Ask About Islam

[KWED]

There is nice arguments, and there is idiot arguments.
You and your discussion buddies are 95% of the time making idiot claims about faiths you dont hold your self.

You do realise that this applies absolutely to the claims made by @MyM about pigs and pork?

 

[KWED]

You dont have a reason because you can not see or believe it your self, you havecto be able to have faith and belief.

And you have non of it.

If someone says that they know Vishnu exists because they have seen him, do you believe them?

 

[Sheldon]

If a believer has faith in God, and take the message "do not eat pork" as coming from God.
You as a non-believer has nothing to argue about, just accept that people believe different than you, and move on.

This is a public debate forum, and I decide if I have something to say, not you. If you don't want your beliefs scrutinised or debated then don't bring them to a debate forum.

It does not harm you that others do not want to eat certain Foods.

That is a straw man fallacy, since I never claimed otherwise. I stated plainly you can abstain from eating whatever you want, it's nothing to me. However another poster made a claim that was demonstrably false, and I challenged it, with evidence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Perhaps - but if they then make specific claims like "pork is more unhealthy and dangerous than other foods", then these claims can, be examined in the light of the available evidence.
Do you agree?

No, if that is what their view of pork is, it should not be a problem at all.

 

[KWED]

So you see. You HAD TO correct my state ment, because you cant handle that othets see it different than your self...It is laughable

Poor kid...

Whuh?
You tried to explain what a straw man is.
You were wrong.
Policy then gave you the correct explanation.
You then personally attack them.

And you see this as a flaw in Policy's position rather than your own?

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, that's not quite what a straw man fallacy means. It is a fallacy in informal logic, or a common logical fallacy. A straw man fallacy is where a person responds to an argument, but replaces the argument they are opposing with a weaker one that was not the argument made, presenting it as their opponents argument, and making it appear as if they have refuted their argument, when they have not.

So you guys using strawman fallacy on a daily basis your self then...way to go complaining about othrrs when you using it all the time your self

 

[WonderingWorrier]

1. Such an event would have been noticed and recorded in cultures and societies around the world. There are no such records.
2. NASA has confirmed that there is no evidence that such an event ever took place.

There are records of such an event happening before.
Moses dividing the Sea, and Jesus picking the Corn, means exactly the same thing as splitting the moon.

Level1 - Level2 - Level3
Moon - Star - Sun
Sea - River - Stream
Corn - Oil - Wine

Mohamad's moon is not NASAs moon.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Whuh?
You tried to explain what a straw man is.
You were wrong.
Policy then gave you the correct explanation.
You then personally attack them.

And you see this as a flaw in Policy's position rather than your own?

What I said was actually a Google search, you want to attack Google for not knowing their stuff? Huh?

 

[Sheldon]

There is nice arguments, and there is idiot arguments.

If you mean idiotic arguments then yes, and the one claiming pigs are dirty animals was extremely idiotic, which was why I was minded to respond to the idiocy of it.

You and your discussion buddies are 95% of the time making idiot claims about faiths you dont hold your self.

Thad's a no true Scotsman fallacy, and a rather weak attempt to create a negative stereotype. I guess address the specific is too difficult for you, so you make a sweeping derogation.

Then I will call you out. And tell you that the arguments you use as.

Straw man fallacy, false arguments, and so on, are put on your self and your buddies.

Not entirely sure what that means, but I have found over many years that theists often make irrational claims and arguments, invoking known common logical fallacies, basic errors in reasoning. As of course you have done here, more than once, but at least I have done you the courtesy of explaining this, and why your arguments are irrational. Which is more than you have done, merely attacking those making the arguments, and trying to demand they don't contribute to a public debate.

 

[Sheldon]

You dont have a reason because you can not see or believe it your self, you havecto be able to have faith and belief.

And you have non of it.

Another no true Scotsman fallacy, this is quite a common one in religious apologetics, especially when trying to assert the efficacy of faith based belief. However there is literally nothing one could not believe using faith alone.

 

[KWED]

Why?

Really? I explained in the post you replied to, why pork is prohibited in Islam...
"Because it was already forbidden in some of the beliefs and cultures that inspired Islam"

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you mean idiotic arguments then yes, and the one claiming pigs are dirty animals was extremely idiotic, which was why I was minded to respond to the idiocy of it.



Thad's a no true Scotsman fallacy, and a rather weak attempt to create a negative stereotype. I guess address the specific is too difficult for you, so you make a sweeping derogation.



Not entirely sure what that means, but I have found over many years that theists often make irrational claims and arguments, invoking known common logical fallacies, basic errors in reasoning. As of course you have done here, more than once, but at least I have done you the courtesy of explaining this, and why your arguments are irrational. Which is more than you have done, merely attacking those making the arguments, and trying to demand they don't contribute to a public debate.

I just use the same silly arguments you guys do toward believers.
There is as little logic sense in your answers toward believers as I am using toward you guys here.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Really? I explained in the post you replied to, why pork is prohibited in Islam...
"Because it was already forbidden in some of the beliefs and cultures that inspired Islam"

So? Does it matter?

 

[Sheldon]

So you see. You HAD TO correct my state ment, because you cant handle that othets see it different than your self...It is laughable

Poor kid...

So he took the time to offer an explanation for you, as you were incorrectly defining a known logical fallacy, and you respond with this trite jejune ad hominem.

This vapid and petty response is what's risible here. Oh and statement is one word. Also it is clear you are the one who can't handle others offering a different viewpoint, as you are the one who has tried to demand others don't post, no atheist has done that to you.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So he took the time to offer an explanation for you, as you were incorrectly defining a known logical fallacy, and you respond with this trite jejune ad hominem.

This vapid and petty response is what's risible here. Oh and statement is one word. Also it is clear you are the one who can't handle others offering a different viewpoint, as you are the one who has tried to demand others don't post, no atheist has done that to you.

Fancy words you using...

 

[Sheldon]

You see "YOU dondt think it is, so then others can notvthinknor believe"

Maybe calm down a little, as you seem to be hitting random keys on your keyboard, rendering your post unintelligable?

I tell you...you do not have a right tobtell others what they CAN or CAN NOT believe.

He hasn't done that, nor has anyone else, so that is yet another straw man fallacy.

You can ask why do you believe so or so, and they answer i believe so and so because......Your answer should be " ok, thank you for explaining it to me" and nothing wrong happen.
Butvyou cant do that because you HAVE TO be correct.

Ironically you are demanding we don't express our views, yet again, after falsely accusing us of doing that to you.

 

[KWED]

Yes, it does not have to be by your book, because you dont follow the same guidelines and thoughts as a believer.

It does not have to make sense to you, as long it make sense the one following the guidelines in their chosen religious beliefs

You seem to misunderstand what is going on here.
Of course myself and religionists will have different ideas about things. It would be very strange to insist otherwise.
The issue here is the validity of claims about the real world that people make.
For example, if I claimed that Muhammad was born in 8th century Damascus, should you just accept that and not challenge it? Or would you correct me?
And how would you respond if I kept insisting that Muhammad was born in 8th century Damascus, despite you providing evidence for his birth place being 7th century Mecca?
By your arguments on this thread, you should just let it go and by trying to correct me you would be displaying all sorts of negative character traits.
Understand now?

 

[Sheldon]

I am not upset at all i having a blast bugging the hell out of you and the others in your non-believers gang

This is fun....

So you're simply trolling then, now that is a violation of forum guidelines. Also why would you want to, what do you imagine that says to people about your beliefs, that the best response you have is to troll those who offer critical scrutiny of your claims?

 

[Sheldon]

You say faith is unreliable (to you )
You may as well flip a coin (again thats all it is to you)

It does not matter to a believer what you as a non-believer think about faith and belief

Is that why you have "thrown your toys right out of your pram" here, repeatedly demanding that others don't comment?

 

[Sheldon]

You do realise that this applies absolutely to the claims made by @MyM about pigs and pork?

Indeed it does, and of course was how this all started, as I was minded to challenge the idiocy of the claim with evidence to the contrary.