Aye, but it will help me fall asleep laterboudicca wrote:Now you've had time to think, I just wrote an essay ferchissakes!

Aye, but it will help me fall asleep laterboudicca wrote:Now you've had time to think, I just wrote an essay ferchissakes!
That post was one sentence when I read it.boudicca wrote:Now you've had time to think, I just wrote an essay ferchissakes!
Yep.BTW - you do know that the delightful cheekbones chap in yer avatar is another of those Allah-bothering types?
you're in the wrong thread, you f**king stupid german bitchcanon docre wrote:paint it black wrote: I think the learned mr.kane![]()
![]()
is suggesting that merely googling things is remote, is propositional. only by being and doing can you have the experiential knowledge suggested
... and I'm so happy to see, that Mr. arkane brought back his own Spokesperson.
So, how can we dumb ignorants get a glimpse of that enlightment?
I know I’m not in any position to say this, but civil discourse, please.paint it black wrote:you're in the wrong thread, you f**king stupid german bitch
No, you're in the wrong thread. This is not the "insult the previous poster"-thread.paint it black wrote: you're in the wrong thread, you f**king stupid german bitch
I wondered when Pascal's Wager would get dragged in.paint it black wrote:religion is often called a belief but rarely valued, until you're old and decide oh s**t, i'd better go to church just in case
Good points there mark, I'm only focusing on the last one you brought up as it seems to follow the part where the main 3 monotheistic religions fall apart.markfiend wrote: Now what if God actually rewards with heaven those who, reasoning from the evidence, conclude that He doesn't exist? And hell is for all the people who relied on faith rather than reason?
Some very nice people in mecca have become a pain in the ass, and I for my part, would dearly like them to shut the f*ck up.a.r.kane wrote:You may need to say that a bit louder, some very nice people near Mecca couldn't hear you.nick the stripper wrote:I would like to say sorry for offending anyone.
The traditional "Omnimax" properties of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) are logically incoherent anyway.Epicurus wrote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Well, OK, but then I would argue that it's logically impossible to:nick the stripper wrote:Well it depends if by omnipotence you mean anything logically possible or anything, including everything illogical.
never heard of him, so thanks for that mark. however i do know i've seen plenty of lil' old ladies with blue rinse popping down that way...which was my point.markfiend wrote:I wondered when Pascal's Wager would get dragged in.paint it black wrote:religion is often called a belief but rarely valued, until you're old and decide oh s**t, i'd better go to church just in case
belief is fickle, belief is there to be questioned. belief is, yeah, okay, 'till you show me something better, something more tangible. ‘till my circumstance change.It doesn't work. For several reasons.
- Many people find it difficult to "decide to believe" something at will.
- If there is a God, is he really going to be fooled by a "well, I had better believe just in case" wager?
OK. Fairy nuff.paint it black wrote:never heard of him, so thanks for that mark. however i do know i've seen plenty of lil' old ladies with blue rinse popping down that way...which was my point.
So, now that you are back you can give us your perspective. Is Islam a peaceful religion? Does Islam believe it is the law? And finally, is it acceptable to you to hear some who follow Islam making terroristic threats in Mosques?a.r.kane wrote:Religion can't be taught it must be learnt and felt. Googling Islam is like Googling Budhism - it will tell you nothing.canon docre wrote:Well in that case, I'm very glad we've got you now to teach us all about everything.a.r.kane wrote:As a practicing Muslim I can see you all have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is this kind of uneducated debate that fuels further ignorance about religion and culture.
Where it started then?a.r.kane wrote:with a big bangmarkfiend wrote:Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.
O.K. So now we have heard (yet again) your take on the failings of religion, it is now Mr.A.R.K.A.N.E.'s opportunitiy as a practicing Muslim, to explain to the rest of us whether or not he believes Islam is a peaceful religion. I would also like to know his stance on whether or not he perceives Islam as a law unto itself, superceding all other law, and if he feels it is appropriate for Muslims to make terroristic threats in their churches and on the streets. (That is the topic here after all.)markfiend wrote:In the Adam and Eve story, the sin is eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they didn't know good from evil before eating the fruit, how were they to know it was wrong to eat the fruit?
Heads I win, tails you lose.
This relates back to the Problem of Evil:The traditional "Omnimax" properties of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) are logically incoherent anyway.Epicurus wrote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
- The problem of evil as stated by Epicurus ~2300 years ago defeats omnibenevolence.
- Omnipotence is a logical impossibility: Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift? (Or as Homer Simpson phrases it, "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"
- Omniscience is a little more tricky, but it's possible to construct a set-theoretical proof that the "set of all true things" is impossible to construct, and therefore an omniscient being (which must know "all true things") is also impossible.