If God probably don't exist!

[The Neo Nerd]

I don't know, you can Google and watch videos.

So wait,

One of you students "got Jinns" but you have NO IDEA what that entails.

Stop making stuff up, you're not impressing or fooling anyone.

 

[Falvlun]

IIt's the earliest Greek definition from where the word came from and the English version is the same semantically.

I don't want to get into your larger debate with Skwim, but I don't think this is actually correct.

"Atheos" originally meant something more akin to "impious" or "ungodly", and didn't really have any connotations in regards to belief in gods until a little later.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't want to get into your larger debate with Skwim, but I don't think this is actually correct.

"Atheos" originally meant something more akin to "impious" or "ungodly", and didn't really have any connotations in regards to belief in gods until a little later.

"Theos" translates literally as "god".

The prefix "A" is essentially the same as it is now in English, meaning "not" or "without" or other forms of cancelling the rest of the word. So, atheos means "not god" or "without god". Semantically useful in a very broad context.

The word, "Impious" you used means:

im·pi·ous

[im-pee-uh

s, im-pahy-] Show IPA
adjective 1. not pious or religious; lacking reverence for God, religious practices, etc.; irreligious; ungodly.

2. disrespectful.

Origin:
1565&#8211;75; < Latin impius. See im-2 , pious

And irreligious means not religious, whether it's due to nonbelief in deities or an unwillingness to have anything to do with them. Words coined by theists would generally imply a negative moral character when used against atheists, but semantically the words theos and atheos are straightforward and open to broad usage both in Greek and English. Back in ancient Greece, the total lack of belief in gods would have been rare for any philosopher. The closest you'd get to is a sort of vague pan(en)theism like the Stoics or someone like Epicurus who believed gods existed but that their lives were so awesome that they were totally unconcerned and uninvolved with human affairs and that when humans die they're just dead, making him and other Epicureans godless in practice due to lack of worship or reverence or having any concern with gods at all.

Point being, there's no level of certainty attached to any of these words. (A)Gnosticism is a position on knowledge and (A)Theism is a position on gods, and the terms are not mutually exclusive, meaning one can be an agnostic atheist, for example. Atheos/Atheism means without god, not god, not with belief in god (esp in English with the added "ism" in the 17th century), etc. That's all the word means, and to add levels of certainty to it or to state incorrectly what atheists say on the matter, is to add modern baggage to the word.

 

[Breathe]

"Atheos" originally meant something more akin to "impious" or "ungodly", and didn't really have any connotations in regards to belief in gods until a little later.

This is true. Groups were called 'atheists' in the past who believed in Gods. The Christians were called it, for example.

And irreligious means not religious, whether it's due to nonbelief in deities or an unwillingness to have anything to do with them.

Quick point: you can be irreligious and still be a believer in Gods, even spiritually active.

 

[Tiberius]

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

And which question is this answering? Are you telling me what verses show that the verses I originally posted were only meant to be in effect for a limited time? Are you telling me why Allah would bother with having humans do the dirty work? Or are you telling me why religion always seems to insist on punishment in the physical world for transgressions of a spiritual nature?

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

Again, which question is this answering?

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

Again, which question?

 

[Farrukh]

Again, which question is this answering?

he was saying Muslims spread Islam by force, so I replied to him.

 

[Farrukh]

Proselytizing is strictly forbidden in Hinduism. No Hindu will ever try to convince anyone to convert. That's sad uh ? I'm deeply sorry that we are a religion that learn our childrens to respect another's belief rather than to teach them that their neigbours are going to hell and should convert. We are really, really terrible people. Good thing some people are there to remind us how terrible we are for being tolerant to others beliefs by burning our houses, destroying our temples or kidnapping our girls.

I just care about others, everyone should go in paradise.

 

[Sumit]

I just care about others, everyone should go in paradise.

Quranic Paradise doesn't looks better place specially for females. Let's see how Quranic writers imagine Paradise....

And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, "This is what we were provided with before." And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally. (Quran 2:25)

Is the description of Paradise, which the righteous are promised, wherein are rivers of water unaltered, rivers of milk the taste of which never changes, rivers of wine delicious to those who drink, and rivers of purified honey, in which they will have from all [kinds of] fruits and forgiveness from their Lord, like [that of] those who abide eternally in the Fire and are given to drink scalding water that will sever their intestines? (Quran 47:15)

Indeed, We have produced the women of Paradise in a [new] creation. And made them virgins Quran 56:35-55:36

With vessels, pitchers and a cup [of wine] from a flowing spring -(quran 56:18)

And the meat of fowl, from whatever they desire.And [for them are] fair women with large, [beautiful] eyes,The likenesses of pearls well-protected,As reward for what they used to do.(56:21-56:24)

Indeed, for the righteous is attainment -Gardens and grapevines And full-breasted [companions] of equal age (78:31-78:33)

In them are women limiting [their] glances, untouched before them by man or jinni (55:56)

In them are good and beautiful women -So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? -Fair ones reserved in pavilions -o which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? -Untouched before them by man or jinni -(55:69-55:74)

Source- The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ??????

Just Wine, food and girls

 

[Farrukh]

Just Wine, food and girls

not only that, there are books written on paradise, paradise will have too much.

 

[Penumbra]

Quick point: you can be irreligious and still be a believer in Gods, even spiritually active.

I know, that's what that quote of mine was saying and the rest of my post that you replied to gave examples of exactly that, such as Epicurus.

 

[Sumit]

not only that, there are books written on paradise, paradise will have too much.

But I thought muslims only believe on Quran which is final book from Allah.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

But I thought muslims only believe on Quran which is final book from Allah.

Whatever what there is or there isn't in a supposed paradise, what is important when you truly want to help people is to think about LIFE, before thinking of any afterlife.

Burning, raping, killing people for their own good in the afterlife !?

I just care about others,

If the mentionned above is caring for others, then thank you, that's nice, but please stop caring.

 

[Farrukh]

But I thought muslims only believe on Quran which is final book from Allah.

Quran and sayings of Holy prophet(may peace and blessing of Allah be upon Him).

 

[Farrukh]

If the mentionned above is caring for others, then thank you, that's nice, but please stop caring.

no I can't, spreading virtue is part of our religion.

 

[Gehennaite]

(1) But if we are correct, then they are doomed. In both cases, (2) we are on safe side

(1) We can all develop a fairly rational view of omnibenevolence.

I don't see why an omnibenevolent Creator would destroy its own creatures... especially over something like "faith". Character is far more important. I could see God taking the time to rebuke or humiliate people for certain things, but not killing...

(2) The safest bet is to seek enlightenment independently. You should never be contented with religious doctrine, since they hold you back from reaching your highest potential. Believe in God, but formulate yourself into the greatest possible being at the same time.

If done correctly, you should experience some fairly impressive dreams. At the very best, you'll experience the most impressive NDE before you die... taking away the sting of death...

 

[Sumit]

Whatever what there is or there isn't in a supposed paradise, what is important when you truly want to help people is to think about LIFE, before thinking of any afterlife.

Yes, but some people won't understand that. They ruin their and others life for an imaginary dream.

 

[Erebus]

That's called Pascal's Wager and it's a joke.

You know I kind of feel sorry for the guy. In many ways he was a brilliant man, yet he's known now primarily for this particular blunder.

 

[Tiberius]

he was saying Muslims spread Islam by force, so I replied to him.

No you weren't.

I pointed out there were verses in the Qur'an that encourage violence:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Doesn't this verse call for Muslims to kill people who do not believe? Isn't it saying, "Kill unbelievers wherever you find them, and kick them out of places that they have kicked you out from. Because their disbelief is worse than you killing them. But if they stop disbelieving, then Allah will be merciful. Fight the disbelievers until there are no more disbelievers and all those who believe only ever believe in Allah. But if they stop being disbelievers, stop fighting them, except for those that also believe in other gods and those who do wrong things."

Isn't it wrong to kill people just because they have different beliefs to you?

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Doesn't this verse encourage people to die in the name of Islam?

You then responded by claiming that these verses were only meant to be in effect for a limited time (emphasis mine):

Noble Verses 8:38-39 and 2:190-191 came for special purposes and for limited times only !. The Muslims in the city of Medina used to face continuous wars from the Pagans and the Jews and Christians. The Muslims had absolutely no choice !.

Despite all the hard conditions that the Muslims faced, Allah Almighty still ordered them "...not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

It is easy for an anti-Islamic to come today and to twist the truth about the Noble Quran and to show Islam as a religion of transgressing, compulsion and battles, when in reality Islam is quite the opposite of that !.

I then asked you to show me a part of the Qur'an that shows that the verses I mentioned were only in effect for a limited time:

Perhaps you could show me the verses which show that the verses I originally posted were only meant to be in effect for a limited time?

And anyway, why even bother with having humans do the dirty work? Couldn't Allah punish these people himself? Or just wait until they die and send them to hell for all eternity?

Why does religion always seem to insist on punishment in the physical world for transgressions of a spiritual nature? Perhaps because the whole thing was invented by people as an excuse to kill the people they didn't like?

And then you posted the following in separate posts, quoting me each and every time:

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

You quoted me each time, making it clear you were responding to my question. And nothing of what you said actually addressed my point in any way.

So I posted again, asking you which of my questions you were addressing:

And which question is this answering? Are you telling me what verses show that the verses I originally posted were only meant to be in effect for a limited time? Are you telling me why Allah would bother with having humans do the dirty work? Or are you telling me why religion always seems to insist on punishment in the physical world for transgressions of a spiritual nature?

Again, which question is this answering?

Again, which question?

You then post by saying that you were addressing someone else, despite the fact that you were quoting my post in each of your posts.

Now, you may have just quoted the wrong post, which is fine. But the fact remains that you have not answered my original questions:

Can you show me a passage from the Qur'an that refers to the passages I used to show that the Qur'an encourages violence and shows that those same passages were intended as a temporary situation only?

Can you tell me why Allah has to get Humans to punish people instead of doing it himself?

Can you tell me why the Qur'an is asking for punishment in the physical world for transgressions of a spiritual nature?

 

[Farrukh]

No you weren't.

I pointed out there were verses in the Qur'an that encourage violence:



You then responded by claiming that these verses were only meant to be in effect for a limited time (emphasis mine):



I then asked you to show me a part of the Qur'an that shows that the verses I mentioned were only in effect for a limited time:



And then you posted the following in separate posts, quoting me each and every time:







You quoted me each time, making it clear you were responding to my question. And nothing of what you said actually addressed my point in any way.

So I posted again, asking you which of my questions you were addressing:



You then post by saying that you were addressing someone else, despite the fact that you were quoting my post in each of your posts.

Now, you may have just quoted the wrong post, which is fine. But the fact remains that you have not answered my original questions:

Can you show me a passage from the Qur'an that refers to the passages I used to show that the Qur'an encourages violence and shows that those same passages were intended as a temporary situation only?

Can you tell me why Allah has to get Humans to punish people instead of doing it himself?

Can you tell me why the Qur'an is asking for punishment in the physical world for transgressions of a spiritual nature?

if Quran asked them for spreading terror, why they ignored Quranic teaching? why more than 1 billion people are following Islam?

 

[Tiberius]

I don't see how that answered any of my questions.

Let me reduce it to one question. When I put up verses of the Quran that I felt inspired people to be violent, you said that those verses were only intended for a limited time. Can you show me anything to support this claim? Yes or no?