Opinion on this claim

[zapshe]

Or in other words "the world will never end".

The text at some point talks about how the world will eventually end. It says fire will burn on water, mountains will crumble, and other things will happen during the final day. I can see why what Mohammed said can be interpreted as "the world will never end", but I'm not sure it was supposed to mean that.

[helios]

Well, until someone can come up with a better interpretation, I'm just going to say that's a contradiction.

[367kGNh0]

I just said it still well resembles the current day. only clothing is different, perhaps then he called them unclothed as a nickname, rather than a fact. As they were in such bad condition

Again, you've completely dodged all the important points. Adam and Eve vs Evolution, heavens/world/universe created in 6 days, it says somewhere in there that the stars will one day "fall", the small biological error of semen being said to be produced between the backbone and ribs, the ignorance of the female "egg" when talking about reproduction (speaks as if sperm is the only factor), birds flying is because of the power of God, etc..

Why bother when this very prediction argument will likely escalate until you can find four pages on this top

If I murdered a child who would have grown up to be bad for the moral lesson of "don't judge too quickly", would you accept that? No, you wouldn't. Why accept it now?

You would have not known if he would change his ways, as I don't think god would have informed you, we only needed one judging lesson, not another. Also, i believe we're in a time muslims have ALL THEY NEED, so no more prophets will arrive, with some exceptions like the return of Jesus(AS), so you cannot just say "I am a [status]"

@zapshe, one of your points was maybe Muhammed wasn't illiterate. I have no photographic evidence, but historians have found only 13 people were literate in Mecca. And the prophet being an orphan and shepherd would have no time for education

[helios]

There are not Bedouins building skyscrapers. There just aren't.

[367kGNh0]

Simply because they're not nomads, the entire prediction is guesswork?

[zapshe]

Why bother when this very prediction argument will likely escalate until you can find four pages on this top

The argument of the prophet killing a child doesn't seem like it's going to take long, I'd argue we practically finished. I said he killed a child and it was pointless, you said it's fine cause he was going to be a bad kid and there was a lesson needed. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Also, the other points are much bigger. I was hoping your sense of morality would show you how horrible killing a child is, but of course morality (along with everything else) takes a backseat to religion.

one of your points was maybe Muhammed wasn't illiterate

It doesn't matter, but it would prove some gaps if he wasn't.

Simply because they're not nomads, the entire prediction is guesswork?

It said nomands, so yes. People cling onto every word, finding meaning where there is none, until the words don't meet their expectations.

[367kGNh0]

takes a backseat to religion.

Understandably.

It said nomands, so yes. People cling onto every word, finding meaning where there is none, until the words don't meet their expectations.

What if nomads is just a small nickname? Like if a police officer says

"All the suspects happen to be milkmen's daughters" when all the suspects have no father of milkman occupation

[zapshe]

Understandably.

So 9/11 is fine by you? Morality takes a back seat, they had a cause, and they thought they were in the right by their religion. When you say morality takes a backseat, you're saying horrible things can be justified - as you've already justified the killing of an innocent child.

What if nomads is just a small nickname?

Then I'd question why God is using slang that he would know changes with time.


It's pretty clear that you accept A LOT of leaps of logic simply because you want to believe in your religion. You showed the video that counted words like it was amazing or something because it showed intelligence, knowledge, and logic behind it (to an extent). However, as soon as that fades when you actually delve into the incorrectness of religious text, suddenly you're willing to concede logic to give wiggle room for an interpretation to still be technically not wrong.

When I said:

If I say I'm divine, or I'm the reincarnation of Jesus or whatever, how do you know it's true? Answer: you wont! Simply, if I say I'm Jesus, you're going to ask me to prove it, you're going to be skeptical. However, a book tells you that God created you and everything blah blah, and you believe it.

Your reply had something to do with feeling divinity. This was fully shot down with no rebuttal. Why believe it with no evidence? Religion makes a lot of claims with no evidence and you believe it. You can't possibly know that the religious texts came from God, yet you assume it did. There's no difference between that and taking my word that I'm Jesus.

To continue, please address the many points I've made. You also don't seem to want to accept creationists view judging by what I saw earlier. Do you view Adam and Eve as a little story that isn't true, or what?

[367kGNh0]

Rascake wrote:

let's not talk about me, I am not relevant, this is about faith itself.

I'm Jesus.

Maybe you're right. But, it is also rather easy to change a word in the Bible and keep it that way for oncoming productions. But the arabic of the Quran is not so easy to corrupt, if not, not possible at all, one word makes all the difference from preservation to corruption. By maybe you're right I mean, excluding history. That is at play, even if it's means of invitation were Identical to that of Islam's.

First God sent the Torah for the people of it's time, then the bible (original) for people of it's time, atlast the quran, for all. This video MIGHT support my claim on corruption if valid. Don't quote me saying the video is correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNrDXHekaOE&t=37s


I also want to mention I don't think I have the right to respond to all your matters, in regards to your concern. The last thing I want to do is say that which is not correct

[helios]

Simply because they're not nomads, the entire prediction is guesswork?

Bedouins are a specific ethnic group. If the statement is "Bedouins will build tall buildings" you can't just go "See? Arabs are building tall buildings. Bedouins, Arabs, same thing." If I said "the first man in space was a Chechen" simply because there are Chechens in Russia, but without any evidence that Gagarin was Chechen, I doubt you'd accept it.

[zapshe]

When we're debating, the aspect of YOU is going to be present. You're arguing your points and belief.

But the arabic of the Quran is not so easy to corrupt, if not, not possible at all, one word makes all the difference from preservation to corruption.

Translations from Arabic are the easiest thing in the world to corrupt. If you don't understand the original Arabic, you're getting a bias viewpoint from what I've seen so far.

First God sent the Torah for the people of it's time, then the bible (original) for people of it's time, atlast the quran, for all. This video MIGHT support my claim on corruption if valid.

Religion changes with the times. Understand how SIMILAR most religions are. So many stories are literally the same thing written differently. And no, the video proves literally nothing. As things are discovered, the interpretation changes slightly. Why? Because religious texts are purposefully written like backwards riddles. Even though you can figure out what they're saying, it's easy to say, "well actually, it could also mean to say..."

The last thing I want to do is say that which is not correct

Religion has no problem doing it though *Insert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0kNbZl3yGY *

But what saying that shows is that you haven't looked into this stuff. You haven't studied to glaring contradictions in order to find truth, you've simply accepted it as fact and haven't stopped to think. If you say that you indeed have stopped to think about it but you're not sure if your thoughts are valid, then don't worry you're just as qualified as anyone else.

[367kGNh0]

If the statement is "Bedouins will build tall buildings" you can't just go "See? Arabs are building tall buildings. Bedouins, Arabs, same thing."

If that was the case why not? I wouldn't that is just 100% invalid

When we're debating, the aspect of YOU is going to be present. You're arguing your points and belief.

Not all the time. Sometimes a student will be forced to be for/againt for a certain topic in a class debate. He/she will cite data or the beliefs of others. not necessarily THEIR belief

But what saying that shows is that you haven't looked into this stuff. You haven't studied to glaring contradictions in order to find truth, you've simply accepted it as fact and haven't stopped to think. If you say that you indeed have stopped to think about it but you're not sure if your thoughts are valid, then don't worry you're just as qualified as anyone else.

No it is that I have looked into it to a qualification level. I would only get close accepting your rebuttals for fact if you make a person who claims to have, to a education level, studied the religion, go silent. You may have got me with your cases but please don't take it as a "There's another point CONFIRMED" as I am merely uneducated in this

[zapshe]

Sometimes a student will be forced to be for/againt for a certain topic in a class debate. He/she will cite data or the beliefs of others. not necessarily THEIR belief

Well this isn't that. If you don't believe in something, why argue it? And I also think you do believe in it, you're giving some of the same delusional answers as believers. Delusional in the way that it invokes possibilities and feelings rather than concrete evidence.

I would only get close accepting your rebuttals for fact if you make a person who claims to have, to a education level, studied the religion, go silent.

They never go silent, there's always something for them to say. But it NEVER addresses the claims in ways that actually refute them. The comeback changes by person, but the main one I see now is that the Bible and such were never trying to make scientific claims to begin with. The evidence and logic was so overwhelming, they had to simply give up the battle with a cop-out. Other arguments say that the interpretation is wrong and it actually means this or that. Those arguments rarely work because you have to do a leap of faith (pun intended) to actually interpret the text differently.

The Quran CLEARLY states that the Earth and heavens are unmoved. The only argument here is to say that it wasn't trying to make a scientific claim at all. Which, at the point, leaves you with a book with a bunch of stories and no evidence for their reality.

[367kGNh0]

They never go silent, there's always something for them to say. But it NEVER addresses the claims in ways that actually refute them.

In that case, so be it. It's not like anybody won right? I can just say I'm doing this to stop wasting all our time.

Also noticed, if religion NEVER existed, helios would not be @helios' name

[zapshe]

Religion has it's place in history and in humanity, but it doesn't make it true. And the "no one won" viewpoint is also one people of faith adopt a lot, but it's not true. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. Just because the opponent can't disprove it doesn't mean no one won. If you say "God", and I ask "evidence", you should be able to provide that (the same right is granted to you for any claims I make). If you can't provide evidence, then the assertion can't really be made.

In most arguments, the atheist tries to disprove their view through contradictions of religion, but that's already past the point. The opponent hasn't proven the existence at all. At best, they present the God of the gaps argument in order to insert his probability.

[zapshe]

To add to my previous point. The debates end up with both sides takes jabs at each other really. In the end, the debate will NEVER end with the conclusion "God is/isn't real". The debates only serve to prove the probability that God might be real. Just because there are two options (either real or not real) doesn't mean the odds are 50/50. In this case, the odds that God is real, especially God as known in religions, are fairly low.

[helios]

"Helios" is just the Greek word for "Sun". I leave as an exercise for the reader figuring out whether solar worship predates the Proto-Indo-European root "*sóh₂wl̥".

And anyway, mythology is interesting because it's stories, not because it's religion. It's like saying that without religion there would be no Batman.

[367kGNh0]

Hmm, maybe if this one definition from my spanish dictionary was wrong, then how wrong must I be...

Definiciones de Helios:
sustantivo: (mitología griega) antiguo dios del sol; conducía su carro por el cielo cada día; identificado con sol romano

Definitions of Helios:
noun: (Greek mythology) ancient god of the sun; drove his chariot across the sky each day; identified with Roman Sol

[helios]

A Spanish dictionary will define "helios" as the character, because "helios" is not a Spanish word. If you look it up in a Greek dictionary the first definition won't be for the solar deity. "Helios" just means "the Sun".
Try looking up "sol" in that dictionary, see if the Roman deity is the first result.

[zapshe]

https://www.behindthename.com/name/helios