Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Jun 9, '13 at 5:42am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,433 posts

Knight

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?
 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 12:32pm

mbbs112

mbbs112

194 posts

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

 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 12:53pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,414 posts

Knight

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.
 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 12:57pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

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.
 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 1:48pm

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,632 posts

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 QurĂ¢an, not any human .


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

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 7:57pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,788 posts

Knight

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.
 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 5:31am

mbbs112

mbbs112

194 posts

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

 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 6:02am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,834 posts

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.
 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 9:05am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,433 posts

Knight

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.
 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 2:20pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,258 posts

Moderator

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?

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!