Man opens fire on White House vol. God told me to do it

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

And I'm simply answering that question. From the Islamic perspective, you cannot say that God has told you to do x, y, or z, because it's already outlined in the Qur'an, the final revelation.

As for your point about Joseph Smith, maybe you should have considered reading the "the theology lesson." Muhammad is the last and final messenger of God. Joseph Smith was born in 1805.

So the validity of a religion/ prophet depends on which came first and who was the first to say they were the last prophet?

Secondly, why should we believe Muhammad's word over the word of millions of people in history who have claimed to have seen or talked to God or Gods? If I told you Muhammed and Allah came to me in a dream and said Muhammed has been a bad boy in heaven and is no longer the final prophet and a new last one is on his way would you believe me? If not, why not---I'm essentially doing what Muhammad did

Waits for rant about how the Quran is so poetic

As far as validity being dependent on who claims to be the final messenger, first, the answer is no. That was merely a point about Mormonism and if it is included within the Abrahamic tradition in the Islamic perspective.

As far as why we should believe Muhammad over the others; obviously there is no short answer. It takes an investment into learning about Islam as a whole to truly understand it. That means an objective view at the life of the Prophet and reading and contemplating verses of the Qur'an.

And again I'll repeat this, according to the Islamic theology the closest thing to a direct transmission between God and Man occurred already. The Qur'an is supposed to be the ultimate guide for a Muslim. If God comes to you in a dream and tells you x,y, and z that means that the Qur'an was not sufficient enough to guide you-and therefore mankind. It goes against the core of the theology.

 

[iamjusayn]

Originally Posted by Supermanblue79

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Supermanblue79

The guy obviously has symptoms of schizophrenia. 
I'm glad that no one was hurt.

This point could open a can of worms...



Its funny that we are reluctant to apply mental disorders to people who "believe god talks to them" 




But we all know what that would mean... 

Get off your campaign against all things religious..I'll getting a little old.
And Anton, stand on your own two instead of sac chasing this guy in every thread.

Originally Posted by Jack Daniels

Originally Posted by moundraised23

Sillyputty gon have a field day with this one.......

First reply and you're just watering at the mouth to know what that boy thinks. Let that kids' nuts breathe, b. 

You guys are embarrassing, especially in the "Henz0s" thread.

 

[6 Rings G.O.A.T.]

I'm so happy that nobody got hurt..

 

[zapatohead408]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by zapatohead408

the president doesn't live in public housing...

Oh really? So President's maintain the White House with their own money or our tax money? How was the White House built and additions added on to it? Exactly, public money.

Exactly.
I wonder if these guys proof-read sometimes... 

 

I guess he thinks that the secret service just gets paid when barack writes a personal check and waits for BoA to clear it. 

ok you guys are correct, I meant to phrase it differently. The president doesn't live in the projects, which is what came to mind when I read public housing.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

And I'm simply answering that question. From the Islamic perspective, you cannot say that God has told you to do x, y, or z, because it's already outlined in the Qur'an, the final revelation.

As for your point about Joseph Smith, maybe you should have considered reading the "the theology lesson." Muhammad is the last and final messenger of God. Joseph Smith was born in 1805.

An absurd claim.



If its not in the Quran then it isn't valid?




So is slavery and hitting women valid since its IN the quran? Killing apostates is valid? Sleeping with 10-12 year old girls is valid? 




You believe only YOUR prophet is the last prophet. Why or how does that invalidate all the other followers of other religions? 




But NO...you're smarter than that...because following the entire quran would land you in jail in 30 minutes. 




Your morality and own conscious decision making ability trancends anything religion offers you yet you cling to it like an overgrown habit. Like a 4 year old still being breastfed.




How do I know you're smarter than your quran? 




If god told you to kill your kids, would you do it? Chances are that you wont...so you already can think in more moral terms than religion. 

Are you saying that they are WRONG? 




Muhammad wasn't even the only supposed muslim "prophet" If you even knew your history you'd know that there was a bunch of people vying to say that they were the only prophet of the islamic god before the Muhammad narrative won out. 




But of course, your selective reading of history invalidates this. 




On top of that, if we can't say god tells us to do X, Y, or Z then the Quran isn't valid in modern times...Those people knew nothing about abortion or computers yet why do islamic followers get to take credit for humanity's modern achievements? 





Is the fact that it says "its the last prophet" automatically make it the last prophet?




Its funny you even have the nerve to say any of this....since so many people that are muslims act because "god told them to do something" or "god commanded this of them"


According to you, even following what it says to do in the book is contradictory.


I don't see "bomb embassies" or "kidnapping" in the quran as valid justifications for the actions of its followers. 




If I say god wants us to pursue the Civil Rights act but that wasn't in the Quran, should we follow it? You tell me. 




What about the muslim politicians that run for office and say god told them to run for office? 




HOW DO YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT GOD COULD AND COULD NOT DO? 




HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD DIDN'T TELL SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING? ...AND DECIDED TO LEAVE YOUR OPINION OUT?




DO YOU CLAIM TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF YOUR GOD? 

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

And I'm simply answering that question. From the Islamic perspective, you cannot say that God has told you to do x, y, or z, because it's already outlined in the Qur'an, the final revelation.

As for your point about Joseph Smith, maybe you should have considered reading the "the theology lesson." Muhammad is the last and final messenger of God. Joseph Smith was born in 1805.

So the validity of a religion/ prophet depends on which came first and who was the first to say they were the last prophet?

Secondly, why should we believe Muhammad's word over the word of millions of people in history who have claimed to have seen or talked to God or Gods? If I told you Muhammed and Allah came to me in a dream and said Muhammed has been a bad boy in heaven and is no longer the final prophet and a new last one is on his way would you believe me? If not, why not---I'm essentially doing what Muhammad did

Waits for rant about how the Quran is so poetic

As far as validity being dependent on who claims to be the final messenger, first, the answer is no. That was merely a point about Mormonism and if it is included within the Abrahamic tradition in the Islamic perspective.

As far as why we should believe Muhammad over the others; obviously there is no short answer. It takes an investment into learning about Islam as a whole to truly understand it. That means an objective view at the life of the Prophet and reading and contemplating verses of the Qur'an.

And again I'll repeat this, according to the Islamic theology the closest thing to a direct transmission between God and Man occurred already. The Qur'an is supposed to be the ultimate guide for a Muslim. If God comes to you in a dream and tells you x,y, and z that means that the Qur'an was not sufficient enough to guide you-and therefore mankind. It goes against the core of the theology.

You aren't making sense here. Then what makes what muhammad the "last prophet"??? 




Don't tell me to "study" the damn book either. Thats side-stepping the question. I explain each and every point of mine to you. Referring you to an outside source isn't how I get down.




Defend your views or don't argue at all. State your stance and provide your evidence HERE. 




Lets say muhammad did exist...how does this prove any of the claims you are making to suggest that this character is the one you should believe over the others? Why are you so drawn to him and not other options?



Is it because where you were born? Is it because of what your parents believed? Is it because of your environment? 


If you had been born in india, you'd be a hindu. In Brazil either catholic or some old-world funky christian mix. In parts of china you'd be worshipping spirits. 




Cut the crap already. 




You're no different from someone who has only read the Vedas all their life, or the bible, or the Iliad or the odyssey, etc. Your view is so myopic that you can't even accept other possitilites. 




This is the worst circular argument i've seen yet on here. 




Replace bible with quran and this is your argument:

 

So again, its impossible for god to talk to man since the last transmission occurred (in a cave while the prophet was alone at that... true story... 

)...then why pray to it 5x a day and try to talk with it? 




God won't talk to us outside of the quran as you said, right? 




Your answer is utterly ridiculous and I'm not even trying to flame you...its just really bad. 




You mean to tell me that if I can't find my answer in the quran then its my fault the book doesn't have an answer to my question?




If the quran can't help me make a decision on whether or not I should circumcise my son then its my fault for not reading properly?




By your very stance here, god can't even communicate with you and we should follow ONLY the quran. 




So again, why even try to talk to god in the first place? its like a one-way vacuum. 




This is seriously the worst argument i've seen here in a while.




Don't understand something? God did it. 




How do we know he did it? He said he did.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

And I'm simply answering that question. From the Islamic perspective, you cannot say that God has told you to do x, y, or z, because it's already outlined in the Qur'an, the final revelation.

As for your point about Joseph Smith, maybe you should have considered reading the "the theology lesson." Muhammad is the last and final messenger of God. Joseph Smith was born in 1805.

So the validity of a religion/ prophet depends on which came first and who was the first to say they were the last prophet?

Secondly, why should we believe Muhammad's word over the word of millions of people in history who have claimed to have seen or talked to God or Gods? If I told you Muhammed and Allah came to me in a dream and said Muhammed has been a bad boy in heaven and is no longer the final prophet and a new last one is on his way would you believe me? If not, why not---I'm essentially doing what Muhammad did

Waits for rant about how the Quran is so poetic

As far as validity being dependent on who claims to be the final messenger, first, the answer is no. That was merely a point about Mormonism and if it is included within the Abrahamic tradition in the Islamic perspective.

As far as why we should believe Muhammad over the others; obviously there is no short answer. It takes an investment into learning about Islam as a whole to truly understand it. That means an objective view at the life of the Prophet and reading and contemplating verses of the Qur'an.

And again I'll repeat this, according to the Islamic theology the closest thing to a direct transmission between God and Man occurred already. The Qur'an is supposed to be the ultimate guide for a Muslim. If God comes to you in a dream and tells you x,y, and z that means that the Qur'an was not sufficient enough to guide you-and therefore mankind. It goes against the core of the theology.

Is the Quran the ultimate guide for a non-muslim objectively? I'm beginning to question whether you even know the definition of that word homie

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

these always end up in the same place....

the EVENT of putting a burning cross in the yard of a black family, then taking the of age males out of the house, tying them up and dragging them to the tree in which they would hang and torch their dead bodies were TERROR ATTACKS

just because there were literally THOUSANDS of these TERROR ATTACKS

doesnt mean, for the sake of your poor argument, you can give them their own category.....

especially when its just for the ability to say "nothing of the same magnitude as 9/11"



because, again, it argues my entire point...

that there is an unfair media bias towards islam....who is being scapegoated to mass-produce the fear that drives this great nation



check it, i was watching tv last night

a pilot locked himself in the bathroom.....it was reported as a "terror scare"

HE LOCKED HIMSELF IN THE BATHROOM AND BROKE THE DOOR TO GET OUT

AND THE HEADLINE ON THE GRAPHIC WAS "TERROR SCARE"

yes, 9/11 was the most fresh terrorist attack.....we can watch the specials and videos

just because we dont have media of KKK terror attacks, doesnt mean we can convieniently say "well, thats something different"


because it isnt.


the same terror that americans felt watching planes hit the towers

was the same terror invoked in african americans everytime they saw a group of white men in sheets burning crosses



its not different just because one was ACCEPTED BY AMERICAN CULTURE

its not different just because it better suits your argument, either.



im not going to get into the validity of religion, because, frankly, thats not the topic

even though everyone wants to make it the topic.


i just find it funny christians arent ready to talk about the terrorists in their religion as freely and openly as they talk about the terrorists of the islamic religion, thats all

i mean, i saw someone say "are you denying that there are a number of muslims that are terrorists ruining it for the rest of you?"

LMAO

look at how terrible christians look EVERYWHERE, LMAO everywhere BUT the USA LMAO

you serious?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

these always end up in the same place....

the EVENT of putting a burning cross in the yard of a black family, then taking the of age males out of the house, tying them up and dragging them to the tree in which they would hang and torch their dead bodies were TERROR ATTACKS

just because there were literally THOUSANDS of these TERROR ATTACKS

doesnt mean, for the sake of your poor argument, you can give them their own category.....

especially when its just for the ability to say "nothing of the same magnitude as 9/11"



because, again, it argues my entire point...

that there is an unfair media bias towards islam....who is being scapegoated to mass-produce the fear that drives this great nation



check it, i was watching tv last night

a pilot locked himself in the bathroom.....it was reported as a "terror scare"

HE LOCKED HIMSELF IN THE BATHROOM AND BROKE THE DOOR TO GET OUT

AND THE HEADLINE ON THE GRAPHIC WAS "TERROR SCARE"

yes, 9/11 was the most fresh terrorist attack.....we can watch the specials and videos

just because we dont have media of KKK terror attacks, doesnt mean we can convieniently say "well, thats something different"


because it isnt.


the same terror that americans felt watching planes hit the towers

was the same terror invoked in african americans everytime they saw a group of white men in sheets burning crosses



its not different just because one was ACCEPTED BY AMERICAN CULTURE

its not different just because it better suits your argument, either.



im not going to get into the validity of religion, because, frankly, thats not the topic

even though everyone wants to make it the topic.


i just find it funny christians arent ready to talk about the terrorists in their religion as freely and openly as they talk about the terrorists of the islamic religion, thats all

i mean, i saw someone say "are you denying that there are a number of muslims that are terrorists ruining it for the rest of you?"

LMAO

look at how terrible christians look EVERYWHERE, LMAO everywhere BUT the USA LMAO

you serious?

Well said

 

[sillyputty]

This ^

 

[antonlavey]

Anybody peep the Broncos game?

God hates the New York paper planes I mean Jets

 

[mo matik]

Wow. Yes it's a circular argument, but that's why I said "from the Islamic perspective."

You asked a question that assumes God's existence:

HOW CAN YOU CERTIFIABLY SAY THAT GOD DID NOT TELL THE SHOOTER TO GRAB A GUN AND SHOOT AT THE WHITE-HOUSE?


So I gave an answer that assumes God's existence. I honestly thought that's what you were looking for.

Apostasy, women's rights, violence- these are all highly politicized issues that have transcended the original scripture, unfortunately. I'm not going to waste time trying to correct your understanding because I failed in the past-but you already have access to all the resources you need with the internet. You've made these points before about selective use of texts. I've made these points before about your misunderstanding. I refer to outside sources because you are talking about major points that have been addressed in detail. Very different than explanations of what a circular argument is.

There were others claiming prophethood, but the vast majority came after the Prophet i.e. after he had introduced the concept and this long line of Prophets to a largely polytheistic society. It was expected. There were some during the time of the Prophet, who claimed prophecy and wrote poetics as proof. These claims are directly addressed in the Qur'an.

And the other questions- You want me to speak on behalf of Muslim politicians? As if once you become Muslim you are no longer human? No Muslim should claim to speak directly on behalf of God. On guidance, yeah the Qur'an and the ways and sayings of the Prophet is it. God does communicate with mankind- through the Qur'an. Some of the other questions you ask simply require further understanding of the theology. For example "Why even talk to God in the first place?." I don't have the time to give a full response to such an important question. But you'd have to increase your understanding of these concepts within Islam. There's no way around this.

Is the Quran the ultimate guide for a non-muslim objectively?


A Muslim by definition is a submitter to the word of God. According to the theology, it is the guide for all mankind. It's a guide for non-Muslims in that it should lead them to the religion. Do you mean as a guide for someone who lives their life continuously as a non-Muslim? I don't think that makes sense.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Wow. Yes it's a circular argument, but that's why I said "from the Islamic perspective."

You asked a question that assumes God's existence:

HOW CAN YOU CERTIFIABLY SAY THAT GOD DID NOT TELL THE SHOOTER TO GRAB A GUN AND SHOOT AT THE WHITE-HOUSE?

So I gave an answer that assumes God's existence. I honestly thought that's what you were looking for.

Apostasy, women's rights, violence- these are all highly politicized issues that have transcended the original scripture, unfortunately. I'm not going to waste time trying to correct your understanding because I failed in the past-but you already have access to all the resources you need with the internet. You've made these points before about selective use of texts. I've made these points before about your misunderstanding. I refer to outside sources because you are talking about major points that have been addressed in detail. Very different than explanations of what a circular argument is.

There were others claiming prophethood, but the vast majority came after the Prophet i.e. after he had introduced the concept and this long line of Prophets to a largely polytheistic society. It was expected. There were some during the time of the Prophet, who claimed prophecy and wrote poetics as proof. These claims are directly addressed in the Qur'an.

And the other questions- You want me to speak on behalf of Muslim politicians? As if once you become Muslim you are no longer human? No Muslim should claim to speak directly on behalf of God. On guidance, yeah the Qur'an and the ways and sayings of the Prophet is it. God does communicate with mankind- through the Qur'an. Some of the other questions you ask simply require further understanding of the theology. For example "Why even talk to God in the first place?." I don't have the time to give a full response to such an important question. But you'd have to increase your understanding of these concepts within Islam. There's no way around this.

Is the Quran the ultimate guide for a non-muslim objectively?


A Muslim by definition is a submitter to the word of God. According to the theology, it is the guide for all mankind. It's a guide for non-Muslims in that it should lead them to the religion. Do you mean as a guide for someone who lives their life continuously as a non-Muslim? I don't think that makes sense.
Lemme rephrase it this way, does a non-muslim NEED to be muslim objectively? If so why, aside from Muhammad being "poetic"

 

[mo matik]

I answered what would be needed to examine Islam properly. I can't bullet point a list of reasons for accepting what claims to be a complete guide for mankind- it would be entirely incomplete and an unfit representation of the theology as a whole.

Is there a need to become Muslim objectively i.e. without considering the theology? Well, need for what? Needed to live a moral life? No.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Wow. Yes it's a circular argument, but that's why I said "from the Islamic perspective."

You understand that this is a BAD thing, right? 



Circular arguments are logical fallacies. You are admitting to this, correct? 




Circular reasoning is bad because it relies upon its own proposition in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself. You can't assume that your premise is true when trying to show that your premise is true.

Evidence is absent in your line of thinking. This is just illogical.




 No point could ever make sense to you then




...and on top of that to ENTER a belief system in circular arguments would require you justifying a particular part of the circle for which you could jump in, in the first place. 




Its like defining a word in the dictionary and using that same word to define itself.

You asked a question that assumes God's existence:

HOW CAN YOU CERTIFIABLY SAY THAT GOD DID NOT TELL THE SHOOTER TO GRAB A GUN AND SHOOT AT THE WHITE-HOUSE?

So I gave an answer that assumes God's existence. I honestly thought that's what you were looking for.
No you didn't.



You didn't answer this.




How do you know god did NOT tell him to shoot at the white house? 




There are numerous instances where only ONE person gets told something from god...i.e. the most famous one...the prophet??? 




In the same way, how do you know god didn't tell this man to shoot at the white house? He probably left you out of the equation.

Apostasy, women's rights, violence- these are all highly politicized issues that have transcended the original scripture, unfortunately. I'm not going to waste time trying to correct your understanding because I failed in the past-but you already have access to all the resources you need with the internet. You've made these points before about selective use of texts. I've made these points before about your misunderstanding. I refer to outside sources because you are talking about major points that have been addressed in detail. Very different than explanations of what a circular argument is.

Talk about context all you want...these verse are still being used to justify transgressions. Don't say its a "reading" problem... they know damn well what they're "reading" 



This isn't about misunderstanding.




YOU SAID GOD DOES NOT TALK TO US BECAUSE THE QURAN WAS THE LAST COMMUNICATION WITH GOD. 




So currently people act super nerdy about the quran to pick and choose what god must have meant when he says nebulous things about random occurences since god clearly isn't going to come back and explain what he meant. 




if thats the case then as you've said EVERYTHING GOD WILL EVER SAY IS IN THE QURAN.




So if its NOT in the QURAN THEN IT ISN'T VALID.




Apostasy murders, rape, slavery, etc...IS IN THE QURAN...




are you saying these aren't valid anymore? 

Your infallible god and perfect message all of a sudden has modern flaws in it? Is that what you're saying?

There were others claiming prophethood, but the vast majority came after the Prophet i.e. after he had introduced the concept and this long line of Prophets to a largely polytheistic society. It was expected. There were some during the time of the Prophet, who claimed prophecy and wrote poetics as proof. These claims are directly addressed in the Qur'an

.There have ALWAYS been little cults running around saying god spoke to them. There were dozens around the time of jesus and jesus just happened to catch on more than the other ones.



Its no different from Jim Jones or Waco, TX or Mormonism, or any other sect of a modern religion. 




This is my issue... 




If god is this all knowing, all powerful, and ever-present being... then WHY CANT IT SEND ONE CLEAR PROPHET? 




Why is there so much debate? And why is only ONE RICH MALE PERSON IN THE MIDDLE EAST the prophet? 




Its like god somehow keeps getting it wrong. 


Somehow judaism, and christianity were mistakes and god decides to try again on the 3rd go...and voila, islam is born...600 years later, cause god needs time for revisions, and mimics most of christianity, because well...no need in starting ALL the way over, right? 

And the other questions- You want me to speak on behalf of Muslim politicians? As if once you become Muslim you are no longer human? No Muslim should claim to speak directly on behalf of God.

So why do so many of them?

On guidance, yeah the Qur'an and the ways and sayings of the Prophet is it.

So god is cool with all those things listed above?



God didn't see an issue with sleeping with a 10 year old? 

God does communicate with mankind- through the Qur'an.

So if god only talks to us via a book then anything outside that book can't be valid?



So I guess modernizing the rules to prevent stoning women is a bad idea, right? 




On top of that, why pray so much to a god that only wants you to read what it "wrote"? 




if all the answer are through the quran then theres no need to even try to communicate with god. 

Some of the other questions you ask simply require further understanding of the theology.

Piss poor statement.



Thats like saying "some of your arguments require you to be apart of my special club" 




No. 




Answer the question or don't talk at all. 




I keep telling you this.




Grow up or don't respond at all. 

For example "Why even talk to God in the first place?." I don't have the time to give a full response to such an important question. But you'd have to increase your understanding of these concepts within Islam. There's no way around this.

I'm using YOUR logic here. 


God only talks to us via the quran...this is what you said right?




Its like saying, in my math class the teacher only speaks to us via the math book and never shows up to class...but 3x a week we go to room 101 and sit there reading the math book so that we may understand calculus. 




Well why ask the teacher for any help? Its only going to refer you to page 38!

Is the Quran the ultimate guide for a non-muslim objectively?

A Muslim by definition is a submitter to the word of God. According to the theology, it is the guide for all mankind. It's a guide for non-Muslims in that it should lead them to the religion. Do you mean as a guide for someone who lives their life continuously as a non-Muslim? I don't think that makes sense.





Way to not answer the question.




SHOULD A NON-MUSLIM LIVE THEIR LIVES BY THE QURAN???

















Seriously, think about if you got beamed up to an alien spaceship. There they asked you questions about humans and how we live our lives. I can only imagine how ashamed I would be if they asked me to explain religion. What the heck are you supposed to say? Say that more than half of the human population are holding a very irrational belief which reflects on their decisions on a daily basis or would you try to cover it up somehow...

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

I answered what would be needed to examine Islam properly. I can't bullet point a list of reasons for accepting what claims to be a complete guide for mankind- it would be entirely incomplete and an unfit representation of the theology as a whole.

Is there a need to become Muslim objectively i.e. without considering the theology? Well, need for what? Needed to live a moral life? No.

Well then case closed---I have no more to add

 

[mo matik]

Dude. My point was circular because it assumes God's existence, correct? I can't prove to you with verifiable evidence that God exists- but His existence is supported by the theology as a whole. And again, you keep bringing up these talking points and posts you found on r/atheism. Keep regurgitating these things without acknowledging the possibility that there is more that you aren't aware of- and that there has been a strongly invested interested in attacking Islam since the beginning. You keep asking the same questions over and over about God and theology and then attack me for using theology as an explanation- because I can't prove beyond verifiable evidence that the Prophet was the last person to speak to God. It's a part of the theology. The evidence and support for the theology comes through an understanding of the morality, the rulings, and how they all tie into society as a whole.

EDIT: to clearly lay this out-the issue here is that you are looking for verifiable evidence for God's existence. But as I've pointed out before around here, theology would not be theology any longer if God's existence was verifiable. There is a belief in God based on the teachings and rulings He has provided. If you find logic and morality in the teachings and believe it is the proper way for man to live life on Earth, then it's strong evidence for God. It comes from asking yourself if it is possible that these rulings could have been established by an illiterate man in Arabia. It comes from contemplating these things altogether.

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

the answer he was looking for is, yes, all people should live their lives in moral-agreement with the holy book

just like every other religion SHOULD tell you

LMAO

yall are flustering ole boy, intellectually

leave him alone LMAO

like someone dropped red meat down the athiest pit

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Dude. My point was circular because it assumes God's existence, correct? 

OK.



This is the definition of why your argument fails.




YOU CANT ASSUME AN ARGUMENT ON A PREMISE THAT IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED.




I can't make the premise for the basis of calculus if you dont even understand or accept algebra in the first place. SAME THING. 

I can't prove to you with verifiable evidence that God exists

EUREKA!



So wouldn't that require some sort of substantial evidence OUTSIDE of the quran? 




AGAIN, more circular logic!




You can't use the quran to say the quran is right. 




By that virtue the bible can be used to prove the bible is right




The vedas can be used to say the vedas are right.




Do you SEE the problem here? 




IF YOU ARE RIGHT, THEN SO IS EVERYONE ELSE. 

- but His existence is supported by the theology as a whole.

Theology?

You mean the attempt at making stuff up and calling it academic? 




The attempt to resolve things we don't understand in the context of a religion so we sugarcoat it? 




IS THE EXISTENCE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES SUPPORTED BY THE BOOKS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM? 

And again, you keep bringing up these talking points and posts you found on r/atheism.

For one, my "talking points" are fairly original. I got some comics from there but my speaking points were mine. Its how I'm able to respond to you so quickly. I'm not learning as I type. Keep the amazement of my direct responses to yourself and make an ACTUAL argument. 



Getting upset at the source of an argument doesn't equate to actually refuting it.




I don't care if I got a logical argument from a box of Lucky Charms. It doesn't make it any less real.




Its like saying the scientific facts on the side of KIX Cereal Box aren't real because theyre on the side of the cereal box.




 Refer to this chart:




Guess what color you are at right now...

Keep regurgitating these things without acknowledging the possibility that there is more that you aren't aware of-

You're the one who says "Muhammad" was the last "prophet" (profit)...YET YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE OTHER SELF DESCRIBED PROPHETS WHO CAME AFTERWARDS!



What about the possibility that Joseph Smith was a prophet? 




Keep talking about "possibilities" like you understand what that even entails. 




I've presented more "possibilities" than YOU have yet you have the audacity to claim that I haven't considered other conclusions.




Additionally, I never claimed to know everything...its you that says god did X, Y, and Z. 


Yet when we test these claims and they dont hold up, its my fault...




nah homie if god says he did it, the he should stand up and take proof of it. 

and that there has been a strongly invested interested in attacking Islam since the beginning.

No one is "targeting" islam. 



You're just defending it poorly. 




Its like saying i'm attacking penn state. 




Nah, they're doing a horrible job of defending their administration up there. 

You keep asking the same questions over and over about God and theology and then attack me for using theology as an explanation

If I ask you to explain how a car works and you start explaining using how a printing press works then I'm going to call you out for not using even remotely useful information. 

- because I can't prove beyond verifiable evidence that the Prophet was the last person to speak to God.

But theres a reason you believe that, right? 



Where is your evidence to believe this?




Since you are so certain, why can't you substantiate why YOU believe it? 




Additionally, you can't prove that muhammad was the last one to talk to god...but you clung to this notion on the previous page...so which is it? 




Are you for sure now? 




Did god finally get it right after messing up who the prophet was in monotheism (ignoring polytheism and paganism)? Were christianity and judaism test-trials? 

It's a part of the theology. The evidence and support for the theology comes through an understanding of the morality, the rulings, and how they all tie into society as a whole.

That doesn't even make sense...not in the slightest.




Does the notion that we should not kill each other mean that there was a man who was really from the Sun? 




Does the notion that we shouldn't steal come from the idea that there was really a virgin birth in a mammal? (parthenogenesis is impossible unless induced in mammals)




And you revere the morality of the quran? 




Would you stone your sister if she married a non-muslim? 




Would you stone her if she had pre-marital sex? 




Thats the morality you support? 

EDIT: to clearly lay this out-the issue here is that you are looking for verifiable evidence for God's existence.

Yeah. You should do the same.



Especially since you live your life around it. 

But as I've pointed out before around here, theology would not be theology any longer if God's existence was verifiable.

....



What? 




So theology is an attempt to make an explanation where there is none?




Are you for real??? 




Sounds like an excuse. 




LETS THINK ABOUT THIS.




IF GOD IS ALL KNOWING, THEN IT KNOWS THAT I WANT IT TO REVEAL ITSELF. 




IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL THEN IT KNOWS THAT IT CAN SEND A MESSAGE REVEALING ITS EXISTENCE. 




WHY IS GOD RELUCTANT TO REVEAL ITS EXISTENCE TO THE BILLIONS OF OTHER NON-MUSLIMS? 




REMOVE ALL THE DOUBT. GOD COULD DO THAT. COULD IT NOT? 

There is a belief in God based on the teachings and rulings He has provided.

Belief in god? Ok cool.



Do I believe in Captain Crunch from the lessons on the box-top in sudoku? 




But why does that make that god any more real?




I learned a lot from socrates...but evidence suggests dude never existed.

If you find logic and morality in the teachings and believe it is the proper way for man to live life on Earth, then it's strong evidence for God.

WOW.



SO IF A CHILD LEARNS ABOUT BEING NICE TO OTHERS FROM ELMO DOES THAT MAKE ELMO REAL? 

It comes from asking yourself if it is possible that these rulings could have been established by an illiterate man in Arabia. It comes from contemplating these things altogether.

Yeah, it makes you wonder when a man goes in a cave and magically god decides to talk to him.




Alone.




Do you ever wonder why all the stories of all the prophets always have revelations when no one else is around? 




As if everyone is scared to tell them that they were tripping balls? 




If a guy said god talked to him today, would you believe him? What would it take for you to believe him? 

 

[pharelfor3]

In othe rnews, dude is getting charged wqith attmpting to assinate a president or a memeber of his staff. Religious talk asaide

 

[mo matik]

I'm not talking about the existence of the Qur'an proving the existence of God- I'm talking about the substance in them and considering the morality of the rulings. If you read a religious book and it says that murder is good, then you know it's not the true word of God because it would not result in a good society or good people. So I'm talking about the substance. Considering everything altogether and legitimately contemplating the possibilities. Because we know Muhammad existed. We know what he claimed. We have what was revealed there. My understanding and belief in Islam comes from a consideration of everything altogether.

The idea that there should be evidence outside of the theology is unacceptable, because there is not verifiable evidence that proves or disproves God's existence. These are the sources we have-so these are the sources we have to examine and consider.

I don't care if I got a logical argument from a box of Lucky Charms. It doesn't make it any less real.


But you're wrong-flat out wrong on a number of things. Apostacy, women's rights, violence. You believe that to be a Muslim that means killing people for pre-marital sex. You are wrong about these things. Flat out. And you refuse to consider my argument. Do you know what that is called? Arrogance.

It appeared I was "clinging" to that point because I was talking about it WITHIN the context of the theology. Again, as I said before, when you presented a question that assumed God's existence, I thought we were talking about the matter with this assumption already established.

But as I've pointed out before around here, theology would not be theology any longer if God's existence was verifiable.

What

Hypothetically, if we found full proof evidence of God, it does mean that everyone should believe in God, removing the aspect of faith of all religions. This faith is established through an understanding of the teachings as I have already said. And in the Abrahamic faiths, we believe that this life is a test. We as humans have free-will to make the choice to accept or reject faith. This is part of our test in life. That's core in terms of mankind's purpose on Earth. If you could establish God's existence, then it would bypass this test. The teachings of the religion would no longer apply or make sense.

 

[bboi4lif3]

It's just funny to me that he did it the day Obama was out of town, I believe for that college basketball game on a ship. Haha should have checked espn first

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

I'm not talking about the existence of the Qur'an proving the existence of God- I'm talking about the substance in them and considering the morality of the rulings. 

This should be good. 

If you read a religious book and it says that murder is good, then you know it's not the true word of God because it would not result in a good society or good people. So I'm talking about the substance. 

BULL.



God has murdered more people in every religious book than any of the followers in those same religious books.




STOP IT.




Now you're veering towards blatant ignorant territory. 




I'm not calling you an idiot but you have to think about what you're saying here. 




If god is responsible for creating everyone & everything and knowing all then it created good AND BAD.




Where is god when the good suffer? 




Where is god when the bad escape? 




Good or bad depends on who defines the moral standard for those decisions.




You have already shown that if god told you to do something you disagreed with you wouldn't do it...




SO YOU ALREADY CAN THINK FOR YOURSELF!




On top of that, HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD DID NOT TELL THIS MAN TO SHOOT AT THE WHITE HOUSE? 




GOD HAS SPOKEN TO OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT YOU, RIGHT? MAYBE THIS WAS ANOTHER INCIDENT OF THAT.




You can't assert that god would only do what you THINK it would. 




Then that shows god is just some made up thing in YOUR image of what god would do. 




At the very least this is a stupid argument.




God must then take sides. If tebow prays for a victory but has his worse game ever isn't that "Bad" for tebow? His career? His stats? That certainly is not good. 




But he believed so hard in the god that was good...and got screwed.

The idea that there should be evidence outside of the theology is unacceptable,

When you define a word, do you use that same word in its own definition? 

because there is not verifiable evidence that proves or disproves God's existence.

SO WHY BELIEVE IT?!

These are the sources we have-so these are the sources we have to examine and consider.

But you have already concluded that these sources do not verify god's existence... 



so you're lying to yourself. 

I don't care if I got a logical argument from a box of Lucky Charms. It doesn't make it any less real.

But you're wrong-flat out wrong on a number of things. Apostacy, women's rights, violence. You believe that to be a Muslim that means killing people for pre-marital sex. You are wrong about these things. Flat out. And you refuse to consider my argument. Do you know what that is called? Arrogance.

You said that god's word was the quran.



in the quran is evidence for god doing these things.




is it my fault that its there? 




Do all muslims do honor killings and assault apostates? No. But those are muslims who DONT follow the rules. 

Muslims that actually DO read the quran see those things and they follow the quran to a T. Thats why I respect fundamentalists. They actually do what they mean to do. They dont dance around the book and pick and choose what to follow, like you.

It appeared I was "clinging" to that point because I was talking about it WITHIN the context of the theology. Again, as I said before, when you presented a question that assumed God's existence, I thought we were talking about the matter with this assumption already established.

again, I ask:




How do you know god did not tell this man to shoot at the white house? 

Hypothetically, if we found full proof evidence of God, it does mean that everyone should believe in God, removing the aspect of faith of all religions.

My point exactly young man. 



So until that proof is brought forth then you have NO VALID REASON TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. 

This faith is established through an understanding of the teachings as I have already said.

Which exist on faulty ground.



"lessons" dont mean a teacher was present. 




On top of that, how do you know god actually spoke to muhammad? He just wrote the stuff down (actually some other people as well). How do you know he didn't just say "god spoke to me" and kept it moving with what his ideas were on paper. 




YOU DONT KNOW


So dont act like you can prove this when there is a validity issue surrounding your entire pretext.




Agreeing with the idea of not stealing doesn't mean Zeus actually existed. 


Because many of these "lessons" existed long before modern islamic law. 

And in the Abrahamic faiths, we believe that this life is a test.

Preoccupation with what even isn't verified instead of taking advantage of whats in front of you. 

We as humans have free-will to make the choice to accept or reject faith.

Free will to do what god already knows what we will do? That makes sense. 

This is part of our test in life. That's core in terms of mankind's purpose on Earth. If you could establish God's existence, then it would bypass this test.

YOU JUST SAID YOU CAN'T VERIFY GODS EXISTENCE SO TECHNICALLY NO ONE WILL EVER PASS THE TEST!!!

DO BETTER MAN. 

The teachings of the religion would no longer apply or make sense.

They already don't!

 

[shorty doo wop]

Holy @#+@ you this dude won't stop

 

[mo matik]

I'm not talking about religious books as a whole, I'm talking about Islam and the Qur'an. People do die in the Qur'an, but you can't just say that X people died in the Qur'an therefore it's immoral. That is unreasonable. As I've said a thousand times, you have to READ the book before you criticize it. This is a rule of thumb for most people. Believe it or not.

You continue to ask these massive questions. Why should we talk to God? Why is there suffering? Why is there injustice?

These are GOOD reasonable and important questions-but they cannot be answered with a meme and a few sentences. They require you to learn and consider everything altogether. My point is that Islam has answers to these questions; and it's answers to questions like these that make me believe Islam is the right path.

HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD DID NOT TELL THIS MAN TO SHOOT AT THE WHITE HOUSE? GOD HAS SPOKEN TO OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT YOU, RIGHT? MAYBE THIS WAS ANOTHER INCIDENT OF THAT.

This is a good opportunity for me to show you what I mean by the assumption of God's existence in your question. The first sentence can be read without considering theology. So I would say no one can say beyond doubt that God did or didn't speak to this man. But then you include theology in the second sentence. Do you now see now why I assumed we were including theology? When I consider the 2nd point, the answer would be no he did not speak to God, because it's including my religion.

As for the other points, I've already answered them. The Qur'an does not say those things. It's that simple. You can't just read a single verse alone and understand the entire ruling.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

I'm not talking about religious books as a whole, I'm talking about Islam and the Qur'an. 

Oh, PARDON ME.




I wasn't aware that Islam and the Quran were not religions or religious books. 




My apologies. 

People do die in the Qur'an, but you can't just say that X people died in the Qur'an therefore it's immoral. That is unreasonable. As I've said a thousand times, you have to READ the book before you criticize it. This is a rule of thumb for most people. Believe it or not.

I don't care how many people died.



They died at the HANDS of the god of the quran.




Thats some what of a moral conflict of interest, right? 

You continue to ask these massive questions. Why should we talk to God? Why is there suffering? Why is there injustice?

Yeah, asking questions...it sucks, huh? 

These are GOOD reasonable and important questions-but they cannot be answered with a meme and a few sentences.
So you'd rather just not try at all. 



OK, Gotcha. 

you keep posting this damn video... 

 

... 




btw, I don't care that hes white and that may smooth over the whole intro to islam thing.




hes still delusional in that his entire argument fails on many levels to actually support his claims. 

HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD DID NOT TELL THIS MAN TO SHOOT AT THE WHITE HOUSE? GOD HAS SPOKEN TO OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT YOU, RIGHT? MAYBE THIS WAS ANOTHER INCIDENT OF THAT.

This is a good opportunity for me to show you what I mean by the assumption of God's existence in your question. The first sentence can be read without considering theology. So I would say no one can say beyond doubt that God did or didn't speak to this man.



Well that settles it doesn't it?




Why make a conclusion about something you can't prove?




At best say "I don't know"




Whats so hard about admitting the limit of your own knowledge? 

But then you include theology in the second sentence. Do you now see now why I assumed we were including theology? When I consider the 2nd point, the answer would be no he did not speak to God, because it's including my religion.
No.

The fact still remains.


You said you can't prove whether or not the guy spoke to god or not.




THEN you come back and realize that muhammad was the only one that could speak to god then you back-tracked.




You reached a logical conclusion then your religious machine kicked in and drew you back 

.




This is sad.

As for the other points, I've already answered them. The Qur'an does not say those things. It's that simple. You can't just read a single verse alone and understand the entire ruling.

The quran doesn't say those things? 




Except in your following sentence you admit that it does say those things but rather its a result of context.




#Fail.




And lets say we DO read them in context. 



Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and read them in your understanding. 


Lets say they are stories about other characters in the quran. 




Do you still support them as stories? Is it still ok to kill other people based on ideology? Even though its in the quran? Or to rape kids? or to steal? stone women? 




EVEN IF WE READ THE STORIES IN CONTEXT...




do you agree with their messages?


Thats the point.