...I'm sorry.
Post by: Lividup64 on 22 April 2016, 08:06:58 AM
Basically, they were on their way back to the hotel because it was raining, and the taxi driver stopped like 1km away from the hotel. My uncle said he'd pay extra if the taxi driver dropped them off at the hotel, but no. He refused to drive and they had to walk. In the pouring rain. For no apparent reason than they the taxi driver hates foreigners.
So as you can see, Turks are filthy cab drivers that drop people off 1km from their hotel in the rain.
Post by: OctoGamer on 22 April 2016, 08:09:00 AM
Turks are sexists, racists and dishonest whores. When my mom and my aunts and uncle went to Istanbul, do you know what the taxi driver did?lol now we wait for enders reaction.
Basically, they were on their way back to the hotel because it was raining, and the taxi driver stopped like 1km away from the hotel. My uncle said he'd pay extra if the taxi driver dropped them off at the hotel, but no. He refused to drive and they had to walk. In the pouring rain. For no apparent reason than they the taxi driver hates foreigners.
So as you can see, Turks are filthy cab drivers that drop people off 1km from their hotel in the rain.
Post by: EnderEssence on 22 April 2016, 11:27:48 AM
Turks are sexists, racists and dishonest whores. When my mom and my aunts and uncle went to Istanbul, do you know what the taxi driver did?lol now we wait for enders reaction.
Basically, they were on their way back to the hotel because it was raining, and the taxi driver stopped like 1km away from the hotel. My uncle said he'd pay extra if the taxi driver dropped them off at the hotel, but no. He refused to drive and they had to walk. In the pouring rain. For no apparent reason than they the taxi driver hates foreigners.
So as you can see, Turks are filthy cab drivers that drop people off 1km from their hotel in the rain.
No, that's actually true for a lot of people (no need to blame 73 million people here, but there's a lot of people like that). It's not just toward foreigners, but even other Turks. The sad truth is, there a lot of corrupt taxi drivers who like to take advantage of the fact that foreigners (and even other Turks) aren't that familiar with the Turkish lira and thus try to extort as much from them as possible (such as making someone pay $200 for a $20 ride). I'm sorry that you had to experience this firsthand.
Tbh a lot of government policies/officials are just plain stupid.
Post by: Airbongo on 22 April 2016, 11:55:36 AM
Post by: OctoGamer on 22 April 2016, 12:08:15 PM
Turks are uglyyep
Post by: luisc99 on 22 April 2016, 01:24:28 PM
Post by: Shensley on 22 April 2016, 01:24:36 PM
Post by: Die_Endermen on 23 April 2016, 11:52:29 PM
so hyped for it thanks to the Kids United music video with My Little Pony in it :D :-*
Post by: PengBunny on 24 April 2016, 11:12:47 AM
so anyone else excited about that My Little Pony film? That's on my bucket list beside Finding Dory and Toy Story 4 ( @luisc99 merci) ;) :o
so hyped for it thanks to the Kids United music video with My Little Pony in it :D :-*
what are you
Post by: gerrit70 on 24 April 2016, 12:10:23 PM
ITs a marshallow
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 06:03:12 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/02/e2/67/02e2670e38ecc4f00071d93610506e80.jpg)
ITs a marshallow
I like marshmallows.
Post by: Airbongo on 25 April 2016, 07:07:28 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 07:07:59 PM
This thread will go down in history as the thread where ender got destroyed
Sure, sure.
Post by: Airbongo on 25 April 2016, 07:10:00 PM
It's trueThis thread will go down in history as the thread where ender got destroyed
Sure, sure.
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 07:10:40 PM
RiiiiiiightIt's trueThis thread will go down in history as the thread where ender got destroyed
Sure, sure.
Post by: OctoGamer on 25 April 2016, 07:27:27 PM
It's trueRiiiiiiightIt's trueThis thread will go down in history as the thread where ender got destroyed
Sure, sure.
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 07:29:23 PM
MmkayIt's trueRiiiiiiightIt's trueThis thread will go down in history as the thread where ender got destroyed
Sure, sure.
Post by: Airbongo on 25 April 2016, 08:25:24 PM
Post by: PengBunny on 25 April 2016, 08:29:31 PM
MmkayIt's trueRiiiiiiightIt's trueThis thread will go down in history as the thread where ender got destroyed
Sure, sure.
no really
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 09:16:18 PM
oh reallyMmkayIt's trueRiiiiiiightIt's trueThis thread will go down in history as the thread where ender got destroyed
Sure, sure.
no really
Lul this fag can't get past his ego.
The irony.
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 April 2016, 09:18:39 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 09:21:31 PM
I like big shiny letters too
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 April 2016, 09:22:49 PM
@EnderEssence
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 April 2016, 09:23:40 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 09:23:50 PM
YOU HAVE DISPLEASED THE OGRE!!
You have successfully proven my point.
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 April 2016, 09:26:43 PM
You probably think Argentina has sovreignty over the Falkland islands
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 09:28:09 PM
You probably think Argentina has sovreignty over the Falkland islands
Sovereignty*, you peasant.
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 April 2016, 09:30:14 PM
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/3/1357230010922/Sheep-on-the-Falkland-isl-001.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=0314bf625f39eca73469050dc0e998ca)
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 09:32:29 PM
You only want it for the sheepAre you trying to post farm or something?
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/3/1357230010922/Sheep-on-the-Falkland-isl-001.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=0314bf625f39eca73469050dc0e998ca)
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 April 2016, 09:33:23 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 09:37:41 PM
No, but look whos talkingYes, you. Point proven.
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 April 2016, 09:41:45 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 25 April 2016, 09:46:38 PM
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5sAqoYXE4QM/mqdefault.jpg)Bernie's cool and all, but your overused memes...just...no.
Post by: OctoGamer on 25 April 2016, 10:30:38 PM
Post by: Akomine on 26 April 2016, 01:59:55 AM
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 09:21:45 AM
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
Post by: Akomine on 26 April 2016, 10:36:48 AM
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
No, rereading all of your logical fallacies, strawmanning, dishonest debate tactics, and general bullshittery would be painful. For you to actually not understand how YOU fucked up this debate is nutbars.
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 10:52:30 AM
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
No, rereading all of your logical fallacies, strawmanning, dishonest debate tactics, and general bullshittery would be painful. For you to actually not understand how YOU fucked up this debate is nutbars.
I'm not even going to try to clarify again. It's going to be the same ignorant process all over again. Unbelievable.
Post by: Airbongo on 26 April 2016, 12:50:11 PM
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 02:57:15 PM
Get the fuck out of here bitch. No one likes stupid assholes.Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
No, rereading all of your logical fallacies, strawmanning, dishonest debate tactics, and general bullshittery would be painful. For you to actually not understand how YOU fucked up this debate is nutbars.
I'm not even going to try to clarify again. It's going to be the same ignorant process all over again. Unbelievable.
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 05:34:59 PM
Get the fuck out of here bitch. No one likes stupid assholes.Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
No, rereading all of your logical fallacies, strawmanning, dishonest debate tactics, and general bullshittery would be painful. For you to actually not understand how YOU fucked up this debate is nutbars.
I'm not even going to try to clarify again. It's going to be the same ignorant process all over again. Unbelievable.
This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit.
This fucker is delusional.
Tell me...just what have you contributed to this debate? Y'know, before the Great Trashing?
Post by: Shensley on 26 April 2016, 05:35:46 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 26 April 2016, 06:11:31 PM
This fucker is delusional.
Tell me...just what have you contributed to this debate? Y'know, before the Great Trashing?
[/quote]
I contributed at the beginning champ, also better to not contribute than to be a dishonest cunt.
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 07:06:39 PM
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
Post by: Die_Endermen on 26 April 2016, 07:31:56 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGov-KH7hkM
You better enjoy, I pirated this video, it would have cost me 5 francs if I didn't break the law and pay for it. Ungrateful bastards.
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 07:42:13 PM
Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
k
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
k
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave (going against his own point), and Ender himself gets "called out" by Octo for reinforcing his very point.
k
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 07:46:22 PM
Still ignores the entire part about honesty :) dishonest little fuck.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
K.
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
K.
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave, going against his own point.
K.
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 07:51:28 PM
Still ignores the entire part about honesty :) dishonest little fuck.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
K.
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
K.
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave, going against his own point.
K.
-"Calls out" Ender for not addressing a completely irrelevant quote, doesn't bother to correct his own hypocrisy.
k
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 08:01:00 PM
All i was trying to do was get a reaction from you (which i got as usual) And I was also trying to say you shouldn't be fucking talking about "Being able to post where i want" when you have told people multiple times to stay out of threads. Fucking turk. Go make some friends.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
k
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
k
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave (going against his own point), and Ender himself gets "called out" by Octo for reinforcing his very point.
k
And when i told you to go away, I said that because you had previously told gerrit to screw off. forgot to mention that in my list of quotes. sorry buddy.
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 08:28:33 PM
All i was trying to do was get a reaction from you (which i got as usual) And I was also trying to say you shouldn't be fucking talking about "Being able to post where i want" when you have told people multiple times to stay out of threads. Fucking turk. Go make some friends.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
k
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
k
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave (going against his own point), and Ender himself gets "called out" by Octo for reinforcing his very point.
k
And when i told you to go away, I said that because you had previously told gerrit to screw off. forgot to mention that in my list of quotes. sorry buddy.
Fifteen seconds of my life that I'll never get back as a result of reading this crap. You were just trying to "get a reaction" out of me? Octo, please. If I had given more or less a half-hearted response to your previous post, you would've immediately jumped on the opportunity to call me out for a lazy response. 10/10.
I love you didn't forget to be xenophobic and demeaning in your post as well, as if insulting me with irrelevant comments made your already crappy post any less meaningful.
I love how you still haven't come up with a meaningful response to address the problems with your "argument" and are trying to steer away towards doing so by saying that you were "trying to get a reaction".
I love how you completely ignored clarified statements and attempted to use them against me. So dishonest of you.
I love how you repetitively keep refuting your own arguments.
And a nice day to you too, Octo.
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 08:30:13 PM
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAll i was trying to do was get a reaction from you (which i got as usual) And I was also trying to say you shouldn't be fucking talking about "Being able to post where i want" when you have told people multiple times to stay out of threads. Fucking turk. Go make some friends.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
k
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
k
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave (going against his own point), and Ender himself gets "called out" by Octo for reinforcing his very point.
k
And when i told you to go away, I said that because you had previously told gerrit to screw off. forgot to mention that in my list of quotes. sorry buddy.
Fifteen seconds of my life that I'll never get back as a result of reading this crap. You were just trying to "get a reaction" out of me? Octo, please. If I had given more or less a half-hearted response to your previous post, you would've immediately jumped on the opportunity to call me out for a lazy response. 10/10.
I love you didn't forget to be xenophobic and demeaning in your post as well, as if insulting me with irrelevant comments made your already crappy post any less meaningful.
I love how you still haven't come up with a meaningful response to address the problems with your "argument" and are trying to steer away towards doing so by saying that you were "trying to get a reaction".
I love how you completely ignored clarified statements and attempted to use them against me. So dishonest of you.
I love how you repetitively keep refuting your own arguments.
And a nice day to you too, Octo.
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 08:31:23 PM
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAll i was trying to do was get a reaction from you (which i got as usual) And I was also trying to say you shouldn't be fucking talking about "Being able to post where i want" when you have told people multiple times to stay out of threads. Fucking turk. Go make some friends.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
k
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
k
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave (going against his own point), and Ender himself gets "called out" by Octo for reinforcing his very point.
k
And when i told you to go away, I said that because you had previously told gerrit to screw off. forgot to mention that in my list of quotes. sorry buddy.
Fifteen seconds of my life that I'll never get back as a result of reading this crap. You were just trying to "get a reaction" out of me? Octo, please. If I had given more or less a half-hearted response to your previous post, you would've immediately jumped on the opportunity to call me out for a lazy response. 10/10.
I love you didn't forget to be xenophobic and demeaning in your post as well, as if insulting me with irrelevant comments made your already crappy post any less meaningful.
I love how you still haven't come up with a meaningful response to address the problems with your "argument" and are trying to steer away towards doing so by saying that you were "trying to get a reaction".
I love how you completely ignored clarified statements and attempted to use them against me. So dishonest of you.
I love how you repetitively keep refuting your own arguments.
And a nice day to you too, Octo.
Okay...?
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 08:31:56 PM
Funny shit turk boy. keep telling yourself that.AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAll i was trying to do was get a reaction from you (which i got as usual) And I was also trying to say you shouldn't be fucking talking about "Being able to post where i want" when you have told people multiple times to stay out of threads. Fucking turk. Go make some friends.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
k
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
k
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave (going against his own point), and Ender himself gets "called out" by Octo for reinforcing his very point.
k
And when i told you to go away, I said that because you had previously told gerrit to screw off. forgot to mention that in my list of quotes. sorry buddy.
Fifteen seconds of my life that I'll never get back as a result of reading this crap. You were just trying to "get a reaction" out of me? Octo, please. If I had given more or less a half-hearted response to your previous post, you would've immediately jumped on the opportunity to call me out for a lazy response. 10/10.
I love you didn't forget to be xenophobic and demeaning in your post as well, as if insulting me with irrelevant comments made your already crappy post any less meaningful.
I love how you still haven't come up with a meaningful response to address the problems with your "argument" and are trying to steer away towards doing so by saying that you were "trying to get a reaction".
I love how you completely ignored clarified statements and attempted to use them against me. So dishonest of you.
I love how you repetitively keep refuting your own arguments.
And a nice day to you too, Octo.
Okay...?
Post by: Airbongo on 26 April 2016, 08:43:02 PM
Post by: gerrit70 on 26 April 2016, 08:46:44 PM
(http://www.furryfandom.info/img/furries-costume.jpg)
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 08:48:31 PM
Lets sum this up and stop the argument: Ender is a dum dum and octo is actually right :)i already knew that
(http://www.furryfandom.info/img/furries-costume.jpg)
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 08:51:06 PM
Funny shit turk boy. keep telling yourself that.AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAll i was trying to do was get a reaction from you (which i got as usual) And I was also trying to say you shouldn't be fucking talking about "Being able to post where i want" when you have told people multiple times to stay out of threads. Fucking turk. Go make some friends.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
k
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
k
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave (going against his own point), and Ender himself gets "called out" by Octo for reinforcing his very point.
k
And when i told you to go away, I said that because you had previously told gerrit to screw off. forgot to mention that in my list of quotes. sorry buddy.
Fifteen seconds of my life that I'll never get back as a result of reading this crap. You were just trying to "get a reaction" out of me? Octo, please. If I had given more or less a half-hearted response to your previous post, you would've immediately jumped on the opportunity to call me out for a lazy response. 10/10.
I love you didn't forget to be xenophobic and demeaning in your post as well, as if insulting me with irrelevant comments made your already crappy post any less meaningful.
I love how you still haven't come up with a meaningful response to address the problems with your "argument" and are trying to steer away towards doing so by saying that you were "trying to get a reaction".
I love how you completely ignored clarified statements and attempted to use them against me. So dishonest of you.
I love how you repetitively keep refuting your own arguments.
And a nice day to you too, Octo.
Okay...?
Keep telling myself that? Very funny, you can't argue on your own behalf and now you're trying to steer yourself away from doing so.
LOL
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fAm_1PGWfrE/hqdefault.jpg)
How nice, Air's even helping you do so.
Lets sum this up and stop the argument: Ender is a dum dum and octo is actually right :)
(http://www.furryfandom.info/img/furries-costume.jpg)
And so is Gerrit.
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 08:57:06 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 26 April 2016, 09:03:47 PM
I wouldn't say I'm trying to aruge. Waste of time in my opinion because you never give up ender. Even when you are caught lying and cheating.
You wouldn't say it. Of course you wouldn't. However, you have been doing just that, even after I pointed out your own dishonesty in trying to call me out within the past two hours.
Post by: OctoGamer on 26 April 2016, 09:04:39 PM
Lol. i'm just doing exactly what you've been doing all month.I wouldn't say I'm trying to aruge. Waste of time in my opinion because you never give up ender. Even when you are caught lying and cheating.
You wouldn't say it. Of course you wouldn't. However, you have been doing just that, even after I pointed out your own dishonesty in trying to call me out within the past two hours.
Post by: Akomine on 26 April 2016, 11:28:28 PM
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
What are you saying here? Are you saying there's other people who are saying I am the one who trashed this debate?
Bullshit.
Quote them.
Post by: EnderEssence on 27 April 2016, 01:25:15 AM
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
What are you saying here? Are you saying there's other people who are saying I am the one who trashed this debate?
Bullshit.
Quote them.
FYI, that was referring to Gerrit, based on the context of that post.
You want your quote? Here's your quote.
Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.
go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.
Post by: Akomine on 27 April 2016, 08:52:29 AM
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
What are you saying here? Are you saying there's other people who are saying I am the one who trashed this debate?
Bullshit.
Quote them.
FYI, that was referring to Gerrit, based on the context of that post.
You want your quote? Here's your quote.Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.
go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.
Oh I thought you were then saying it about me.
For whatever it's worth, you ruined this debate with your dishonest tactics. Your weird deflection that you've somehow clarified everything is absolutely nonsensical.
I have drawn attention to your dishonesty since the at least third page of this thread (first page if you count continual use of logical fallacies). You never really seem to care to address it directly. Ever since I brought it up you would often just blatantly ignore that section of my post. But there's problems that need to be addressed before the debate continues in those circumstances! When someone does something dishonest, gets called out, and then keeps doing it... like how can we make progress in a discussion? It's like nothing sticks.
It is this kind of stuff that ruins debates. When one party does not participate in good faith. You acting like you were never once dishonest, despite clear examples where I and others called you out, and your complete failure to mend your mistakes, is what ruined this debate. It's not like this thread fell apart for any other reason.
"omg ako you keep bringing up the same thing over and over and over"
Yeah I do, because I don't just accept dishonest bullshit and then move on when it keeps happening. So there, I just beat this dead horse so hard it is now one with the pavement. Own up to your own shit. Don't you go blaming Gerrit or Octo.
Post by: gerrit70 on 27 April 2016, 06:50:57 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcW8FBVVIAAkp8K.jpg)
Post by: EnderEssence on 27 April 2016, 07:42:30 PM
Screw off, this debate was nice before you trashed it.
Honestly? You are the only one who trashed it, you rat-fucking snotworm.
Yes, honestly. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to say this. Go back and see for yourself.
What are you saying here? Are you saying there's other people who are saying I am the one who trashed this debate?
Bullshit.
Quote them.
FYI, that was referring to Gerrit, based on the context of that post.
You want your quote? Here's your quote.Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.
go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.
Oh I thought you were then saying it about me.
For whatever it's worth, you ruined this debate with your dishonest tactics. Your weird deflection that you've somehow clarified everything is absolutely nonsensical.
I have drawn attention to your dishonesty since the at least third page of this thread (first page if you count continual use of logical fallacies). You never really seem to care to address it directly. Ever since I brought it up you would often just blatantly ignore that section of my post. But there's problems that need to be addressed before the debate continues in those circumstances! When someone does something dishonest, gets called out, and then keeps doing it... like how can we make progress in a discussion? It's like nothing sticks.
It is this kind of stuff that ruins debates. When one party does not participate in good faith. You acting like you were never once dishonest, despite clear examples where I and others called you out, and your complete failure to mend your mistakes, is what ruined this debate. It's not like this thread fell apart for any other reason.
"omg ako you keep bringing up the same thing over and over and over"
Yeah I do, because I don't just accept dishonest bullshit and then move on when it keeps happening. So there, I just beat this dead horse so hard it is now one with the pavement. Own up to your own shit. Don't you go blaming Gerrit or Octo.
Okay, so I've read this. What is it that you want me to do/say exactly? When I said that you didn't believe in God, for example, you accused me of putting words in your mouth.
What's wrong with me pointing out Octo's lies, in which he hypocritically went against his own arguments and is now relying on posting random crap in an attempt to get away from addressing them. Heck, Gerrit's even helping him out, as can be seen here:
rekt boi
(INSERT HIS STUPID STEVE HARVEY PIC HERE)
This is what he's trying to get away from:
Funny shit turk boy. keep telling yourself that.AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAll i was trying to do was get a reaction from you (which i got as usual) And I was also trying to say you shouldn't be fucking talking about "Being able to post where i want" when you have told people multiple times to stay out of threads. Fucking turk. Go make some friends.Oh would you look at that, little fucking Ender. "This is a public forum, I can post where I see fit." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"Don't recall that you were a part of this, Octo." (Ender to OctoGamer)
"I'm sorry, I don't recall you being a part of this debate." (Ender to Shensley)
All of those quotes are shit ender said in THIS thread. I would also like to point out he told me to "get out of his thread" in the form of a spider-man meme.
Fucking hyporcite.
---
"Octo drops an honesty bomb. Why can't you be this honest, Ender?"
Quote from Ako to Ender.
- Calls me out for asking him to go away in a weeks-old post, then proceeds to do the very thing he calls me out for despite knowing in advance.
k
-Brings up an already clarified post (I already told you that I spent 15 minutes trying to find one with "this" instead of "my", Shen even offered a remedy to the solution via a website), tries to use it against me.
k
-Ender asserts Octo's own argument that he had made only weeks earlier (being able to post wherever one pleases) after he hypocritically tells Ender to leave (going against his own point), and Ender himself gets "called out" by Octo for reinforcing his very point.
k
And when i told you to go away, I said that because you had previously told gerrit to screw off. forgot to mention that in my list of quotes. sorry buddy.
Fifteen seconds of my life that I'll never get back as a result of reading this crap. You were just trying to "get a reaction" out of me? Octo, please. If I had given more or less a half-hearted response to your previous post, you would've immediately jumped on the opportunity to call me out for a lazy response. 10/10.
I love you didn't forget to be xenophobic and demeaning in your post as well, as if insulting me with irrelevant comments made your already crappy post any less meaningful.
I love how you still haven't come up with a meaningful response to address the problems with your "argument" and are trying to steer away towards doing so by saying that you were "trying to get a reaction".
I love how you completely ignored clarified statements and attempted to use them against me. So dishonest of you.
I love how you repetitively keep refuting your own arguments.
And a nice day to you too, Octo.
Okay...?
Keep telling myself that? Very funny, you can't argue on your own behalf and now you're trying to steer yourself away from doing so.
LOL(PICTURE WAS HERE)
How nice, Air's even helping you do so.Lets sum this up and stop the argument: Ender is a dum dum and octo is actually right :)
(FURRY PIC WAS HERE)
And so is Gerrit.
As I mentioned earlier, I did screw up certain posts with refutable information I had already known in advance (like the water one, that was just stupid on my part), but I refuse to be scapegoated for being the sole reason this debate's been trashed. You're horribly mistaken if you argue so.
inb4 OctoGayboi makes another stupid comment
Post by: gerrit70 on 27 April 2016, 08:14:23 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 27 April 2016, 09:04:04 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 27 April 2016, 09:17:26 PM
Fun fact: Steve Harvey is a religious nut and has openly said he hates atheists.
You learn something new every day.
That's a huge shame on his part.
Post by: PengBunny on 27 April 2016, 10:40:46 PM
Fun fact: Steve Harvey is a religious nut and has openly said he hates atheists.
where is your moral barometer air?
Post by: Airbongo on 28 April 2016, 02:45:52 AM
I don't have one cause I don't read the bible, the only place to get morals from :(Fun fact: Steve Harvey is a religious nut and has openly said he hates atheists.
where is your moral barometer air?
Post by: EnderEssence on 28 April 2016, 08:19:06 AM
I don't have one cause I don't read the bible, the only place to get morals from :(Fun fact: Steve Harvey is a religious nut and has openly said he hates atheists.
where is your moral barometer air?
If one looks up the definition for moral on the mystical, magical Goggel, the first definition is "a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience."
Surely you've gotten morals from experience or from reading something?
But as for the Bible being the only place to get morals: LOL
Post by: Airbongo on 28 April 2016, 11:10:09 AM
I was joking u Turk whoreI don't have one cause I don't read the bible, the only place to get morals from :(Fun fact: Steve Harvey is a religious nut and has openly said he hates atheists.
where is your moral barometer air?
If one looks up the definition for moral on the mystical, magical Goggel, the first definition is "a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience."
Surely you've gotten morals from experience or from reading something?
But as for the Bible being the only place to get morals: LOL
Post by: EnderEssence on 28 April 2016, 05:37:37 PM
I was joking u Turk whoreI don't have one cause I don't read the bible, the only place to get morals from :(Fun fact: Steve Harvey is a religious nut and has openly said he hates atheists.
where is your moral barometer air?
If one looks up the definition for moral on the mystical, magical Goggel, the first definition is "a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience."
Surely you've gotten morals from experience or from reading something?
But as for the Bible being the only place to get morals: LOL
srry, but no need to be r00d, even acknowledged that it was a joke you Mexican
Post by: Airbongo on 28 April 2016, 09:17:12 PM
Post by: Die_Endermen on 28 April 2016, 10:22:27 PM
Wow I'm not mexican, my last name is spanish for fuck's sake. I am also part french and I'm white as fuck. I am 100% European.
@Airbongus Van Winkledorf LOL
I'm glad that your poverty-stricken Aztec excuse for a PAYS was invaded by la pays de France, but I wish that the French stayed longer to breed in your Mongolian Nahuatl asses into the supreme français race and that Cinco de Mayo was never celebrated. I hope one day that we can work ensemble and force the whole server to either speak French as a first language or use it more than English. Honestly, there needs to be more than 2.000.000 French Mexicans (1.8%).
nvm, fuck Mexico, I'll take over Argentina because it's a much richer country with much better average living qualities and 17% of argentiniens et argentiniennes have French descent.
#FRANCE
Post by: Airbongo on 28 April 2016, 10:25:14 PM
Post by: Die_Endermen on 28 April 2016, 10:27:16 PM
Die, you are legit autistic.
ur mom is autistic
<---- That's you air, oh wait... you're blind
Post by: Witchdoctor1 on 28 April 2016, 11:19:52 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 29 April 2016, 12:25:56 AM
As mindlessly annoying as Ender is, I can at least tolerate him. Die, you are single-handedly the reason why I don't bother with MC anymore. You should find the nearest tree and apologize to it. The poor bastard works far too hard to produce the oxygen you waste on a daily basis.rekt
Post by: Lividup64 on 29 April 2016, 02:09:18 AM
Post by: OctoGamer on 29 April 2016, 06:10:54 AM
French is stupid and complex.i agree.
Post by: gerrit70 on 29 April 2016, 06:17:52 AM
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1237958/images/s-FRENCH-STEREOTYPE-large.jpg)
Post by: Die_Endermen on 29 April 2016, 06:50:23 AM
As mindlessly annoying as Ender is, I can at least tolerate him. Die, you are single-handedly the reason why I don't bother with MC anymore. You should find the nearest tree and apologize to it. The poor bastard works far too hard to produce the oxygen you waste on a daily basis.Funny that you say that even though I've tried to avoid the forums for a while because of comments like this.
French is stupid and complex.Livid, I recall a few weeks ago that you were trying to argue with me that German is more useful than French and you got all mad and salty when I proved that more people speak French than German and use it for business... don't be a hypocrite because you also said that it was beautiful lmao
PS isn't being complex a good thing that's unique?
Oh, would you look at that. Dies surrenderingJust fuck off with your memes? seriously? The link says "FRENCH STEREOTYPE"
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1237958/images/s-FRENCH-STEREOTYPE-large.jpg)
To everyone: This thread is officially more retarded than @Airbongus Van Winkledorf and @Witchdoctor1 combined, now I have cancer, AIDS, sickle cell disease, malaria, ebola, swine flu, Spanish flu, and herpes.
Post by: BLUEJACKET333 on 29 April 2016, 12:56:25 PM
Post by: BLUEJACKET333 on 29 April 2016, 12:58:42 PM
Christianity is the downfall of this world, and the centre of sin. Down with the Christians!! The red neck pikeys plan to take over. They are the cause of terrorism!! They made the big terrorist groups that kill people every day, E.G United States.
How did this have anything to do with Christianity, we didnt do anything XD
Post by: OctoGamer on 29 April 2016, 03:11:54 PM
Post by: Akomine on 29 April 2016, 03:50:10 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 29 April 2016, 08:42:19 PM
I heard ender is forbidden from ever having any alcohol
ye
so is livid
Post by: OctoGamer on 29 April 2016, 09:26:55 PM
lol losersI heard ender is forbidden from ever having any alcohol
ye
so is livid
Post by: Die_Endermen on 29 April 2016, 10:50:51 PM
come on guys this thread is meant for hating on ender not die.@OctoGamer the haters r just jealous how lit my forum signature is
Post by: Airbongo on 30 April 2016, 12:05:21 AM
Your signature is cancer.come on guys this thread is meant for hating on ender not die.@OctoGamer the haters r just jealous how lit my forum signature is
Post by: Lividup64 on 30 April 2016, 05:06:45 AM
Post by: Akomine on 30 April 2016, 08:23:35 AM
Post by: Lividup64 on 30 April 2016, 09:27:01 AM
Why not drink alcohol though? You're basically ISIS if you don't.
Of course, sober people are much more able to accurately decapitate infidelic invaders.
Post by: BLUEJACKET333 on 30 April 2016, 11:44:48 AM
Post by: EnderEssence on 30 April 2016, 01:06:30 PM
Why not drink alcohol though? You're basically ISIS if you don't.
Of course, sober people are much more able to accurately decapitate infidelic invaders.
Exactly. On top of that, it's much easier to distinguish that ISIS terrorists' actions are based on mentality issues and not from being drunk.
I don't drink alcohol but if it is in food, most of the tipsy features are gone so it doesn't matter. Also, don't ever speak for example you ugly Turk.
I don't see how saying something makes me ugly. It still matters if alcohol is in food. Just because you can't get drunk off of it doesn't mean you can still ingest it. That's like saying it's okay for oil from pig fat to be on your food just because you can't distinguish it from any other animal fat's oil. Well, unless you didn't know it was there, but knowingly consuming the stuff is another story altogether.
On a side note, alcohol's pretty harmful anyway, so that's a plus for being forbidden from drinking it.
Post by: Akomine on 30 April 2016, 01:14:53 PM
dang this is brutal, I would infer to another translation to see if it varies as an old covenant teaching but I realized theres no Jeus in the quran lol. I would be skeptical but the verses are so damn clear lol
Jesus is in the Quran, his name is translated to Isa.
It still matters if alcohol is in food. Just because you can't get drunk off of it doesn't mean you can still ingest it. That's like saying it's okay for oil from pig fat to be on your food just because you can't distinguish it from any other animal fat's oil. Well, unless you didn't know it was there, but knowingly consuming the stuff is another story altogether.
On a side note, alcohol's pretty harmful anyway, so that's a plus for being forbidden from drinking it.
Why is it forbidden?
Post by: Lividup64 on 30 April 2016, 01:25:23 PM
Post by: EnderEssence on 30 April 2016, 02:03:10 PM
How dare you call me a pork eating kafir. Do you know how hard it is to find a wrap that doesn't have alcohol based vinegar in it, do you? I don't eat them regularly but if I didn't have lunch I don't have much choice. So shut up you stupid extremist.
I made a comparison, I didn't call you someone who ate pork, fool. And as for your wrap claim, it's as simple as asking for a wrap without vinegar in it.
Btw I'm sure that there are more Bengali terrorists than Turkish ones. Don't quote me on that, but I'm 85% sure.
dang this is brutal, I would infer to another translation to see if it varies as an old covenant teaching but I realized theres no Jeus in the quran lol. I would be skeptical but the verses are so damn clear lol
Jesus is in the Quran, his name is translated to Isa.It still matters if alcohol is in food. Just because you can't get drunk off of it doesn't mean you can still ingest it. That's like saying it's okay for oil from pig fat to be on your food just because you can't distinguish it from any other animal fat's oil. Well, unless you didn't know it was there, but knowingly consuming the stuff is another story altogether.
On a side note, alcohol's pretty harmful anyway, so that's a plus for being forbidden from drinking it.
Why is it forbidden?
First quote response: Yes, that is true.
Second quote response: A lot of stuff are forbidden due to the harmful effects they have on the human body (blood, carrion, pork, etc.). You can't really argue in defense of alcohol's limited benefits due to the vast majority of said benefits coming from the fruits used to create the alcohol in their pre-alcohol states.
Not to neglect to mention that getting drunk can cause one to do a lot of messed up things that are otherwise risky and dangerous.
Post by: Lividup64 on 30 April 2016, 02:10:55 PM
How dare you call me a pork eating kafir. Do you know how hard it is to find a wrap that doesn't have alcohol based vinegar in it, do you? I don't eat them regularly but if I didn't have lunch I don't have much choice. So shut up you stupid extremist.
I made a comparison, I didn't call you someone who ate pork, fool. And as for your wrap claim, it's as simple as asking for a wrap without vinegar in it.
Btw I'm sure that there are more Bengali terrorists than Turkish ones. Don't quote me on that, but I'm 85% sure.dang this is brutal, I would infer to another translation to see if it varies as an old covenant teaching but I realized theres no Jeus in the quran lol. I would be skeptical but the verses are so damn clear lol
Jesus is in the Quran, his name is translated to Isa.It still matters if alcohol is in food. Just because you can't get drunk off of it doesn't mean you can still ingest it. That's like saying it's okay for oil from pig fat to be on your food just because you can't distinguish it from any other animal fat's oil. Well, unless you didn't know it was there, but knowingly consuming the stuff is another story altogether.
On a side note, alcohol's pretty harmful anyway, so that's a plus for being forbidden from drinking it.
Why is it forbidden?
First quote response: Yes, that is true.
Second quote response: A lot of stuff are forbidden due to the harmful effects they have on the human body (blood, carrion, pork, etc.). You can't really argue in defense of alcohol's limited benefits due to the vast majority of said benefits coming from the fruits used to create the alcohol in their pre-alcohol states.
Not to neglect to mention that getting drunk can cause one to do a lot of messed up things that are otherwise risky and dangerous.
It's not that simple if I'm buying them from Sainsbury
Post by: EnderEssence on 30 April 2016, 02:16:37 PM
How dare you call me a pork eating kafir. Do you know how hard it is to find a wrap that doesn't have alcohol based vinegar in it, do you? I don't eat them regularly but if I didn't have lunch I don't have much choice. So shut up you stupid extremist.
I made a comparison, I didn't call you someone who ate pork, fool. And as for your wrap claim, it's as simple as asking for a wrap without vinegar in it.
Btw I'm sure that there are more Bengali terrorists than Turkish ones. Don't quote me on that, but I'm 85% sure.dang this is brutal, I would infer to another translation to see if it varies as an old covenant teaching but I realized theres no Jeus in the quran lol. I would be skeptical but the verses are so damn clear lol
Jesus is in the Quran, his name is translated to Isa.It still matters if alcohol is in food. Just because you can't get drunk off of it doesn't mean you can still ingest it. That's like saying it's okay for oil from pig fat to be on your food just because you can't distinguish it from any other animal fat's oil. Well, unless you didn't know it was there, but knowingly consuming the stuff is another story altogether.
On a side note, alcohol's pretty harmful anyway, so that's a plus for being forbidden from drinking it.
Why is it forbidden?
First quote response: Yes, that is true.
Second quote response: A lot of stuff are forbidden due to the harmful effects they have on the human body (blood, carrion, pork, etc.). You can't really argue in defense of alcohol's limited benefits due to the vast majority of said benefits coming from the fruits used to create the alcohol in their pre-alcohol states.
Not to neglect to mention that getting drunk can cause one to do a lot of messed up things that are otherwise risky and dangerous.
It's not that simple if I'm buying them from Sainsbury
Couldn't you just ask for a wrap without vinegar? At the very least, can't you ask for a full list of ingredients of a particular wrap/food item in general? I know for a fact that places like Panera Bread, Pizza Hut, McDonald's (even though I don't even eat there, everything's crap), etc. let you do this.
EDIT: Checked to see that Sainsbury's is a market chain in the UK and not a restaurant. In that case, why not ask an employee to check for non-vinegar alternatives?
Post by: Lividup64 on 30 April 2016, 02:26:11 PM
How dare you call me a pork eating kafir. Do you know how hard it is to find a wrap that doesn't have alcohol based vinegar in it, do you? I don't eat them regularly but if I didn't have lunch I don't have much choice. So shut up you stupid extremist.
I made a comparison, I didn't call you someone who ate pork, fool. And as for your wrap claim, it's as simple as asking for a wrap without vinegar in it.
Btw I'm sure that there are more Bengali terrorists than Turkish ones. Don't quote me on that, but I'm 85% sure.dang this is brutal, I would infer to another translation to see if it varies as an old covenant teaching but I realized theres no Jeus in the quran lol. I would be skeptical but the verses are so damn clear lol
Jesus is in the Quran, his name is translated to Isa.It still matters if alcohol is in food. Just because you can't get drunk off of it doesn't mean you can still ingest it. That's like saying it's okay for oil from pig fat to be on your food just because you can't distinguish it from any other animal fat's oil. Well, unless you didn't know it was there, but knowingly consuming the stuff is another story altogether.
On a side note, alcohol's pretty harmful anyway, so that's a plus for being forbidden from drinking it.
Why is it forbidden?
First quote response: Yes, that is true.
Second quote response: A lot of stuff are forbidden due to the harmful effects they have on the human body (blood, carrion, pork, etc.). You can't really argue in defense of alcohol's limited benefits due to the vast majority of said benefits coming from the fruits used to create the alcohol in their pre-alcohol states.
Not to neglect to mention that getting drunk can cause one to do a lot of messed up things that are otherwise risky and dangerous.
It's not that simple if I'm buying them from Sainsbury
Couldn't you just ask for a wrap without vinegar? At the very least, can't you ask for a full list of ingredients of a particular wrap/food item in general? I know for a fact that places like Panera Bread, Pizza Hut, McDonald's (even though I don't even eat there, everything's crap), etc. let you do this.
Prepacked. I don't eat them regularly but only if I don't have much choice.
Post by: Akomine on 30 April 2016, 02:26:31 PM
What are pork's harmful effects?
Also, is Livid not a real Muslim because he sometimes eats things that are forbidden?
Post by: EnderEssence on 30 April 2016, 03:00:01 PM
Is that actually the reason or is that you just saying that's the reason?
What are pork's harmful effects?
Also, is Livid not a real Muslim because he sometimes eats things that are forbidden?
1. That's basically the reasons in a nutshell. Alcohol's forbidden due to both its harmful effects on the human body and the state of drunkenness can cause one to do many risky and dangerous things that lead to disobeying God.
2. This link right here has some useful stuff (includes both the harmful effects of pork but also includes the cruelty behind the packaging of the meat): http://www.rodalesorganiclife.com/wellbeing/10-scary-reasons-why-you-should-never-buy-conventional-pork
3. No, I never said Livid wasn't a real Muslim. Just gave a quick helpful tip to help a guy out.
Post by: Airbongo on 30 April 2016, 03:18:55 PM
Post by: Akomine on 30 April 2016, 03:47:12 PM
Anyways,
Why pork specifically? Seems so random. Why not beef? Why not X? Why not Y? More importantly, why not Z?
The link you supplied is okay-ish, though I do strongly support eating organic and local. Number 7 on it is retardedly stupid. By that logic, we shouldn't eat broccoli or bananas. I won't fault you for that though, just clickbaity, sensationalistic trashy writing. I also find you giving modern reasons a bit odd. I was curious the ancient reasons, if any. It's my assumption that ancient pork was likely more likely to have parasites, people frequently got sick, so it was banned in the religion. If so, you'd think eating modern, clean, organic pork would be okay.
About the real Muslim thing, why is he still a real Muslim? He did something that is forbidden. You said ISIS militants aren't real Muslims because they did something forbidden, so why not Livid too?
I thought both livid and ender lived in the UK
Nah Ender is from merica (and thus is statistically much more likely to be a non-radical Muslim, interestingly).
Post by: Lividup64 on 30 April 2016, 04:04:05 PM
Edit: Just read up that in a Hadith it says that vinegars are halal noting it's alcoholic contents.
Post by: Airbongo on 30 April 2016, 06:35:31 PM
Well I didn't drink it, I just ate something with red wine vinegar. I'm not even sure if it even has any alcohol left after being given cooked.You're a shit muslim for consuming vinegar.
Edit: Just read up that in a Hadith it says that vinegars are halal noting it's alcoholic contents.
Post by: Akomine on 30 April 2016, 06:42:14 PM
Post by: Lividup64 on 1 May 2016, 03:09:02 AM
Post by: Airbongo on 1 May 2016, 03:43:50 AM
Post by: Die_Endermen on 1 May 2016, 10:51:12 PM
I wish that I could time travel back to the day that you were born on and force your dad to put on a condom.
Same goes for @Witchdoctor1 , a shitty poster who likes every single one of air's comments and who's rude for no reason even though I've been ignoring him for the past what... a year?
I'd rather kill myself than commit suicide, agreed @Akomine ?
lol not my tweet
Post by: Airbongo on 2 May 2016, 01:20:54 AM
Post by: OctoGamer on 12 January 2017, 06:28:39 AM
Post by: PengBunny on 12 January 2017, 04:40:38 PM
it's some good shit
Post by: Akomine on 14 January 2017, 01:24:32 AM
Like, your best piece of evidence. Not chewed gum this time please.
Post by: Airbongo on 14 January 2017, 06:31:10 PM
So, got any evidence YET, @EnderEssence ?Rekt
Like, your best piece of evidence. Not chewed gum this time please.
Post by: EnderEssence on 15 January 2017, 04:02:47 PM
So, got any evidence YET, @EnderEssence ?
Like, your best piece of evidence. Not chewed gum this time please.
This is old af, I think I did happen to ask you a few questions on page 8 or something that you never got around to answering though.
I will admit that I lost this, but I did learn a good deal about debating as a result.
Thanks Ako.
Post by: Akomine on 15 January 2017, 09:11:35 PM
So, got any evidence YET, @EnderEssence ?
Like, your best piece of evidence. Not chewed gum this time please.
This is old af, I think I did happen to ask you a few questions on page 8 or something that you never got around to answering though.
I will admit that I lost this, but I did learn a good deal about debating as a result.
Thanks Ako.
If I never answered something it's because you were being so dishonest that I got frustrated and refused.
I am shocked to see you admit you lost this, and glad. Thanks for admitting that.
What did you learn about debating?
Post by: EnderEssence on 17 January 2017, 03:33:12 PM
So, got any evidence YET, @EnderEssence ?
Like, your best piece of evidence. Not chewed gum this time please.
This is old af, I think I did happen to ask you a few questions on page 8 or something that you never got around to answering though.
I will admit that I lost this, but I did learn a good deal about debating as a result.
Thanks Ako.
If I never answered something it's because you were being so dishonest that I got frustrated and refused.
I am shocked to see you admit you lost this, and glad. Thanks for admitting that.
What did you learn about debating?
1. Don't get baited into using Russel's Teapot arguments.
2. Don't get yourself into a position in which you inevitably keep making more claims without taking the time to prepare a decent argument with evidence. If there's anything that I learned from this that I'd consider the most important, it's this. Never make claims without evidence.
3. Don't overlook things that can be solved with common sense (i.e: I didn't think the water in living creatures one through).
4. Don't debate Ako, as he will always find holes in your arguments and then proceed to hammer the living damn out of you.
Might update this in the near future as I keep finding so many things I did wrong lmao
Post by: Akomine on 17 January 2017, 07:56:36 PM
What did you learn about debating?
1. Don't get baited into using Russel's Teapot arguments.
2. Don't get yourself into a position in which you inevitably keep making more claims without taking the time to prepare a decent argument with evidence. If there's anything that I learned from this that I'd consider the most important, it's this. Never make claims without evidence.
3. Don't overlook things that can be solved with common sense (i.e: I didn't think the water in living creatures one through).
4. Don't debate Ako, as he will always find holes in your arguments and then proceed to hammer the living damn out of you.
Might update this in the near future as I keep finding so many things I did wrong lmao
Wow, this is quite nice to see coming from you. This sounds like a solid set of improvements.
On #1, is "baited" the right word? Nobody baited you into not understanding how burden of proof works haha, but I get your sentiment.
#2, excellent, this is huge. Glad to hear it.
#3, haha, yeahhhh, that was pretty bad. Worth thinking critically about the arguments you posit.
#4 nooo, do debate Ako. Finding holes in your arguments is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Improving your understanding of reality is a positive exercise. Correcting your erroneous positions is exactly how to improve on doing that. I try hard with just about everything to improve my position.
Cheers. This is a hopeful post
Post by: OctoGamer on 17 January 2017, 09:32:14 PM
Post by: Lividup64 on 18 January 2017, 04:34:34 PM
Post by: luisc99 on 18 January 2017, 05:46:31 PM
18 pages :d
It's just shy of having double the number of replies as the second-place topic for most replies.
However, it's only 5th in terms of number of views.
[End Luis's Random Stats]
Post by: PengBunny on 18 January 2017, 06:14:36 PM
Post by: gerrit70 on 24 January 2017, 05:55:40 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 24 January 2017, 07:06:43 PM
I swear to Cthulu, if someone replies on this thread one more time, I will find you and eat you.Eat my tiny cock?
Post by: gerrit70 on 25 January 2017, 09:45:45 PM
Post by: Blacka_ch33ze on 14 February 2017, 02:08:01 AM
<3Ɛ>
Post by: gerrit70 on 19 February 2017, 02:49:05 PM
<3Ɛ>
<3
Post by: OctoGamer on 8 January 2018, 12:06:50 PM
Post by: Airbongo on 8 January 2018, 12:47:58 PM
Post by: gerrit70 on 8 January 2018, 11:37:36 PM
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o6c3RQ46uFk/hqdefault.jpg)
Post by: OctoGamer on 12 January 2018, 06:04:54 PM
Post by: gerrit70 on 3 May 2020, 07:14:43 PM
ANNIVERSARY NIGGAS
fuck, we missed it
Post by: OctoGamer on 3 May 2020, 07:25:12 PM
dammitANNIVERSARY NIGGAS
fuck, we missed it
Post by: gerrit70 on 5 September 2020, 02:22:23 AM
Post by: Akomine on 5 September 2020, 02:45:53 AM
Post by: TheLegend12369 on 7 September 2020, 01:09:26 AM
Post by: gerrit70 on 7 September 2020, 01:30:03 AM
Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.
Damn right
However in an attempt to revive the discussion- seeing as ender has not shown up yet- I think a fun question to be posed is: Can it be empirically proven within a reasonable doubt that a god does or does not exist?
Post by: Akomine on 9 September 2020, 11:20:40 AM
Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.
Damn right
However in an attempt to revive the discussion- seeing as ender has not shown up yet- I think a fun question to be posed is: Can it be empirically proven within a reasonable doubt that a god does or does not exist?
Generically, the answer is "no". Can we prove "a god" exists? No. Can we prove "a god" doesn't exist? No.
However, it may be possible to disprove a specific god that has more details behind it by finding contradictory or false claims attached to it. Furthermore, when twisting or changing the usual the definition of "god" it may be possible to attach a specific meaning to it and then prove it is real, like saying "god is water", then providing evidence of water. Lastly, it may be possible to prove a specific god exists with sufficient evidence, and I always await the presentation of that evidence.
For these reasons, whenever I discuss this sort of stuff with a theist, I request a definition of their god so that we can determine what we're actually talking about.
Post by: NotEnder on 1 October 2020, 07:15:46 PM
@NotEnder Please revive this, I want to see the refreshed matchup of older Ender vs Ako.Maybe
Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.
Damn right
However in an attempt to revive the discussion- seeing as ender has not shown up yet- I think a fun question to be posed is: Can it be empirically proven within a reasonable doubt that a god does or does not exist?
Generically, the answer is "no". Can we prove "a god" exists? No. Can we prove "a god" doesn't exist? No.
However, it may be possible to disprove a specific god that has more details behind it by finding contradictory or false claims attached to it. Furthermore, when twisting or changing the usual the definition of "god" it may be possible to attach a specific meaning to it and then prove it is real, like saying "god is water", then providing evidence of water. Lastly, it may be possible to prove a specific god exists with sufficient evidence, and I always await the presentation of that evidence.
For these reasons, whenever I discuss this sort of stuff with a theist, I request a definition of their god so that we can determine what we're actually talking about.
One of my biggest mistakes, looking back at all this, is that I was too focused on trying to prove something with a combination of empirical/theoretical evidence (and attempting to demonstrate it as purely empirical) without considering the logical loophole I was digging myself into. A lot of what I posted wasn't really meaningful without the necessary context, and even then, I don't think I had the right approach altogether.
In retrospect, a lot of pages in this thread could have very easily not needed to exist, as I do believe you're correct in saying that we can't broadly and indisputably come to the conclusion that God (or any niche deity someone might happen to believe in) exists through empirical evidence alone (which is what I think I had initially been trying to do all those years back). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no supposed empirical evidence compounded within a few thousand years of written history will be able to sufficiently match what logically is a very bold claim.
With that said, I don't think that rules out the existence of God whatsoever. As much as you can look at a combination of sources that prove/disprove something, a key thing to also consider is the overall likelihood of all the events in the history of the universe sequentially leading up to us having that messy foodfight of a debate in the first place (mainly just human existence in general). I think the odds of the universe very coincidentally having had the perfect conditions to initially expand, the solar system forming the way it did, and life on Earth eventually coming have to evolve/develop the way it did until the modern definition of a human came around are extremely slim to none. Does this empirically prove the existence of God? Nah. Does it imply that some supernatural design went into it, given how the entire environment of the universe and life on Earth came to develop and that the odds of everything lining up by what essentially boils down to perfect chance, due to the very precise conditions needed to sustain life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere that we don't know of)? I believe it does. From a statistical standpoint, I don't think the sequence of events that led up to the conditions of the present day occurring merely through chance is very likely, as there are quite a couple of variables all at stake.
Bear in mind that this is by no means a perfect and impartial rationale. However, based on what I described, I'm inclined to believe that this is more likely to suggest the existence, rather than lack thereof, of a higher force with input/influence of the design and occurrence of everything. I'm down to have an actually friendly discussion over this. What do you think, Ako?
Post by: Akomine on 2 October 2020, 12:53:18 AM
Last time we talked, a problem frequently occurred, and I think solving it now is a good idea. If one of us wants to know what the other thinks, knows, or believes, let's ask one another. Let's avoid assumptions to avoid strawmanning eachother. And, to add to it, let's try to read, understand, and consider eachother's messages in full when we respond. We can agree, or disagree, and we can do it honourably.
So,
One of my biggest mistakes, looking back at all this, is that I was too focused on trying to prove something with a combination of empirical/theoretical evidence (and attempting to demonstrate it as purely empirical) without considering the logical loophole I was digging myself into. A lot of what I posted wasn't really meaningful without the necessary context, and even then, I don't think I had the right approach altogether.
I actually read most of this old thread the other day when Gerrit reminded me of it. Your mistake, in my view, wasn't trying to prove something with evidence (that's exactly what you should be doing), it was that you were often trying to disprove unrelated, often erroneously cited concepts that had no bearing on the conversation. For pages and pages you set out to disprove (an incorrect version of) the Big Bang theory, but it didn't matter. It had essentially nothing to do with what you claimed to have evidence of; your god.
As for digging yourself into logical loopholes? Yes, I'd call them logical fallacies, and they create eternal conversation loops until they are corrected, unfortunately. It's sometimes hard for someone to recognize when they're stuck in a logical fallacy, but when discovered, it should be helpful for everyone to fix it. As for your approach not being the right one altogether? I suppose I'll just simply agree, and I appreciate your self reflection on that.
Quote
In retrospect, a lot of pages in this thread could have very easily not needed to exist, as I do believe you're correct in saying that we can't broadly and indisputably come to the conclusion that God (or any niche deity someone might happen to believe in) exists through empirical evidence alone (which is what I think I had initially been trying to do all those years back). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no supposed empirical evidence compounded within a few thousand years of written history will be able to sufficiently match what logically is a very bold claim.
I just want to be clear here. I think once you define a god specifically, it may be possible to prove or disprove it. Empirical evidence can be used, of course - if something can be observed and tested, we should take it into consideration. I'm not sure what "theoretical evidence" (mentioned in your first paragraph) is referring to, but using established scientific theories is perfectly acceptable if that's what you mean.
So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.
Quote
With that said, I don't think that rules out the existence of God whatsoever. As much as you can look at a combination of sources that prove/disprove something, a key thing to also consider is the overall likelihood of all the events in the history of the universe sequentially leading up to us having that messy foodfight of a debate in the first place (mainly just human existence in general). I think the odds of the universe very coincidentally having had the perfect conditions to initially expand, the solar system forming the way it did, and life on Earth eventually coming have to evolve/develop the way it did until the modern definition of a human came around are extremely slim to none. Does this empirically prove the existence of God? Nah. Does it imply that some supernatural design went into it, given how the entire environment of the universe and life on Earth came to develop and that the odds of everything lining up by what essentially boils down to perfect chance, due to the very precise conditions needed to sustain life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere that we don't know of)? I believe it does. From a statistical standpoint, I don't think the sequence of events that led up to the conditions of the present day occurring merely through chance is very likely, as there are quite a couple of variables all at stake.
Bear in mind that this is by no means a perfect and impartial rationale. However, based on what I described, I'm inclined to believe that this is more likely to suggest the existence, rather than lack thereof, of a higher force with input/influence of the design and occurrence of everything. I'm down to have an actually friendly discussion over this. What do you think, Ako?
Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.
But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."
So, before we move on, let's settle some definitions.
You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.
The other word is "God" as you use it. Please define it so I know what you mean.
Welcome back, and cheers!
Post by: Yvette on 2 October 2020, 04:03:54 AM
this post was brought to you by pagan gang
Post by: Akomine on 2 October 2020, 11:55:40 AM
imagine only believing in one god
this post was brought to you by pagan gang
Polytheist! Burn the witch!
Post by: gerrit70 on 2 October 2020, 02:09:56 PM
imagine only believing in one god
this post was brought to you by pagan gang
Polytheist! Burn the witch!
But there's no motivation to do so, we can only burn the witches if we are wealthy peasants attempting to draw attention away from our wealth and leadership, or to blame the supposed witches for natural disasters and unexplained phenomena.
Post by: NotEnder on 2 October 2020, 09:35:28 PM
I actually read most of this old thread the other day when Gerrit reminded me of it. Your mistake, in my view, wasn't trying to prove something with evidence (that's exactly what you should be doing), it was that you were often trying to disprove unrelated, often erroneously cited concepts that had no bearing on the conversation. For pages and pages you set out to disprove (an incorrect version of) the Big Bang theory, but it didn't matter. It had essentially nothing to do with what you claimed to have evidence of; your god.
As for digging yourself into logical loopholes? Yes, I'd call them logical fallacies, and they create eternal conversation loops until they are corrected, unfortunately. It's sometimes hard for someone to recognize when they're stuck in a logical fallacy, but when discovered, it should be helpful for everyone to fix it. As for your approach not being the right one altogether? I suppose I'll just simply agree, and I appreciate your self reflection on that.
I appreciate the appreciation. Hindsight is 20/20 and I've gotten much better about recognizing inherent flaws in debates and discussion since then, with my own comments in the past certainly being no exception.
I just want to be clear here. I think once you define a god specifically, it may be possible to prove or disprove it. Empirical evidence can be used, of course - if something can be observed and tested, we should take it into consideration. I'm not sure what "theoretical evidence" (mentioned in your first paragraph) is referring to, but using established scientific theories is perfectly acceptable if that's what you mean.
So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.
Established scientific theories were what I meant when it comes to theoretical evidence, sorry for not being clearer on that. Regarding the definition of God, let's use the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on God as a baseline:
"In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived as being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. These attributes are used either in way of analogy or are taken literally. God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial). Incorporeality and corporeality of God are related to conceptions of transcendence (being outside nature) and immanence (being in nature) of God, with positions of synthesis such as the 'immanent transcendence'"
For the sake of this discussion, I feel like it'd be best if we prioritized discussing the likelihood of the existence of a god in general before potentially discussing why or why not it would be more likely for God as defined in the Islamic faith in particular to exist as opposed to the view presented in other faiths. That way, it'd help keep the conversation more grounded/clear-cut and less likely to descend into multiple Inception-esque levels of discussion deviating from the original topic.
Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.
That is a potential way of looking at it, especially considering the small handful of places in the universe that astronomers have deemed "habitable" if life were to develop on them the same way it did on Earth. However, how replicable do you think the conditions of our little corner of the universe are such that the chance of life developing in a parallel way to our own somewhere else is farily high? Do you also think it's likely that such reactions have already occurred (or are already on the verge of happening) in the universe? I'm all for being open to the possibility, though I also think that with the odds of it being able to occur concurrently elsewhere in the universe, it may have been likely that we would've seen either the remnants of past life or some form of life altogether on at least one of these planets. This is obviously not factoring in that life could be developing an entirely different way on some far away planet (societies filled with amoeba colonies??), and I look forward to Pope Francis baptizing our new alien conquerors when they do eventually show themselves at our doorsteps (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-says-he-would-baptise-aliens-9360632.html).
But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."
Oh no no, I'm fully aware of that. I was trying to follow the "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true" format. I was proposing that since there may not be a likelihood of everything coming to develop by chance in the universe, perhaps there was some outside input that went into it. Given my personal worldview ("According to my personal worldview" could've prefaced the sentence better than "I believe it does", as the latter is less subjective), I personally see it as said input being limited to one God (perhaps we can discuss this in conjunction with the belief system laid out in other faiths at a future date), but following the "A is false so therefore B is true" format is not my intention.
You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.
Let's go back to the Wikipedia definition and replace the word "supernatural" with "incorporeal". I'm not sure if we can strictly say that existence is limited to things that exist "naturally" within the bounds of natural universal space-time. Technically speaking, abstract objects (like numbers and the concept of something like fairness/justice) are something most philosophers tend to agree exist, even though they're not concrete objects physically represented by a collection of matter. To go off of this, to find empirical, solid evidence of a deity existing using nothing but that of which is from the natural world would be inherently paradoxical and categorize a god as a physical entity, which does not fit the definition of God we're using. So I was most definitely flawed when I initially claimed that I had evidence of the existence of God when that's something that can't necessarily be done using strictly material evidence in isolation.
Thanks for the welcome back. I don't think I'll ever be as active as I once was, but it certainly doesn't hurt to pay VC a visit every once in a while. If it weren't for Scroogles, I would've never been fortunate enough to find VC and join the community as I did.
Post by: Akomine on 5 October 2020, 03:16:31 PM
So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.
Established scientific theories were what I meant when it comes to theoretical evidence, sorry for not being clearer on that. Regarding the definition of God, let's use the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on God as a baseline:
"In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived as being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. These attributes are used either in way of analogy or are taken literally. God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial). Incorporeality and corporeality of God are related to conceptions of transcendence (being outside nature) and immanence (being in nature) of God, with positions of synthesis such as the 'immanent transcendence'"
For the sake of this discussion, I feel like it'd be best if we prioritized discussing the likelihood of the existence of a god in general before potentially discussing why or why not it would be more likely for God as defined in the Islamic faith in particular to exist as opposed to the view presented in other faiths. That way, it'd help keep the conversation more grounded/clear-cut and less likely to descend into multiple Inception-esque levels of discussion deviating from the original topic.
Ok, you want to discuss the likelyhood that a single generic god exists. I posit that there is a low likelyhood, given so many years of this claim going on and no evidence to support it. Where's the evidence? We've had thousands of years now, why is there nothing concrete we can point to? Why is it that the best anyone can do is provide subjective notions and/or worse; faith - the belief in something without proof.
How can this god be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time? This seems to be self-contradictory. Take an innocent, disadvantaged African child with aggressive bone cancer as our example. I suppose this god put this into motion then. Paraphrasing Epicurus, Hume, Heinlein, Hawking, etc:
Is it willing to give this child a fair chance at life, but not able? Then it is not omnipotent.
Is it able, but not willing? Then it is not omnibenevolent.
Is it both able and willing? Then why do innocent African children die of aggressive bone cancer? Why is there so much unnecessary evil?
Or is this god neither able nor willing? Then it's not a god, is it? Certainly not one to revere.
So, I don't really like the idea of this thing existing, but since you want to discuss the likelihood, I still say I want to hear reasoning or evidence for why I should even consider it likely.
Quote
Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.
That is a potential way of looking at it, especially considering the small handful of places in the universe that astronomers have deemed "habitable" if life were to develop on them the same way it did on Earth. However, how replicable do you think the conditions of our little corner of the universe are such that the chance of life developing in a parallel way to our own somewhere else is farily high? Do you also think it's likely that such reactions have already occurred (or are already on the verge of happening) in the universe? I'm all for being open to the possibility, though I also think that with the odds of it being able to occur concurrently elsewhere in the universe, it may have been likely that we would've seen either the remnants of past life or some form of life altogether on at least one of these planets. This is obviously not factoring in that life could be developing an entirely different way on some far away planet (societies filled with amoeba colonies??), and I look forward to Pope Francis baptizing our new alien conquerors when they do eventually show themselves at our doorsteps (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-says-he-would-baptise-aliens-9360632.html).
Finding and designating potentially habitable moons and planets in the universe is a very new exercise. Astronomers have only been doing it for a few years now. The list is only dozens long so far, but the mathematical potential for habitable places in the universe is essentially infinite when you consider the size of it. It's certainly possible that lifeforms and civilizations have already come and gone countless times, or that plenty are just growing now alongside us at various stages. There could be life elsewhere in our solar system, in the soils of Mars or the atmosphere of Venus, or elsewhere for all we know. Unfortunately the Solar System is massive, and the universe beyond it is almost incomprehensibly massive, so the chances of us detecting life with our technology are unlikely at this stage. Regardless, we have evidence of rudimentary protein synthesis in certain conditions, so just on the basis of chemistry and physics, these things could certainly occur in countless places in the universe. It makes extraterrestrial life seem likely. Finding it is the incredibly hard part.
Quote
But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."
Oh no no, I'm fully aware of that. I was trying to follow the "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true" format. I was proposing that since there may not be a likelihood of everything coming to develop by chance in the universe, perhaps there was some outside input that went into it. Given my personal worldview ("According to my personal worldview" could've prefaced the sentence better than "I believe it does", as the latter is less subjective), I personally see it as said input being limited to one God (perhaps we can discuss this in conjunction with the belief system laid out in other faiths at a future date), but following the "A is false so therefore B is true" format is not my intention.
Proposing an outside (all-powerful incorporeal) input is interesting, but I see no evidence or necessity for one. It's a curious concept, but I can't put belief into it. Since you do seem to believe in this outside input, why do you think it's the case? And perhaps more importantly, why specifically one god? Why not 2 or 43? That's the problem with these claims, they seem equally as (in)plausible as just about any random claim I can make up. Can you establish why you at least find it likely?
Quote
You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.
Let's go back to the Wikipedia definition and replace the word "supernatural" with "incorporeal". I'm not sure if we can strictly say that existence is limited to things that exist "naturally" within the bounds of natural universal space-time. Technically speaking, abstract objects (like numbers and the concept of something like fairness/justice) are something most philosophers tend to agree exist, even though they're not concrete objects physically represented by a collection of matter. To go off of this, to find empirical, solid evidence of a deity existing using nothing but that of which is from the natural world would be inherently paradoxical and categorize a god as a physical entity, which does not fit the definition of God we're using. So I was most definitely flawed when I initially claimed that I had evidence of the existence of God when that's something that can't necessarily be done using strictly material evidence in isolation.
Thanks for the welcome back. I don't think I'll ever be as active as I once was, but it certainly doesn't hurt to pay VC a visit every once in a while. If it weren't for Scroogles, I would've never been fortunate enough to find VC and join the community as I did.
Fine, incorporeal, tho it seems largely synonymous with supernatural in this case. We only have evidence of things that exist "naturally". Everything is made of matter and energy by our observations. And yes, we can think of and assign descriptors and concepts like numbers and justice, but they aren't agents intervening in the natural world like the god claim. If they were, we could measure it - and to the best of our knowledge, that means it would exist in the natural universe. So, does your god intervene? Do you have evidence - what is it? Do you just find it likely - why?
Cheers
Post by: NotEnder on 6 October 2020, 11:34:16 PM
Ok, you want to discuss the likelyhood that a single generic god exists. I posit that there is a low likelyhood, given so many years of this claim going on and no evidence to support it. Where's the evidence? We've had thousands of years now, why is there nothing concrete we can point to? Why is it that the best anyone can do is provide subjective notions and/or worse; faith - the belief in something without proof.
How can this god be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time? This seems to be self-contradictory. Take an innocent, disadvantaged African child with aggressive bone cancer as our example. I suppose this god put this into motion then. Paraphrasing Epicurus, Hume, Heinlein, Hawking, etc:
Is it willing to give this child a fair chance at life, but not able? Then it is not omnipotent.
Is it able, but not willing? Then it is not omnibenevolent.
Is it both able and willing? Then why do innocent African children die of aggressive bone cancer? Why is there so much unnecessary evil?
Or is this god neither able nor willing? Then it's not a god, is it? Certainly not one to revere.
So, I don't really like the idea of this thing existing, but since you want to discuss the likelihood, I still say I want to hear reasoning or evidence for why I should even consider it likely.
Finding and designating potentially habitable moons and planets in the universe is a very new exercise. Astronomers have only been doing it for a few years now. The list is only dozens long so far, but the mathematical potential for habitable places in the universe is essentially infinite when you consider the size of it. It's certainly possible that lifeforms and civilizations have already come and gone countless times, or that plenty are just growing now alongside us at various stages. There could be life elsewhere in our solar system, in the soils of Mars or the atmosphere of Venus, or elsewhere for all we know. Unfortunately the Solar System is massive, and the universe beyond it is almost incomprehensibly massive, so the chances of us detecting life with our technology are unlikely at this stage. Regardless, we have evidence of rudimentary protein synthesis in certain conditions, so just on the basis of chemistry and physics, these things could certainly occur in countless places in the universe. It makes extraterrestrial life seem likely. Finding it is the incredibly hard part.
I don't think it can be reasonably posited that there's a low likelihood for a single God to exist on the merit of a few thousand years of history and inherent subjectivity when it comes to interpreting evidence that may or may not suggest said God's existence alone. In the two quotes above, you're suggesting (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that within the same period of time, it's reasonable that humans have only just begun to find new habitable planets (relevant new article! (https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-discover-24-superhabitable-planets-with-conditions-that-are-better-for-life-than-earth-12091801)), but unreasonable that they haven't found "concrete" evidence of a deity's existence. In our lifetime, I don't believe that we'll be able to physically find irrefutable proof that something in the natural world demonstrates the undeniable existence of God, with absolutely zero room for speculation or hypothesizing. Something I am suggesting (and this once again relates to my personal worldview but cannot be completely and objectively grounded without room for counterarguments) is that we may be able to infer the existence of a God based on the cosmological argument and principle of sufficient reason. While they may not put all counterclaims to rest, I don't think it's illogical to factor them in when contemplating whether or not it's possible that God exists. And although it is certainly true that some "evidence" is more compelling than others, when it comes to whether or not a piece/pieces of evidence can reasonably point to God existing, there will always be scholarly debate as to what can be considered more concrete. Given that I am neither a philosophical nor a religious scholar, and that in this discussion I carry the much bigger burden of having to suggest something exists (when in cases like these it's a lot easier to not have to prove something if you don't believe it exists in the first place), I cannot physically show indisputable "proof" without inherent doubt and bias surrounding it.
Based on the definition of God we put forth earlier, I don't think it's inherently self-contradictory that God can be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time. For what you paraphrased regarding what disqualifies a deity from being considered as having the first three attributes, I agree. It's the omnibenevolence counterpoint you highlighted that I don't know if it can be stated with absolute certainty. Obviously, an impoverished, sick child living in poor conditions sucks. In my personal worldview, the same omnibenevolent deity would have already accounted for this fact by giving said child the appropriate benefits/compensation in an afterlife after they die on Earth. The judgement required to determine what sort of compensation/accountability is fair would presumably be at the same magnitude of ability to be omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent in the first place, and as such we as humans would not be able to properly consider/make a judgement of whether or not each case was fair due to not having the ability to compensate/empathize/impartially judge in the first place. There is practically no way to justify this with scientifically grounded evidence, as such a concept revolves entirely around a realm/place outside of the natural world as we know it and generally believe that the moral arc of the universe is long, but bends towards justice (thanks MLK). What are your general thoughts on the concept of an afterlife/heaven and people believing as such?
Proposing an outside (all-powerful incorporeal) input is interesting, but I see no evidence or necessity for one. It's a curious concept, but I can't put belief into it. Since you do seem to believe in this outside input, why do you think it's the case? And perhaps more importantly, why specifically one god? Why not 2 or 43? That's the problem with these claims, they seem equally as (in)plausible as just about any random claim I can make up. Can you establish why you at least find it likely?
I personally think it's the case simply because, as I mentioned earlier, I find it more plausible that the conditions of our world existing within the universe as we know it and having just the right conditions to sustain life (also as we know it) to have had outside input rather than statistically coming to be through chance (as well as the fact that the universe and/or the initial singularity of the Big Bang [collectively "the natural world"] may have had to have had come into existence somehow rather than simply spawning from utter nothingness). As far as why I think it's a single God and not two or twenty, I simply just think on a fundamental level it's far less problematic. If you were to have two gods, for instance, designing and having input on everything ever created, this would both be self-contradictory as you paraphrased earlier (if they meet the definition of a god, then how come they need to co-create and consider the other's input in the first place?) as well as the fact that it's a lot easier to mull over that causality stems from a sole source rather than multiple sources having to work together in tandem. While I'm still clearly believing the conceptually very-significant-to-consider idea that a God exists, it becomes way easier on a logarithmic-esque scale to rationalize a single God.
Fine, incorporeal, tho it seems largely synonymous with supernatural in this case. We only have evidence of things that exist "naturally". Everything is made of matter and energy by our observations. And yes, we can think of and assign descriptors and concepts like numbers and justice, but they aren't agents intervening in the natural world like the god claim. If they were, we could measure it - and to the best of our knowledge, that means it would exist in the natural universe. So, does your god intervene? Do you have evidence - what is it? Do you just find it likely - why?
As we both know, there are countless "documented" stories throughout history of people claiming divine intervention has occurred at a specific instance/instances, and given that the vast majority of these stories haven't necessarily been factually verified or had potential alternative causes dissuaded from contention, it's borderline (if not outright) impossible to prove a god intervenes with indisputable "concrete" evidence as you put it. I personally do believe God intervenes in certain situations, whether it's potentially influencing a decision or even real-life deus ex machina scenarios (on a technical level, the term had to originate from somewhere/some belief) in rare instances. Can I point to specific instances being more likely than others? Not really. Do I think it's something to potentially consider if order is to be maintained in the universe? I definitely (from a personal standpoint) think it's possible to consider.
Post by: gerrit70 on 13 December 2020, 02:13:20 AM
I don't think it can be reasonably posited that there's a low likelihood for a single God to exist on the merit of a few thousand years of history and inherent subjectivity when it comes to interpreting evidence that may or may not suggest said God's existence alone. In the two quotes above, you're suggesting (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that within the same period of time, it's reasonable that humans have only just begun to find new habitable planets (relevant new article! (https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-discover-24-superhabitable-planets-with-conditions-that-are-better-for-life-than-earth-12091801)), but unreasonable that they haven't found "concrete" evidence of a deity's existence. In our lifetime, I don't believe that we'll be able to physically find irrefutable proof that something in the natural world demonstrates the undeniable existence of God, with absolutely zero room for speculation or hypothesizing. Something I am suggesting (and this once again relates to my personal worldview but cannot be completely and objectively grounded without room for counterarguments) is that we may be able to infer the existence of a God based on the cosmological argument and principle of sufficient reason. While they may not put all counterclaims to rest, I don't think it's illogical to factor them in when contemplating whether or not it's possible that God exists. And although it is certainly true that some "evidence" is more compelling than others, when it comes to whether or not a piece/pieces of evidence can reasonably point to God existing, there will always be scholarly debate as to what can be considered more concrete. Given that I am neither a philosophical nor a religious scholar, and that in this discussion I carry the much bigger burden of having to suggest something exists (when in cases like these it's a lot easier to not have to prove something if you don't believe it exists in the first place), I cannot physically show indisputable "proof" without inherent doubt and bias surrounding it.
This is disgustingly verbose, but what I gleaned from this paragraph (Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing your argument) is that there can be no absolute proof that a god exists. All existing evidence is subjective and there is no evidence which is completely immune to other explanations will be produced in any reasonable amount of time. Therefore the only way we can deduce the existence of a god is through logic.
I don't know if I totally agree with that, but I'm not really here to refute it. I find the logic behind your assumption severely flawed. (Hilariously, the cosmological argument was devised before the widespread use of deductive reasoning in Medieval Europe.) The concept of principle reason is strong enough, and makes sense when you apply it here. However, when you add the cosmological argument as further deduction from that point it doesn't work. The main tenet of the cosmological argument is that if you trace every single cause far enough back, there must have been one starting or universal cause- in your argument this would be god. The issue is that if you take that cause (god) one more step back then that cause is without cause which would violate the principle of sufficient reason.
The other significant issue is that beyond the flaws of that specific reasoning. I think Ako touched on this but I wanted to go a little more in depth. When you break everything down to the absolute base of logic (I exist and that something created me) there is obviously the potential to say that the thing which created you was a god, but how can you be sure? IIRC you are of the Muslim faith. How do you rationally transition from something created me to this specific god which has these rules and spoke these prophets created me?
I'm trying to not be very argumentative because I genuinely want to see how you look at the stuff outlined above. I also wont try to refute or reply to any of the other paragraphs in your post for now, because I think Ako and you were having an interesting discussion. So I'll leave that to you guys if you decide to continue it. Also this thread now has over 100k views lol
Post by: OctoGamer on 13 December 2020, 01:09:44 PM
Post by: NotEnder on 17 May 2021, 03:10:24 AM
I don't think it can be reasonably posited that there's a low likelihood for a single God to exist on the merit of a few thousand years of history and inherent subjectivity when it comes to interpreting evidence that may or may not suggest said God's existence alone. In the two quotes above, you're suggesting (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that within the same period of time, it's reasonable that humans have only just begun to find new habitable planets (relevant new article! (https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-discover-24-superhabitable-planets-with-conditions-that-are-better-for-life-than-earth-12091801)), but unreasonable that they haven't found "concrete" evidence of a deity's existence. In our lifetime, I don't believe that we'll be able to physically find irrefutable proof that something in the natural world demonstrates the undeniable existence of God, with absolutely zero room for speculation or hypothesizing. Something I am suggesting (and this once again relates to my personal worldview but cannot be completely and objectively grounded without room for counterarguments) is that we may be able to infer the existence of a God based on the cosmological argument and principle of sufficient reason. While they may not put all counterclaims to rest, I don't think it's illogical to factor them in when contemplating whether or not it's possible that God exists. And although it is certainly true that some "evidence" is more compelling than others, when it comes to whether or not a piece/pieces of evidence can reasonably point to God existing, there will always be scholarly debate as to what can be considered more concrete. Given that I am neither a philosophical nor a religious scholar, and that in this discussion I carry the much bigger burden of having to suggest something exists (when in cases like these it's a lot easier to not have to prove something if you don't believe it exists in the first place), I cannot physically show indisputable "proof" without inherent doubt and bias surrounding it.
This is disgustingly verbose, but what I gleaned from this paragraph (Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing your argument) is that there can be no absolute proof that a god exists. All existing evidence is subjective and there is no evidence which is completely immune to other explanations will be produced in any reasonable amount of time. Therefore the only way we can deduce the existence of a god is through logic.
I don't know if I totally agree with that, but I'm not really here to refute it. I find the logic behind your assumption severely flawed. (Hilariously, the cosmological argument was devised before the widespread use of deductive reasoning in Medieval Europe.) The concept of principle reason is strong enough, and makes sense when you apply it here. However, when you add the cosmological argument as further deduction from that point it doesn't work. The main tenet of the cosmological argument is that if you trace every single cause far enough back, there must have been one starting or universal cause- in your argument this would be god. The issue is that if you take that cause (god) one more step back then that cause is without cause which would violate the principle of sufficient reason.
The other significant issue is that beyond the flaws of that specific reasoning. I think Ako touched on this but I wanted to go a little more in depth. When you break everything down to the absolute base of logic (I exist and that something created me) there is obviously the potential to say that the thing which created you was a god, but how can you be sure? IIRC you are of the Muslim faith. How do you rationally transition from something created me to this specific god which has these rules and spoke these prophets created me?
I'm trying to not be very argumentative because I genuinely want to see how you look at the stuff outlined above. I also wont try to refute or reply to any of the other paragraphs in your post for now, because I think Ako and you were having an interesting discussion. So I'll leave that to you guys if you decide to continue it. Also this thread now has over 100k views lol
100k views!
Was exceedingly verbose because I didn't want to leave any room for misinterpretation where available. I think it's a fitting end to this whole saga.
I don't condone most of my past behavior here. Given that my first forum post was on this thread, it's fitting that my last one is too. You know where to reach out to me if necessary. Thanks for the memories y'all.
I'll still hop on the server once in a blue moon. Take care. :)
This is a wall of moving text.
Post by: Akomine on 17 May 2021, 01:29:09 PM