Ah, God makes no mistakes.
So when a child is born in a remote part of the world, who God knows will surely die in horribly agony after just a few short years, that's not a mistake? God willed it to be? To think that God makes no mistakes you either have to be blind to all suffering in the world, or accept that God is an incredibly capricious, often malevolent being. To say that he makes no mistakes is to say that he wills everything to be so - everything is going according to his plan. Genocide, torture, rape, the lot of it - All his plan going perfectly fine. Oh, and if it wasn't, he could always fix it, he is omnipotent after all. But no, he sits back and he watches, arms folded. What a sick, twisted mother fucker. I don't understand how anyone could worship such a cruel being.
Just wondering what these "laws of nature" are that say homosexuality is wrong? If you think homosexuality is wrong, then please, justify that position without turning to a 2000 year old book. The question is not what one or two Palestinians once thought about homosexuality.
Homosexuality is natural as it occurs in nature. However, this doesn't make it right or wrong. The real question here is how do you define "wrong"? Does it violate others' human rights? Does it cause nonconsensual harm to anyone? What negative consequences exist (other than pissing off someone's imaginary friend) ?
Oh dear. It's really saddens me that so many people still think this whole magnificent universe was made just for them and there little clan of ignorant believers. Have fun with your childish fairytales, but please don't push your view on me or anyone else, and please don't let your nonsense dogma get in the way of real scientific advances that actually improve humanity.
Just go back to throwing rocks at each other, leave the rest of us alone.
" They go to heaven because they didn't know anything about God or Satan so God takes care of the children in Heaven."
Then stop telling us about God, and we'd all go to heaven. By your logic you're sending people to hell by telling them about God...
There is evidence for a soul.
They could not possibly "see" what happened if there brain was non-functional. Small remnants of twisted memories or last moments of vision can be convoluted by our brain, especially in circumstances of high brain activity and chemical release (in the brain). Basically, these "experiences" are imagined ones.
There is no way to objectively prove a soul exists. Many people claim that they've met/spoke with Allah, and some say the same about Yahweh. That does not count as evidence for each God, especially since both gods' existence is mutually exclusive.
You need to find better "evidence" for a soul than one or two people having a post-concious hypnotic episode.
Yes, it boils down to etymology. Why is this important? Because it changes the meaning of the word, significantly. I do call myself agnostic. I don't think humans can know whether or not there is a god or gods. However, because I do not strictly believe in one, I am not a theist, ergo I am an atheist.
As has been stated many times before, the word 'atheist' shouldn't exist as a title, it's like 'non- stamp collector'.
Before you radically generalise what atheists believe, look at the word actually means. Theist meaning believer in god, 'a' prefix meaning not. I can't stress enough the simplicity of the word.
if you have faith in god you can not worry as much as how we got here because we can simply say he created us....
People who thought like this is the reason we had the Dark Ages. It's a cop out to the millions of people who have contributed to human knowledge and understanding of the world just to say "Well fuck your science, magic did it". I'd rather an explanation, thanks. What you're basically saying is "If you're religious you don't need to worry about fancy pants explanations and logic". Well, good luck convincing anyone.
"come on we come from MATTER thats just dumb"
We are made from matter. Scientists know in very specific detail how matter rearranged itself to form us. Are you seriously saying that matter rearranging itself due to genetic variation/natural selection into differently arranged bits of matter is 'dumb', whereas believing a bearded wizard in the sky thought it all into existence as a perfectly legitimate theory? Seriously? Are you a troll?
but are evil self's want to think we are so smart so we make up are own answers that sound like i could happen that way
Scientists like most people recognise that they don't know anything. This is one of the core reasons why people choose to do science - To understand more about the world, to gain information and knowledge. This is a much better idea than saying "Fuck we're dumb, I guess god just did it all... Yeh let's teach that in school".
sorry atheists out there but your not as smart as god, get over it.
Yes, God is so smart that he decided he would create faulty humans then command them to fix themselves and start worshipping him. Then he decided to send his son to a desert in bronze age palestine where most people couldn't read or write. Yeh, that'll get the message across! Bloody genius.
Atheism doesn't mean "believing there isn't a god"
Atheism means "not believing in god"
Theism meaning belief in god, and the a prefix meaning not. This is not a difficult concept.
There could be invisible pink unicorns wearing top hats living at the edge of (or just beyond) the universe that secretly watch over us and are actually everywhere and actually came to Earth in human form (As Billy Mays). Many books were then written about Billy Mays and the invisible pink unicorns. Oh, the unicorns also created the universe. And they want you to mutilate your genitals and not make sculptures of any unicorns.
Hell, this could be the case, However there is no evidence for such. If I believe there are no such unicorns, is that really equivalent (in terms of faith) to saying I believe there is? The burden of proof is still on theists to prove that their god exists. Until that time, I shall not believe that there is a god. I call myself an atheist, meaning a person who does not believe there is a god.
In reality, "Muslim terrorists" are probably about as quick to commit suicide as any other terrorist.
Although, I guess religious terrorists who believe they are committing the will of God and think they will live in eternal paradise after they die will probably value life on Earth a little less.
The Qur'an says not to kill people, but it also commands the killing of people.
The Bible says not to kill people, but it also commands the killing of people.
Both books contradict themselves.
Again, the 'real islam' is still the no true scotsman fallacy. Any one person can claim that their interpretation of the Qur'an is correct, and that all others' interpretations are wrong. Both the Qur'an and the Bible can be interpreted to mean pretty much anything you want - But the point still remains that both books condone physical punishment and killing, and the Qur'an condones violent jihad.
Islam should not be judged on what some extremists do. Nor should any other religion. However, we still need to ask how they came to their interpretation. We still need to judge Islam on the Qur'an, and Christianity on the Bible.
The 'real' islam is indeed as you put it respecting people. It's a bit of a shame that in the same response you also called me a disgusting person, (proving that the real Islam is contradiction) but that's okay. Let's both stray away from ad hominem attacks.
I don't assume what Islam is about, but I have read the Qur'an, so what makes my interpretations less valid than yours? I accept I still know very little about Islam, but it's hard to look past the blatant words of the Qur'an - and to take direct meaning from them. You can dress the words up all you want, just as many Christians do the bible, but they both still say some pretty awful things and condone some pretty awful behaviour (and even command it). Especially for one religion where "God is love" and the other a "Religion of peace".
While i will concide that religious fanaticism greatly increases the willingness (and thus frequency) to kill oneself in angry, i think desperation is also a primary cause.
You see desparation is the fuel of religion, and the more extreme the religious views the better.
I totally agree with your statement. The thing is though, religion often fuels desparity. We are constantly being told be religious institutions that we're fighting a war of ideas; portraits are being painted of a society where we need to fight against ideas we don't like, and fight to bring forth ideas we support. Non-issues are being depicted as something we should despair over, causing fear in the minds of many people.
And whats your opinion of Chrsitianity?
I was brought up a Christian and know that parts of the bible are as bad or worse than parts of the Qur'an. Sure, it has some good bits in it, so does the Qur'an, but that doesn't give you the ability to overlook the bad bits, especially if you consider any one text to be infallible.
What if we put on "In no god we trust" instead?
Would that be acceptable under the First Amendment? Why not?
.
.
.
^ The answer to that question is why the phrase "In god we trust" should not be endorsed by the US Government. It's really rather simple.
oh yeah? following one book is better than following a million!
I follow what is true. The entirety of truth is not found in one book.
So do you ignore what is in the Qur'an? Under Sharia law what is the penalty for apostacy?
You don't respect my religion because I don't have one. And I have no obligation to respect your religion. You have no right not to be offended or your beliefs disrespected. I think Islam and the Qur'an disgusting and I find its teachings immoral - it discriminates against women, homosexuals and non-muslims. It is an anachronism and has no place in a modern, tolerant society.
What other than a calling from god would cause sane people to kill themselves and others in acts of terrorism?
Current videogame characters can't feel pain.
However, we could be part of a videogame, or at least a simulated reality.
If computers develop to the extent that entire universes can be simulated, then it is very likely we are living in a simulated universe rather than the one actual universe.
But then again, what is "reality", which universe is the "real" one?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Keep god/religion out of government.
Qur'an 2:191 (English Translation)
"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
I'd really hate to be forced to follow Islam and be placed under such unfair restrictions made by an illiterate prophet under penalty of death: (Qur'an 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.")
but those terrorists who say that they are muslims are not muslims
This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Any religious person can claim that an extremist is not a true follower of their religion. It is meaningless. If they call themselves muslim and shout "الله_أكبر" as they fly a plane into a building then they are as much a muslim as you are.
You know what would be great? If people weren't forced to live their lives by one book.
