Qur'an 2:256 and the sophistry it inspires.

[stevecanuck]

You are being obtuse.

In the verses leading up to 5:67, Allah is having yet another tantrum about "the people of the book". By the time he gets to 5:67, he is telling Mohamed not to quit reciting the revelations, and not to worry, because Allah will save him from those nasty Jews and Christians. It's obvious. As Allah says, "I have made the Qur'an easy".

The fact that you don't believe the words of your own god does not bode well for your eternal soul.

 

[JerryMyers]

In the verses leading up to 5:67, Allah is having yet another tantrum about "the people of the book". By the time he gets to 5:67, he is telling Mohamed not to quit reciting the revelations, and not to worry, because Allah will save him from those nasty Jews and Christians. It's obvious. As Allah says, "I have made the Qur'an easy".

The fact that you don't believe the words of your own god does not bode well for your eternal soul.

Yes, Allah has made the Quran easy for those who sincerely want to understand the Quran, but NOT for those who read the Quran to find faults.

Understandably, for someone who believes in flying spaghetti monsters, he finds the Quran difficult to understand. Heck, even a straightforward statement like “Let there be no compulsion in religion” is too difficult for him to understand!! That’s the fact!

 

[KWED]

Yes, Allah has made the Quran easy for those who sincerely want to understand the Quran, but NOT for those who read the Quran to find faults.

The default approach when considering any claims, especially extraordinary ones, is to be sceptical, to look for faults, to check for accuracy, to consider alternatives. That's how stuff works in the real world.
Ironically, the flawed approach is that of the apologist who assumes a priori that the Quran is perfect and contains no faults, simply because the Quran claims it is perfect and contains no faults . It is therefore hardly surprising that you find it difficult to accept them, even when presented with hard evidence. After all, if you accepted that there were errors or contradictions in the Quran you could not be a Muslim.

Heck, even a straightforward statement like “Let there be no compulsion in religion” is too difficult for him to understand!! That’s the fact!

The problem with the statement"Let there be no compulsion in religion" is that it is contradicted by several other passages.
So, when discussing the issue of "compulsion in religion", why do you (and other apologists) cherry-pick the single verse that appears to support your pre-established position and ignore all the ones that refute it?

 

[KWED]

Well, anyone who can think logically and rationally (and we know you can’t) will know that ‘some of the greatest scientific minds of our time do not believe in god’ don’t make it true just as some Americans believe Trump won the last Presidential Election don’t make it true either. Therefore, your claim was disproved (not that it needed it anyway, as it was so infantile as to barely be worth a response).

But that wasn't your initial claim, and it certainly wasn't my argument.
Let's go through it again and see if you can figure it out...
1.You stated that disbelief in god was a sign that a person is incapable of logical and rational thought.
2. I pointed out that some of the greatest logical and rational thinkers of our time do not believe in god.
3. This disproves your claim that a person who doesn't believe in god cannot think logically or rationally.

Actually, my question is very straightforward and simple that even 6 years old kids can understand… and why would I need to say which version of God?

Because different gods have different claims made about/by them, so evidence for their non-existence may well depend on that - as my example showed. The errors in the Quran are not evidence against the Norse gods. That should be pretty obvious.

After all, it’s not about which version of God as atheists just don’t believe in the existence of (any) God. Period.

You asked for evidence against god, not about disbelief.
You really should try and understand the meaning and implication of what you are saying.

So, again - tell me what evidence(s) do you have for the non-existence of God?

I gave you a specific example. Interesting that you have simply ignored it.

Now, what evidence do you have for the existence of your version of god?
(I predict some combination of arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. Actually, you'll probably just avoid answering, as usual)

 

[KWED]

Documents in law need interpretation clarification from lawyers.

Not always, but if they do, they are not "clear".

 

[Link]

Not always, but if they do, they are not "clear".

Does not matter how clear they are, they can be misunderstood, so need clarification.

 

[KWED]

Are you asking me that because YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE in the existence of the flying spaghetti monster???

Only a comedian who’s incapable to think logically and rationally will believe in the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. That would be you.

I suspect you became a comedian to **** your old man off!!

So, you admit that you have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon his noodly appendages) does not exist.
So it would therefore be illogical for you to insist that he does not exist. You can only say that you don't believe in him, even though he might exist.

 

[KWED]

Does not matter how clear they are, they can be misunderstood, so need clarification.

If something is perfectly clear, it needs no clarification.
If it can be misunderstood it is not clear.

 

[Link]

If something is perfectly clear, it needs no clarification.
If it can be misunderstood it is not clear.

This is not the case. Anything can be misunderstood no matter how clear it is. Minds of humanity sometimes come up with stupidest meanings for clearest things, it happens in day to day life, statements can taking out of their place, misunderstood and worst assumed.

 

[KWED]

This is not the case. Anything can be misunderstood no matter how clear it is. Minds of humanity sometimes come up with stupidest meanings for clearest things, it happens in day to day life, statements can taking out of their place, misunderstood and worst assumed.

Give some examples of things that are "entirely clear" that require clarification.

 

[Link]

Give some examples of things that are "entirely clear" that require clarification.

They don't require clarification for everyone, it just happens, people can misinterpret it, and so lawyers clarifying is always needed.

I am not going to bother with examples, why don't you contact a lawyer and ask them, about this.

 

[JerryMyers]

So, you admit that you have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon his noodly appendages) does not exist.
So it would therefore be illogical for you to insist that he does not exist. You can only say that you don't believe in him, even though he might exist.

So you ADMIT that you have evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist.
Well, don"t keep it to yourself, tell us what is the evidence you have for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?? Or are you truly the comedian that I always believe you are???

 

[KWED]

They don't require clarification for everyone, it just happens, people can misinterpret it, and so lawyers clarifying is always needed.

I am not going to bother with examples, why don't you contact a lawyer and ask them, about this.

Ok. So we have established that some "entirely clear" things require clarification.
You you also believe that some "entirely true" things can be a bit false, or that some "entirely empty" things can contain something?

 

[KWED]

So you ADMIT that you have evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist.

Oh dear. You're really not very good at this, are you?
I asked you for evidence that the FSM does not exist.
You cannot provide any. Therefore you must accept that its existence is a possibility.

I am not claiming to have any physical evidence for it. The FSM does not provide evidence that a disbeliever would accept. The only evidence I need is the invisible touch of his noodly appendages and the transcendence I experience when a put a colander on my head. And there are the many miracles he performs. Ramen! These are clear evidences to those with an open mind and heart who do not reject the truth.

 

[stevecanuck]

They don't require clarification for everyone, it just happens, people can misinterpret it, and so lawyers clarifying is always needed.

If something is "entirely clear", yet can still be misunderstood, what is there to say that a lawyer's clarification won't be similarly misunderstood?

Your point is utterly lost in its own inherent contradiction.

 

[JerryMyers]

Oh dear. You're really not very good at this, are you?

Yes, you are right, I am not good at talking nonsense, but I can see you are!

I asked you for evidence that the FSM does not exist.
You cannot provide any. Therefore you must accept that its existence is a possibility.
I am not claiming to have any physical evidence for it. The FSM does not provide evidence that a disbeliever would accept. The only evidence I need is the invisible touch of his noodly appendages and the transcendence I experience when a put a colander on my head. And there are the many miracles he performs. Ramen! These are clear evidences to those with an open mind and heart who do not reject the truth.

Oh, dear. Let me get this right – you actually REALLY believe in a flying spaghetti monster??!!

I know it is a satirical deity created by someone as a protest against the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, BUT for you (or anyone) to actually believe in its existence???! That’s so comical!! Do you also believe in Spiderman and Superman?? I won’t be surprised if you do, after all, you do live in an imaginary world with an imaginary wife - speaking of someone who is incapable to think logically and rationally!! LOL!

 

[KWED]

Oh, dear. Let me get this right – you actually REALLY believe in a flying spaghetti monster??!!

I know it is a satirical deity created by someone as a protest against the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, BUT for you (or anyone) to actually believe in its existence???! That’s so comical!! Do you also believe in Spiderman and Superman?? I won’t be surprised if you do, after all, you do live in an imaginary world with an imaginary wife - speaking of someone who is incapable to think logically and rationally!! LOL!

And once again, you avoid dealing with the issue I raised and resort to your usual basket o'fallacies

I asked you for evidence that the FSM does not exist.
You cannot provide any. Therefore you must accept that its existence is a possibility.

I understand that it must be difficult accepting that one of religionists' favourite arguments is nonsense, but that's your problem, not mine.

 

[JerryMyers]

And once again, you avoid dealing with the issue I raised and resort to your usual basket o'fallacies

I asked you for evidence that the FSM does not exist.
You cannot provide any. Therefore you must accept that its existence is a possibility.

I understand that it must be difficult accepting that one of religionists' favourite arguments is nonsense, but that's your problem, not mine.

What NONSENSE are you talking about???

You would have a case if it was me who brought up the existence of FSM in our discussion, in which case it would be logical for you to ask me for evidence for the non-existence of FSM. but, that’s not the case, is it?? Then again, we both know you are incapable to think logically and rationally, and that’s why you keep coming up with nonsense. I understand that it must be difficult accepting that truth.

BTW if you believe in the existence of such nonsense as the FSM (which is NOT surprising), that’s YOUR problem, not mine.

 

[KWED]

What NONSENSE are you talking about???

You would have a case if it was me who brought up the existence of FSM in our discussion, in which case it would be logical for you to ask me for evidence for the non-existence of FSM. but, that’s not the case, is it?? Then again, we both know you are incapable to think logically and rationally, and that’s why you keep coming up with nonsense. I understand that it must be difficult accepting that truth.

BTW if you believe in the existence of such nonsense as the FSM (which is NOT surprising), that’s YOUR problem, not mine.

So you admit that you have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

You raised the issue of disproving a negative by asking "tell me what evidence(s) do you have for the non-existence of God?" so you can't complain if people ask you the same question.

If you think that an inability to disprove your god is a rational argument for its existence, then you must accept your inability to disprove the FSM as a rational argument for its existence.
If you don't think an inability to disprove non-existence is a rational argument, why bring it up?

 

[JerryMyers]

So you admit that you have no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

You raised the issue of disproving a negative by asking "tell me what evidence(s) do you have for the non-existence of God?" so you can't complain if people ask you the same question.

If you think that an inability to disprove your god is a rational argument for its existence, then you must accept your inability to disprove the FSM as a rational argument for its existence.
If you don't think an inability to disprove non-existence is a rational argument, why bring it up?

Why can’t I ask you “what evidence(s) do you have for the non-existence of God?” when you are the one who came here insisting that God does not exist?? Isn’t that why you ‘attack’ the Muslims here because of their faith in God??

If you are now admitting that you don’t have any evidence nor have you any rational argument for the non-existence of God, and indirectly admitting there is a God, then, I won’t ask you that question again.