Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

4668	1473227

offline

thepyro222

2,150 posts

Peasant

Posted March 29, '11 5:11am UTC

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.\r\n     I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

4,668 Replies

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 8, '13 12:28pm UTC

Well people back then were like barbaric before the arrival of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) so yeah they were stupid except when The Holy Prophet came they actually found out about things and didnt you see how islam spread and everyone accepted the truth? God is real but you guys are really blind and ignorant to not accept the truth

No, everyone accepted the truth? The harsh historical reality was that the two major religions in the region, Christianity and Islam, were often at war with each other, up till today. Even when Islam first sprouted, there was resistance in the Arabian Peninsula to convert, hardly a universal acceptance.

And I reject that incredibly biased and poorly opined judgement. Hosts of civilizations were making great strides in development (Such as the Chinese), prior to the Prophet, and continued to do so, despite not being in contact with the Prophet for centuries thereof.

offline

OperationNilo

3,937 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 8, '13 12:48pm UTC

This is exactly what I mean.

offline

mbbs112

198 posts

Peasant

Posted June 9, '13 8:53am UTC

ya know the mongols whom every nation feared before? They i think conquered lots of land including parts of china and after their leader Genghis Khan died then they headed back to their homeland and converted to islam by the end of the century,tell me why such barbaric and cruel men converted to the peaceful religion islam?

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted June 9, '13 9:12am UTC

tell me why such barbaric and cruel men converted to the peaceful religion islam?

First..tell me how that matters? Does barbaric men converting to a religion mean that religion is correct? Because if so..you may want to check out jails...If this is the way we are thinking now, then Christianity is right, apparently.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 9, '13 9:42am UTC

ya know the mongols whom every nation feared before? They i think conquered lots of land including parts of china and after their leader Genghis Khan died then they headed back to their homeland and converted to islam by the end of the century,tell me why such barbaric and cruel men converted to the peaceful religion islam?

Hahaha, this is so historically inaccurate I laughed. Yes, the Mongols converted. Some of them did. Yet, those that converted, the Ilkhanate, and the Chagatai Khanate still continued happily with their wars, whether internally or with other powers.

It is interesting to note that the Chagatais later spawned a Mongol monster called Tamerlane, yes that Tamerlane, who blundered, killed and raped in the name of Islam. This particular brute who called himself blatantly, the Sword of Islam, essentially did a Genghis Khan Version 2, killing genocide on a whole new level, with all the trappings of a devout Muslim.

So, they converted, yet continued to pursue violence. Says a lot about their beliefs does it not?

[quote]ya know the mongols whom every nation feared before? They i think conquered lots of land including parts of china and after their leader Genghis Khan died then they headed back to their homeland and converted to islam by the end of the century,tell me why such barbaric and cruel men converted to the peaceful religion islam?[/quote]\r\n\r\nHahaha, this is so historically inaccurate I laughed. Yes, the Mongols converted. [b]Some[/b] of them did. Yet, those that converted, the Ilkhanate, and the  Chagatai Khanate still continued happily with their wars, whether internally or with other powers. \r\n\r\nIt is interesting to note that the Chagatais later spawned a Mongol monster called Tamerlane, yes [i]that[/i] Tamerlane, who blundered, killed and raped in the name of Islam. This particular brute who called himself blatantly, the Sword of Islam, essentially did a Genghis Khan Version 2, killing genocide on a whole new level, with all the trappings of a devout Muslim.\r\n\r\nSo, they converted, yet continued to pursue violence. Says a lot about their beliefs does it not?

offline

mbbs112

198 posts

Peasant

Posted June 11, '13 4:32pm UTC

No,you guys know nothing Tamerlane was a nobleman among the other nobles and beat the other nobles to proclaim himself the Great Khan leader of all so all of them or most of them did and secondly Tamerlane(Timur) says in his diary that he did it for 2 reasons because he wanted treasure and that he would gain rewards in paradise for killing infidels and that he didnt want such a horrible massacre to happen but that his soldiers were out of control and dont insult Timur as he was a muslim and i wouldnt want people insulting fellow muslim.and P.S Timur confessed in his diary and you said before that lots of nations were developing,well they were but they still lost to nations who had a disadvantage such as when the japanese attacked and defeated china in numerous battles and you can read about the ife of the Holy Prophet pbuh and see that they won all of the battles and that they lost only 1 battle because of their own fault as the enemy retreated leaving behind lots of money and the Holy Prophet posted some archers on a hill to defend them from the underpass from the enemy cavalry but when the archers saw all that money they went to collect it and the leader of the enemy cavalry Khalid Bin Walid saw the underpass unprotected they charged and they attacked the muslims and defeated them and after that they received a revelation from Allah saying that Allah supported them as long as they supported him and that was the moment that the muslims realized that what Allah said was true so you not only need science to help you and that there are some objectives in life that we cannot complete without heavenly support so Allah exists and you can look at the first battle of the muslims between the quraish that the Muslims were shabbily equiped and has only a few horse and camels whereas the quraish army was excellently equiped with many horses and camels and had 900 men and the muslims had 300 so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah and said that if this small band of believers perished then nobody would worship Allah so Allah sent his angels to decrease the enemy morale and confidence and so the enemy fled in disorder leaving behind a great many famous warriors and chiefs of the quraish and that is my evidence that god exists

No,you guys know nothing Tamerlane was a nobleman among the other nobles and beat the other nobles to proclaim himself the Great Khan leader of all so all of them or most of them did and secondly Tamerlane(Timur) says in his diary that he did it for 2 reasons because he wanted treasure and that he would gain rewards in paradise for killing infidels and that he didnt want  such a horrible massacre to happen but that his soldiers were out of control and dont insult Timur as he was a muslim and i wouldnt want people insulting fellow muslim.and P.S Timur confessed in his diary  and you said before that lots of nations were developing,well they were but they still lost to nations who had a disadvantage such as when the japanese attacked and defeated china in numerous battles and you can read about the ife of the Holy Prophet pbuh and see that they won all of the battles and that they lost only 1 battle because of their own fault as the enemy retreated leaving behind lots of money and the Holy Prophet posted some archers on a hill to defend them from the underpass from the enemy cavalry but when the archers saw all that money they went to collect it and the leader of the enemy cavalry Khalid Bin Walid saw the underpass unprotected they charged and they attacked the muslims and defeated them and after that they received a revelation from Allah saying that Allah supported them as long as they supported  him and that was the moment that the muslims realized that what Allah said was true so you not only need science to help you and that there are some objectives in life that we cannot complete without heavenly support so Allah exists and you can look at the first battle of the muslims between the quraish that the Muslims were shabbily equiped and has only a few horse and camels whereas the quraish army was excellently equiped with many horses and camels and had 900 men and the muslims had 300 so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah and said that if this small band of believers perished then nobody would worship Allah so Allah sent his angels to decrease the enemy morale and confidence and so the enemy fled in disorder leaving behind a great many famous warriors and chiefs of the quraish and that is my evidence that god exists

offline

HahiHa

8,255 posts

Regent

Posted June 11, '13 4:53pm UTC

STOOOP!
mbbs112, your text walls are horrible! Please, make use of paragraphs and PUNCTUATION! I don't care if English is not your primary language, you do write already quite well so that's not an excuse.

Also, noone is interested in all of the details, only mention what is important for making your point.

Geez.

No,you guys know nothing Tamerlane was a nobleman among the other nobles and beat the other nobles to proclaim himself the Great Khan leader

Being a nobleman doesn't mean you behave nobly. Many European nobles were violent *******s. Besides, you mention later he's doing it for the sake of money and blood. He writes about guilt feelings, but in the light of the previously mentioned, it seems hypocritic.

That is about as far as I can go without losing interest. Please work on your posts.

offline

Getoffmydangle

152 posts

Blacksmith

Posted June 11, '13 4:57pm UTC

Here's why people are skeptical of religion, in a nutshell:

so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah... so Allah sent his angels ... and that is my evidence that god exists

Its completely fine if you have those beliefs, but if you inject words like "evidence" into that statement, people aren't going to take you seriously.

offline

gaboloth

1,612 posts

Peasant

Posted June 11, '13 5:48pm UTC

I know that there's no point in bringing this up after two pages, but it was just too funny:

24.45 . Allah has created every animal out of water . Of them (is a category which) walks upon its belly, (another which) walks upon two legs, and ( a third which) walks upon four . Allah creates what He wills. Allah is Able to do everything (he wants) .

In this verse, Allah (Praise to Him) tells us that animals were originally created out of water (as was the origin of humans). Some of these animals walk on their belly (like snakes), others walk on two legs or on four legs.
We know that almost all animals except kangaroos (and penguins) walk on four legs. However, for Prophet Muhammed (Peace and blessings be upon him) and old world humans at the time of revelation (1429 years ago), they did not know that there was an animal which walked on two legs in Australia. Only God knew that and has told us about it, as another piece of evidence that He is the author of the Holy Qurâan, not any human .

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-umxPVI8NnrI/TyAbmzXIAdI/AAAAAAAACTc/VkPF6s_gbq4/s1600/Chicken.jpg

I know that there's no point in bringing this up after two pages, but it was just too funny:\r\n\r\n[quote]24.45 . Allah has created every animal out of water . Of them (is a category which) walks upon its belly,  (another which) walks upon two legs, and ( a third which) walks upon four . Allah creates what He wills. Allah is Able to do everything (he wants) .\r\n\r\nIn this verse, Allah (Praise to Him) tells us that animals were originally created out of water (as was the origin of humans). Some of these animals walk on their belly (like snakes), others walk on two legs or on four legs.\r\nWe know that almost all animals except kangaroos (and penguins) walk on four legs. However, for Prophet Muhammed (Peace and blessings be upon him) and old world humans at the time of revelation (1429 years ago), they did not know that there was an animal which walked on two legs in Australia. Only God knew that and has told us about it, as another piece of evidence that He is the author of the Holy Qurâ��an, not any human .[/quote]\r\n\r\n[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-umxPVI8NnrI/TyAbmzXIAdI/AAAAAAAACTc/VkPF6s_gbq4/s1600/Chicken.jpg[/img]

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 11, '13 11:57pm UTC

so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah... so Allah sent his angels ... and that is my evidence that god exists

How is that evidence? This doesn't support the assertion that Allah exists, it's just another assertion.

offline

mbbs112

198 posts

Peasant

Posted June 12, '13 9:31am UTC

Im still reading the Quran so i dont have that much evidence but when i read all of it then ill post it

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted June 12, '13 10:02am UTC

Im still reading the Quran so i dont have that much evidence but when i read all of it then ill post it

See..but here is the thing. The Qu'ran is not evidence. The Qu'ran is the claim.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 12, '13 1:05pm UTC

No,you guys know nothing Tamerlane was a nobleman among the other nobles and beat the other nobles to proclaim himself the Great Khan leader of all so all of them or most of them did and secondly Tamerlane(Timur) says in his diary that he did it for 2 reasons because he wanted treasure and that he would gain rewards in paradise for killing infidels and that he didnt want such a horrible massacre to happen but that his soldiers were out of control and dont insult Timur as he was a muslim and i wouldnt want people insulting fellow muslim.and P.S Timur confessed in his diary

Timur was an illiterate, as were most Mongol noblemen for the period. It furthermore doesn't make him any less culpable for not restraining his warriors (even though he explicitly sanctioned them, so your claims are false), for he sanctioned the campaigns.

nd you said before that lots of nations were developing,well they were but they still lost to nations who had a disadvantage such as when the japanese attacked and defeated china in numerous battles and you can read about

So? How does this make Timur, and by extension, the Muslims of that period, any less barbaric than other warring empires who based their campaigns around a divine authority?

the ife of the Holy Prophet pbuh and see that they won all of the battles and that they lost only 1 battle because of their own fault as the enemy retreated leaving behind lots of money and the Holy Prophet posted some archers on a hill to defend them from the underpass from the enemy cavalry but when the archers saw all that money they went to collect it and the leader of the enemy cavalry Khalid Bin Walid saw the underpass unprotected they charged and they attacked the muslims and defeated them and after that they received a revelation from Allah saying that Allah supported them as long as they supported him and that was the moment that the muslims realized that what Allah said was true so you not only need science to help you and that there are some objectives in life that we cannot complete without heavenly support so Allah exists and you can look at the first battle of the muslims between the quraish that the Muslims were shabbily equiped and has only a few horse and camels whereas the quraish army was excellently equiped with many horses and camels and had 900 men and the muslims had 300 so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah and said that if this small band of believers perished then nobody would worship Allah so Allah sent his angels to decrease the enemy morale and confidence and so the enemy fled in disorder leaving behind a great many famous warriors and chiefs of the quraish and that is my evidence that god exists

One undefeated general makes not proof for God's existence. Does Hannibal's impeccable record as a general mean that the Carthaginian Gods exist? Or Napoleon? Or Frederick the Great?

The fact is, for over a thousand years, the Muslims and Christians battered each other to a standstill, with no side giving way until the late modern period. If an Islamic or Christian God exists, evidently he didn't give much support to his Chosen People.

[quote]No,you guys know nothing Tamerlane was a nobleman among the other nobles and beat the other nobles to proclaim himself the Great Khan leader of all so all of them or most of them did and secondly Tamerlane(Timur) says in his diary that he did it for 2 reasons because he wanted treasure and that he would gain rewards in paradise for killing infidels and that he didnt want  such a horrible massacre to happen but that his soldiers were out of control and dont insult Timur as he was a muslim and i wouldnt want people insulting fellow muslim.and P.S Timur confessed in his diary[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\nTimur was an illiterate, as were most Mongol noblemen for the period. It furthermore doesn't make him any less culpable for not restraining his warriors (even though he explicitly sanctioned them, so your claims are false), for he [i]sanctioned[/i] the campaigns. \r\n\r\n[quote]nd you said before that lots of nations were developing,well they were but they still lost to nations who had a disadvantage such as when the japanese attacked and defeated china in numerous battles and you can read about [/quote]\r\n\r\nSo? How does this make Timur, and by extension, the Muslims of that period, any less barbaric than other warring empires who based their campaigns around a divine authority?\r\n\r\n[quote]the ife of the Holy Prophet pbuh and see that they won all of the battles and that they lost only 1 battle because of their own fault as the enemy retreated leaving behind lots of money and the Holy Prophet posted some archers on a hill to defend them from the underpass from the enemy cavalry but when the archers saw all that money they went to collect it and the leader of the enemy cavalry Khalid Bin Walid saw the underpass unprotected they charged and they attacked the muslims and defeated them and after that they received a revelation from Allah saying that Allah supported them as long as they supported  him and that was the moment that the muslims realized that what Allah said was true so you not only need science to help you and that there are some objectives in life that we cannot complete without heavenly support so Allah exists and you can look at the first battle of the muslims between the quraish that the Muslims were shabbily equiped and has only a few horse and camels whereas the quraish army was excellently equiped with many horses and camels and had 900 men and the muslims had 300 so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah and said that if this small band of believers perished then nobody would worship Allah so Allah sent his angels to decrease the enemy morale and confidence and so the enemy fled in disorder leaving behind a great many famous warriors and chiefs of the quraish and that is my evidence that god exists[/quote]\r\n\r\nOne undefeated general makes not proof for God's existence. Does Hannibal's impeccable record as a general mean that the Carthaginian Gods exist? Or Napoleon? Or Frederick the Great? \r\n\r\nThe fact is, for over a thousand years, the Muslims and Christians battered each other to a standstill, with no side giving way until the late modern period. If an Islamic or Christian God exists, evidently he didn't give much support to his Chosen People.

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted June 12, '13 6:20pm UTC

After reading this most recent discussion, I'm just wondering if the atheist sympathizers of AG might be better served arguing for the irrationality of theistic belief. There are quite a few points (including those made by mbbs112) that demonstrate the levels of irrationality amongst theists.

We can go back and forth all day about what constitutes 'evidence' and whether certain claims or stories support other claims. But I think we could move the question back one level to one that is more fundamental.

Right now I see lots of points going back and forth regarding whether evidence E supports claim C. I think it's an interesting question whether E should be considered evidence, but this is a tough line to pursue. Instead, maybe we should focus on whether claim C is rational and just set aside the question of evidential relations.

Just a thought - I just kind of feel like this conversation has gone in circles for quite some time. Maybe we could spice things up?

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 12, '13 7:35pm UTC

maybe we should focus on whether claim C is rational and just set aside the question of evidential relations.

First off this is a rather incredible claim, On that basis I would say it would be irrational to accept without solid evidence. But since you want to avoid the evidence argument let's move on.

The source of this claim comes from people handing these stories down from word of mouth. A method notorious for creating errors in stories. We could rationally accept something mundane in this fashion since we would have other events that commonly take place to draw from, but not an extraordinary one.
More so the original people who made the claim are unknown, leaving us with no first hand verification.

The different sources give us widely different accounts of this claim. The accounts change from culture to culture, from community to community, within communities and can even vary from person to person.

Out of those varying claims the nature of this entity can be logically inconsistent, contradictory and paradoxical.

Out of those making the claims, those leading the pack are often found to use lies in order to promote what they are saying and will attempt to suppress any claim contrary to theirs and will even try to quell questioning their claim.

So just on the basis of the claim alone we are left with a widely inconsistent extraordinary claim, fashioned by unknown people, carried on through unreliable means, with some of the most dishonest among us promoting it as true.

I'm going to say, no it's not rational.

(Note: I'm not saying everyone promoting this claim is dishonest.)

[quote]maybe we should focus on whether claim C is rational and just set aside the question of evidential relations.[/quote]\r\n\r\nFirst off this is a rather incredible claim, On that basis I would say it would be irrational to accept without solid evidence. But since you want to avoid the evidence argument let's move on.\r\n\r\nThe source of this claim comes from people handing these stories down from word of mouth. A method notorious for creating errors in stories. We could rationally accept something mundane in this fashion since we would have other events that commonly take place to draw from, but not an extraordinary one.\r\nMore so the original people who made the claim are unknown, leaving us with no first hand verification.\r\n\r\nThe different sources give us widely different accounts of this claim. The accounts change from culture to culture, from community to community, within communities and can even vary from person to person.\r\n\r\nOut of those varying claims the nature of this entity can be logically inconsistent, contradictory and paradoxical.\r\n\r\nOut of those making the claims, those leading the pack are often found to use lies in order to promote what they are saying and will attempt to suppress any claim contrary to theirs and will even try to quell questioning their claim.\r\n\r\nSo just on the basis of the claim alone we are left with a widely inconsistent extraordinary claim, fashioned by unknown people, carried on through unreliable means, with some of the most dishonest among us promoting it as true.\r\n\r\nI'm going to say, no it's not rational.\r\n\r\n(Note: I'm not saying everyone promoting this claim is dishonest.)

Showing 4381-4395 of 4668

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism