Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn

[Max™]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

*golfclap*

[zoobernut]

A: There is a god that influences nature in some way, making it possible to test for his existence.

B: He doesn't influence nature, or his influence is no different then what would normally occur in nature, which begs the question why then is there a need for a god?

If he is unknowable, he is useless. Anything that would make him useful would also make him knowable to some degree.

This is almost exactly what I said already on the last page. Though people tend to ignore the question.

Personally I feel that if you can understand this concept and accept it then you are a true agnostic. Because once you come to this realization the existence of god is not important.

[Neosutra]

I agree zoober. "god" is not important and mankind should stop wasting time and resources on that concept.

[Effluo]

I agree zoober. "god" is not important and mankind should stop wasting time and resources on that concept.

God is not important to you, however God may be important to others. Just because we don't all share the same beliefs does not make it so. The concept of God is important to the vast majority of the planet, or else we wouldn't be in the middle of a fxuking Jihad.

[Drex]

God is not important to you, however God may be important to others. Just because we don't all share the same beliefs does not make it so. The concept of God is important to the vast majority of the planet, or else we wouldn't be in the middle of a fxuking Jihad.

That doesn't prevent it from being stupid.

[Neosutra]

That doesn't prevent it from being stupid.

Exactly.

Just because people are choosing to kill each other over it every day, doesnt make it any more important or less retarded. Just means they are dying for no good reason beyond blind ignorance.

[kareface]

God is not important to you, however God may be important to others. Just because we don't all share the same beliefs does not make it so. The concept of God is important to the vast majority of the planet, or else we wouldn't be in the middle of a fxuking Jihad.

He may be important subjectively, individuals may take solace in the idea that something is judging their every action. However, the domain of man aside, it would seem that the natural world could care less if god existed. Nothing definitively points to any kind of supernatural being to necessitate it's operation. If the world around us works just as well with the absence of god as it does with it, why bother? If everyone just decided tomorrow they would stop believing in god, the natural world would continue as if nothing happened. This is why he is unimportant. In contrast, the domain of man would be very different in his absence. I would suggest a better world on the whole, but this is my opinion.

Unless we are talking about the Magic Water Buffalo. Because he can beat up Yahweh, Jesus and Allah. WHAT NOW?!

[zoobernut]

God is not important to you, however God may be important to others. Just because we don't all share the same beliefs does not make it so. The concept of God is important to the vast majority of the planet, or else we wouldn't be in the middle of a fxuking Jihad.

Did you not read the thread or anything in the three posts above you?

If god exists or not is not the question its existence means nothing without the idea that it can effect the world around us and control it in some way. The real question is whether or not god has the power to control the world and everything in it.

IF god can control the world and everything in it then gods actions would be conceivable and measurable by humans. This would mean there would be a way to test the existence of god.

IF god cannot control the world in anyway and does not interact with it in a measurable conceivable way from the human perspective than the existence of god is meaningless and has no impact on our lives and the whole argument is moot.

Whatever people think does not make it actually true. I could go out tomorrow and kill 50 people and then say it was in the name of the MWB but that does not mean it exists.

[Effluo]

But we as humans are constantly looking for answers to the unknown. Hell, we've been looking for the missing link for how long now? There is no irrefutable evidence to date that it does exist, yet we keep looking. It's all about beliefs. Just because one person or group of persons doesn't believe something exists doesn't make it less meaningful to everyone.

Many scientists believe in the intangible, unproven, and theoretical. How many billions were spent on the LHC, in the hopes of finding a theoretical particle, that may or may not exist, and at this point is purely speculative. (And yes, I know there are many other uses planned for the LHC.)

All i know is when that meteor finally hits, and it's Armageddon, i plan to have my lawn chair parked right under it with a nice cold 40 and a freshly packed bowl...

[Zosi]

My god, the butchery of science in that last post is staggering.

To refute your previous point, please learn the difference between the consequences of belief in existence and the consequences of actually existing. Believing that something is true or false can have major consequences regardless of the actual existence of the thing in question - the jihads you brought up actually make an excellent example of that.

[Effluo]

My god, the butchery of science in that last post is staggering.

To refute your previous point, please learn the difference between the consequences of belief in existence and the consequences of actually existing. Believing that something is true or false can have major consequences regardless of the actual existence of the thing in question - the jihads you brought up actually make an excellent example of that.

Oh, come on, it wasn't that bad!

There will never be an end to the religious debate of God vs no God. I'm just going to come out and blame Neosutra for this whole thread

[kareface]

http://stomped.com/mini/mwbrape.jpg
http://stomped.com/mini/mwbdrunk.jpg
http://stomped.com/mini/mwbwoman.jpg

[Skeeterxi]

Even if God was somehow proved real, I would still think religion is total bullshit.

[Kiro]

Man made god out of ignorance and fear.


Stop capitalizing the G in god you fucking nubs. :<

[Neosutra]

Oh, come on, it wasn't that bad!

There will never be an end to the religious debate of God vs no God. I'm just going to come out and blame Neosutra for this whole thread

I planted the fossiles there =/.

[Faris]

I still think that the holocaust its exaggerated..whats your point? but thats not the case here;
facts only in maths? what, that doesnt make any sense bro

The Quran is giving you facts..how come you don't comment on what's written in it? isn't that observable, they are faaaaacts

see, here's the difference between christianity and islam, christianity is just faith faith faith, "worship thy lord and be strong"
In Islam it gives you reason, it gives you scientific evidence, it challenges you to the truth. there are verses that literally tells people to go seek the truth.
It talks about biology, psychology, astrology, talks about so much in science, so much. its actually full of that.


but how do you explain scientific evidence in a 1,430 year old book? evidence that we are discovering this century....? . how did all that happen? the only answers you're going to give me will start with "may be"

the pharaohs are still around and zamzam water* is still around..how do you explain these things? if religion is a fabrication made by man then why do these things exist?

[Jefe]

Maybe I'm just exaggerating, but whenever I see something related to islam/mohamed/fill in the blank, most of the people involved are full of rage and with a lust for blood. Reminds me of the "majini." >_>

It seems as if they wanna kill anybody that disagrees with them. Of course, their "leaders" are a bunch of lunatics too.

[Neosutra]

I still think that the holocaust its exaggerated..whats your point? but thats not the case here;
facts only in maths? what, that doesnt make any sense bro

The Quran is giving you facts..how come you don't comment on what's written in it? isn't that observable, they are faaaaacts

see, here's the difference between christianity and islam, christianity is just faith faith faith, "worship thy lord and be strong"
In Islam it gives you reason, it gives you scientific evidence, it challenges you to the truth. there are verses that literally tells people to go seek the truth.
It talks about biology, psychology, astrology, talks about so much in science, so much. its actually full of that.


but how do you explain scientific evidence in a 1,430 year old book? evidence that we are discovering this century....? . how did all that happen? the only answers you're going to give me will start with "may be"

the pharaohs are still around and zamzam water* is still around..how do you explain these things? if religion is a fabrication made by man then why do these things exist?

1. You are a moron if you think the holocaust was exagerated.

2. Astrology isnt science, I assume you meant astronomy. And no, there is no "science" in the quran. There are no "scientific" facts in the Quran that we are just discovering today. The Quran didnt contain info on relativity, EM field theory, newtonian physics, or celestial orgins.

Islam is just as dogmatic and retarded as christianity. Islam just has a worse name due to more aggressive teachings in several areas.

If I didnt feel it to be a waste of money, I would order copies of the Quran as toillet paper, or doodling sheets for my "muhammed gone wild, the extra awesome gay sex version" clip arts.

People like you are the reason no one respects your religion.

Holocaust exagerated... you make me sick.

And incoming ban on myself for the quran/islam/muhammad quote I guess, but fuck off Firas.

[Faris]

Maybe I'm just exaggerating, but whenever I see something related to islam/mohamed/fill in the blank, most of the people involved are full of rage and with a lust for blood. Reminds me of the "majini." >_>

says the media. I dont understand how I sound full of rage <_> im just aruing for the sake of arguing




and neosurta, did the holocaust statement piss you off? thats whole different story, not gona get in to it.

the Quran does indeed have scientific proofs you moron, its a fucking fact.


you seem to me you're full of rage, you sure you're not muslim bro? you should be, you got the lust for blood

[kareface]

I still think that the holocaust its exaggerated..whats your point? but thats not the case here;
facts only in maths? what, that doesnt make any sense bro

I can't tell if you aren't smart enough to understand what I said or if you are being sarcastic. You do realize the reason it's called theory of evolution is because facts only truly exist in the world of mathematics. Theory is the highest state of understanding in the scientific community. You should take the time to watch the videos that I linked to. Evolution is true, what does the Quran say about that?

The Quran is giving you facts..how come you don't comment on what's written in it? isn't that observable, they are faaaaacts

Yeah, yeah... I've heard this all before with the bible, in Scientology, with the Mormons. Everyone has their book and everyone claims it houses secrets of science. At the end of the day you can only pull a handful of passages that are usually taken out of context, or are so vague they could mean just about anything. I don't think you understand what a fact is. There is nothing in the Quran that proves it's true, or that your religion is true, or that the book isn't full of bull crap. Not taking into account the many verses that are outright false.

In Islam it gives you reason, it gives you scientific evidence, it challenges you to the truth. there are verses that literally tells people to go seek the truth.
It talks about biology, psychology, astrology, talks about so much in science, so much. its actually full of that.

That doesn't make it right. It's like anything else, even if parts of it are accurate, or can be interpreted in some skewed way to seem prophetic, it doesn't mean the whole of the book should be taken as truth. I can post a ton of videos that critique the contents, there are plenty of internal inconsistencies and things that are outright false, like there is with any religious text.

but how do you explain scientific evidence in a 1,430 year old book? evidence that we are discovering this century....? . how did all that happen? the only answers you're going to give me will start with "may be"

No, my answer is it's a load of crap. People say the same shit about the bible and the new testament. You cherry pick a few verses that vaguely represent something and expect everyone to be amazed. The Quran is really no different then the bible. It makes claims about things that are false, people skew the passages to convey a false prophetic ideal, in the end they use it to justify their own morality. Your book doesn't prove anything.

the pharaohs are still around and zamzam water* is still around..how do you explain these things? if religion is a fabrication made by man then why do these things exist?

Wait, some dried up bodies and a spring prove god? Let's assume religion was made up by man, why wouldn't they exist? I'm confused what your trying to imply. How can you believe a book that was written several hundred years after the illiterate person who god decided in his vast wisdom to convey his will to just passed on the stories orally. Do you know how different a story will become after several hundred years of oral exchange.

You should really take the time to read even the most basic critiques of the book. I would suggest:
"Is the Qur'an the Word of God?" - Contents

Some great passages:

The Qur'an, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and confused collection of statements and ideas, many of which bear little relationship to preceding chapters and verses. Many scholars admit that the Qur'an is so haphazard in its make-up that it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plough through it!

B4: Contradictions

A further problem with the traditions are the contradictions, confusions and inconsistencies as well as anomalies which are evident throughout. For instance Crone asks, "What do we do with Baladhuri's statement that the Qibla (direction for prayer) in the first Kufan mosque was to the west...that there are so many Fatimas, and that 'Ali is sometimes Muhammad's brother? It is a tradition in which information means nothing and leads nowhere." (Crone 1980:12) Certain authors wrote reports which contradict other reports which they had themselves written (Humphreys 1991:73; Crone 1987:217-218). Al-Tabari, for instance, often gives different, and sometimes conflicting accounts of the same incidents (Kennedy 1986:362). The question of how far al-Tabari edited his material therefore remains an open one. Did he select the akhbar (short narratives) which he used in order to develop and illustrate major themes about the history of the Islamic state? We don't know.

Ibn Ishaq informs us that Muhammad stepped into a political vacuum upon entering Yathrib (Medina), but then later tells us that he snatched away authority from a well-established ruler there (Ibn Hisham ed.1860: 285, 385, 411). Ibn Ishaq also relates that the Jews in Medina were supportive of their Arab neighbours, and yet were molested by them (Ibn Hisham ed.1860:286, 372, 373, 378). Which of these contradictory accounts are we to believe? As Crone points out, "the stories are told with complete disregard for what the situation in Medina may or may not have been like in historical fact." (Crone 1987:218)

Another difficulty are the seeming contradictory accounts given by different compilers (Rippin 1990:10-11). Many are variations on a common theme. Take for example the 15 different accounts of Muhammad's encounter with a representative of a non-Islamic religion who recognizes him as a future prophet (Crone 1987:219-220). Some traditions place this encounter during his infancy (Ibn Hisham ed.1860:107), others when he was nine or twelve years old (Ibn Sa'd 1960:120), while others say he was twenty-five at the time (Ibn Hisham ed.1860:119). Some traditions maintain that he was seen by Ethiopian Christians (Ibn Hisham ed.1860:107), or by Jews ( Abd al-Razzaq 1972: 318), while others maintain it was a seer or a Kahin at either Mecca, or Ukaz or Dhu'l-Majaz (Ibn Sa'd 1960:166; Abd al-Razzaq 1972:317; Abu Nu'aym 1950:95, 116f). Crone concludes that what we have here is nothing more than "fifteen equally fictitious versions of an event that never took place." (Crone 1987:220)

Consequently it is difficult to ascertain which reports are authentic, and which are to be discarded. This is a problem which confounds Muslims and orientalists even today.

F: Conclusion

What, therefore can we say concerning the Qur'an? Is it the Word of God? Muslims contend that we can only understand the origins of the Qur'an through the eyes of Muslim Tradition, which tells us that Allah revealed his truth through the Qur'an which was sent down to Muhammad. We, however, suspect the authenticity for this claim, as the primary sources for the later traditions simply do not exist prior to the eighth century. In fact the Muslim sources which we do possess are of a relatively later date, compiled between 200-300 years after the fact, and are dependant on oral traditions passed down by storytellers whose narratives not only cannot be corroborated, but suddenly seem to proliferate towards the end of the eighth century.

Wansbrough takes the position that the Qur'an was compiled even later than the traditions, and was used as an authoritative stamp to authenticate later beliefs and laws by those who were responsible for canonizing the Muslim Traditions. If he is correct, then one would wonder whether Muhammad would even recognize the Qur'an which we possess today.

Nonetheless, the Qur'an itself has been suggested as a source for Islam, and its own best authority. Yet it too suffers from many of the same problems mentioned above. When we open the Qur'an and read it we are faced immediately with many structural and literary difficulties which bode ill for a document claiming to be the final and perfect Word of God. We are presented with spurious "Biblical accounts" which parallel known second century heretical Talmudic and Christian Apocryphal documents. And while we wonder how these very human documents found their way into a supposedly non-human scripture, we are introduced to scientific peculiarities which have also found their way into its pages. These difficulties do seem to point away from a divine authorship and point towards a more plausible explanation; that the Qur'an is simply a collection of disparate sources borrowed from surrounding pieces of literature, folk tales, and oral traditions present during the seventh and eighth centuries, and accidently grafted in by unsuspecting later compilers of the Abbasid period.

Non-Muslim sources which we possess from a variety of surrounding societies also corroborate the evidence above. Much of what we find in these external seventh and eighth century sources contradict what the Muslim Tradition and the Qur'an tell us, causing us to suspect the latter's authenticity.

In the end we are left with little on which to hold. Muslim sources are found to be questionable, while non-Muslim sources point to a dearth of any real evidence for the accurateness of the Qur'an. There is indeed, much disturbing material here with which the Muslim apologist must now contend. Yet, I do find solace in the fact that the next time I see a Muslim holding his Qur'an aloft as evidence of Allah's blueprint for humanity, I can ask him one simple question, the same question historians are now asking, "Where, indeed is the evidence for that which they believe?

The Qur'an isn't anything special as far as religious text go. If anything, it's much more erratic and inconstant then most. Nothing in it proves god, or is a good reason to have faith in anything.

I want you to help answer a question I have because I'm curious. You think that the Qur'an speaks about scientific truths, but it conflicts with evolution. Evolution is unlikely to ever be proven false. Details about the process might be clarified, but for the most part evolution is an outright fact. Something that can't really be denied based on the evidence. How do you reconcile the fact that the Qur'an is wrong about the origins of man? If it was really the word of god, wouldn't he know how man came to be?

My gift to this thread:
http://stomped.com/mini/mwbholo.jpg