Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[Cheerful Charlie]

Maybe an example will make it more clear. Chronos is the creator god of Greek Paganism. Not technically the creator. He just splits the "world egg" apart. There's no mention of who created that egg. Later Zeus rebels and topples Chronos power. So now the creator God is a subsidiary god to the main god. Hinduism has three creator gods. There is a pattern. The further back in history you go the weirder the creation myths are. Abrahamism has really cleaned it up.

Doesn't understanding string theory hurt your brain? It certainly hurts mine. Hundred bucks on that the theory that explains causation will be way more complicated than that one.

I don't think science will finally vindicate anybody. I think science will one day prove absolutely everybody wrong including the guy who makes the discovery

Creator God. Hinduism. Ishvara or Brahma depending on the sect. Taoism is another outlook on all of this.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Thanks again.

I do not expect any to give my experience any more thought than anyone else's. I tend to stay away from it because I find it irrelevant. My personal experience in no way should dictate the knowledge or opinion of others. I simply tried to summarize it because you asked.

But you're saying that it's important information which can help us avoid a prolonged session of torture if we use it to help us come to a correct conclusion. Don't you think that that justifies something ... more?

Not pertaining to me personally, no. Humility is extremely important. Though what happened to me is all the proof I'll ever need, it doesn't suffice as proof to others. Though I generally understand my role or direction, dictating or rather judging others in my current state would be wrong for many reasons not least of which is vanity. Though what happened to me may be used by others, perhaps, it still wasn't of my doing. Though it was and is without a doubt, real to me, I can't make it real for anyone else. Someone might find my testimony interesting, or my morals may seem sensical. That's about all I can hope for at this time. Don't think I'm here to save anyone from hell. As far as I can tell, those who exhibit moral behavior to the best of their extent are good to go.

I'm still changing, myself, and based on what I have found, I am in more danger of punishment then someone who simply hasn't found anything compelling about God or man's direction by God's will.

Does that make sense at all?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

You are just repeating your assertion while ignoring the problems I have raised. The quoted verses do not support your claim.

I'm not ignoring anything. I understand if you don't get that true belief is with all of ones being and as such one should act accordingly as in being faithful to GOD. Most Christians aren't weren't even aware of this for uhm, a really long time.

What is 'true belief' in the context of faith? It is certainly not justified true belief (JTB) which is supported by verifiable evidence.

Your 'true belief' refers to fidelity; holding true to your faith. As faith/ fidelity is not being supported by verifiable evidence, it is not a form of justified belief. It is not 'true' belief in the sense that it has a sound factual foundation.

I'm not ignoring what you said. You are separating belief from Faith and action, but there is no division of such if one actually believes a thing such as the teachings and example of the Christ.

At no point did I refer to or suggest such a thing. You keep shifting around.

If you believe you will eventually die, would you act as if you had infinite time? If you believed your child to be I'll would you not seek some remedy? If you believe your life to be in danger would you not take steps to avoid that danger? The same is true for believing the teachings of Christ... One is to act as if they actually believe which is to abide by the teachings and the command.

We know that we are going to eventually die, there being no example of immortal humans. But the remedy is not to replace reality with make believe, accepting this or that contradictory religion as being factual information about life and the world when these are essentially a set of ancient creation myths, each with their own God or gods.

And you still avoid the fact that these verses refer to non believers in general, and apostates as you have claimed.

Kaffir (n.)
1790, "infidel," earlier and also caffre (1670s), from Arabic kafir "unbeliever, infidel, impious wretch," with a literal sense of "one who does not admit (the blessings of God)," from kafara "to cover up, conceal, deny, blot out."

Technically, "a non-Muslim,"


Infidel (n.)
mid-15c., "adherent of a religion opposed to Christianity," from Middle French infidèle, from Latin infidelis "unfaithful, not to be trusted," in Late Latin "unbelieving" (in Medieval Latin also as a noun, "unbeliever"), from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + fidelis "faithful" (see fidelity).

Originally "a non-Christian" (especially a Saracen); later "one who does not believe in religion, disbeliever in religion generally"



In other words, those who 'believeth not' - the very ones referred to in the Bible and Quran.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I'm not ignoring anything. I understand if you don't get that true belief is with all of ones being and as such one should act accordingly as in being faithful to GOD. Most Christians aren't weren't even aware of this for uhm, a really long time.

What is 'true belief' in the context of faith? It is certainly not justified true belief (JTB) which is supported by verifiable evidence.

Your 'true belief' refers to fidelity; holding true to your faith. As faith/ fidelity is not being supported by verifiable evidence, it is not a form of justified belief. It is not 'true' belief in the sense that it has a sound factual foundation.

I'm not ignoring what you said. You are separating belief from Faith and action, but there is no division of such if one actually believes a thing such as the teachings and example of the Christ.

At no point did I refer to or suggest such a thing. You keep shifting around.

If you believe you will eventually die, would you act as if you had infinite time? If you believed your child to be I'll would you not seek some remedy? If you believe your life to be in danger would you not take steps to avoid that danger? The same is true for believing the teachings of Christ... One is to act as if they actually believe which is to abide by the teachings and the command.

We know that we are going to eventually die, there being no example of immortal humans. But the remedy is not to replace reality with make believe, accepting this or that contradictory religion as being factual information about life and the world when these are essentially a set of ancient creation myths, each with their own God or gods.

And you still avoid the fact that these verses refer to non believers in general, and apostates as you have claimed.

Kaffir (n.)
1790, "infidel," earlier and also caffre (1670s), from Arabic kafir "unbeliever, infidel, impious wretch," with a literal sense of "one who does not admit (the blessings of God)," from kafara "to cover up, conceal, deny, blot out."

Technically, "a non-Muslim,"


Infidel (n.)
mid-15c., "adherent of a religion opposed to Christianity," from Middle French infidèle, from Latin infidelis "unfaithful, not to be trusted," in Late Latin "unbelieving" (in Medieval Latin also as a noun, "unbeliever"), from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + fidelis "faithful" (see fidelity).

Originally "a non-Christian" (especially a Saracen); later "one who does not believe in religion, disbeliever in religion generally"



In other words, those who 'believeth not' - the very ones referred to in the Bible and Quran.

Kaffir describes it quite well. Exactly what I have been saying.

Never said Faith or belief in GOD or the direction of man under God is a remedy for eventual death.

I'm not shifting around. We were talking about what it means to actually believe something. There is a world of difference between one who claims belief in something in front of others, and one who carries out their life in a manner that such a belief is undeniable based on their actions. But, yeah, the first definition you posted seems pretty accurate as far as the meaning that is meant in scripture. Not an atheist. One who doesn't abide by, or one who hides the truth. One cannot hide or rebel against what they do not know. In the case of the atheist; they don't know because they don't believe. No harm, no foul.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

Kaffir describes it quite well. Exactly what I have been saying.

Not really.

In fact not at all.

Kaffir, as you can see i the given definition, includes 'unbeliever' - for whatever reason, be it apathy or an absence of justification to believe...the term also encompasses 'infidel' as one who lacks faith.

Never said Faith or belief in GOD or the direction of man under God is a remedy for eventual death.

You don't need to say it. The Bible says it, as does the Quran in their numerous references to the status of unbelievers...those who 'believeth not'' the teachings of these 'holy books'

I'm not shifting around. We were talking about what it means to actually believe something. There is a world of difference between one who claims belief in something in front of others, and one who carries out their life in a manner that such a belief is undeniable based on their actions. But, yeah, the first definition you posted seems pretty accurate as far as the meaning that is meant in scripture. Not an atheist. One who doesn't abide by, or one who hides the truth. One cannot hide or rebel against what they do not know. In the case of the atheist; they don't know because they don't believe. No harm, no foul.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

It's easy to say that you aren't shifting around, but in practice you are.

You may not be aware of it but I'd say that the majority of objective readers can see the goal posts being moved left and right, forward and back (quite lively a dance) in order to avoid facing the confrontation between what the Bible and the Quran actually say about the status of unbelievers (regardless of the reason for their position) and what you want to believe these verses mean.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Not really.

In fact not at all.

Kaffir, as you can see i the given definition, includes 'unbeliever' - for whatever reason, be it apathy or an absence of justification to believe...the term also encompasses 'infidel' as one who lacks faith.

Never said Faith or belief in GOD or the direction of man under God is a remedy for eventual death.

You don't need to say it. The Bible says it, as does the Quran in their numerous references to the status of unbelievers...those who 'believeth not'' the teachings of these 'holy books'

I'm not shifting around. We were talking about what it means to actually believe something. There is a world of difference between one who claims belief in something in front of others, and one who carries out their life in a manner that such a belief is undeniable based on their actions. But, yeah, the first definition you posted seems pretty accurate as far as the meaning that is meant in scripture. Not an atheist. One who doesn't abide by, or one who hides the truth. One cannot hide or rebel against what they do not know. In the case of the atheist; they don't know because they don't believe. No harm, no foul.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

It's easy to say that you aren't shifting around, but in practice you are.

You may not be aware of it but I'd say that the majority of objective readers can see the goal posts being moved left and right, forward and back (quite lively a dance) in order to avoid facing the confrontation between what the Bible and the Quran actually say about the status of unbelievers (regardless of the reason for their position) and what you want to believe these verses mean.

I've gone over all of this before. But if you want to claim that it means atheist when it is talking about an unbeliever then reference where I can find it n my copy. I will look over with accompanying texts to see if you are right. If you are, I will admit it. It seems to me that the emphasis in those two books and others is a way of being. Not for man to go around claiming what to believe and not to. It's like everyone wants to focus on the dividing factors that have to be stretched out of meaning instead of focusing on the plain obvious unifying and moral points that will help civilization come together peacefully.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

I've gone over all of this before. But if you want to claim that it means atheist when it is talking about an unbeliever then reference where I can find it n my copy. I will look over with accompanying texts to see if you are right.

I have given the terms and references several times.

An atheist is, by definition, an unbeliever. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a God or gods....for whatever reason, it doesn't matter. It may for a lack of evidence, rejection of 'scripture' because it is contradictory, it doesn't matter, the literal meaning of ''atheist'' is one who has no belief in a God or gods....which in the Biblical sense is one who 'believeth not' - an infidel or Kaffir as a person who is an unbeliever (and a non muslim)

I'll highlight the relevant terms for you:

Kaffir (n.)
1790, "infidel," earlier and also caffre (1670s), from Arabic kafir "unbeliever, infidel, impious wretch," with a literal sense of "one who does not admit (the blessings of God)," from kafara "to cover up, conceal, deny, blot out."

Technically, "a non-Muslim,"


Infidel (n.)
mid-15c., "adherent of a religion opposed to Christianity," from Middle French infidèle, from Latin infidelis "unfaithful, not to be trusted," in Late Latin "unbelieving" (in Medieval Latin also as a noun, "unbeliever"), from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + fidelis "faithful" (see fidelity).

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've gone over all of this before. But if you want to claim that it means atheist when it is talking about an unbeliever then reference where I can find it n my copy. I will look over with accompanying texts to see if you are right.

I have given the terms and references several times.

An atheist is, by definition, an unbeliever. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a God or gods....for whatever reason, it doesn't matter. It may for a lack of evidence, rejection of 'scripture' because it is contradictory, it doesn't matter, the literal meaning of ''atheist'' is one who has no belief in a God or gods....which in the Biblical sense is one who 'believeth not' - an infidel or Kaffir as a person who is an unbeliever (and a non muslim)

I'll highlight the relevant terms for you:

Kaffir (n.)
1790, "infidel," earlier and also caffre (1670s), from Arabic kafir "unbeliever, infidel, impious wretch," with a literal sense of "one who does not admit (the blessings of God)," from kafara "to cover up, conceal, deny, blot out."

Technically, "a non-Muslim,"


Infidel (n.)
mid-15c., "adherent of a religion opposed to Christianity," from Middle French infidèle, from Latin infidelis "unfaithful, not to be trusted," in Late Latin "unbelieving" (in Medieval Latin also as a noun, "unbeliever"), from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + fidelis "faithful" (see fidelity).

This is actually what I struggle the most with both with Islam and Christianity. It's this acknowledgement that their arguments are transparent and shit, so they stop trying to convince and revert to petty threats. Believe or else my daddy is going to get you. This makes it very hard for me to respect any Christian or Muslim.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I have given the terms and references several times.

An atheist is, by definition, an unbeliever. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a God or gods....for whatever reason, it doesn't matter. It may for a lack of evidence, rejection of 'scripture' because it is contradictory, it doesn't matter, the literal meaning of ''atheist'' is one who has no belief in a God or gods....which in the Biblical sense is one who 'believeth not' - an infidel or Kaffir as a person who is an unbeliever (and a non muslim)

I'll highlight the relevant terms for you:

Kaffir (n.)
1790, "infidel," earlier and also caffre (1670s), from Arabic kafir "unbeliever, infidel, impious wretch," with a literal sense of "one who does not admit (the blessings of God)," from kafara "to cover up, conceal, deny, blot out."

Technically, "a non-Muslim,"


Infidel (n.)
mid-15c., "adherent of a religion opposed to Christianity," from Middle French infidèle, from Latin infidelis "unfaithful, not to be trusted," in Late Latin "unbelieving" (in Medieval Latin also as a noun, "unbeliever"), from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + fidelis "faithful" (see fidelity).

This is actually what I struggle the most with both with Islam and Christianity. It's this acknowledgement that their arguments are transparent and shit, so they stop trying to convince and revert to petty threats. Believe or else my daddy is going to get you. This makes it very hard for me to respect any Christian or Muslim.

What is a transparent argument, and could yo give examples from the Qur'an and bible.

Both books state that the innocent and ignorant will be justly paid for what they do in life. Not exactly do this or else. Again warning and threatening aren't the same. And God gave us freedom. If we where to all be like robots then that's how we would be. That isn't God's will for man, obviously. Not that I claim to know it in full, but it is aparent that it isn't contrary to nature or evolution or the continuation of profitable existence for all of that creation.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

This is actually what I struggle the most with both with Islam and Christianity. It's this acknowledgement that their arguments are transparent and shit, so they stop trying to convince and revert to petty threats. Believe or else my daddy is going to get you. This makes it very hard for me to respect any Christian or Muslim.

What is a transparent argument, and could yo give examples from the Qur'an and bible.

Both books state that the innocent and ignorant will be justly paid for what they do in life. Not exactly do this or else. Again warning and threatening aren't the same. And God gave us freedom. If we where to all be like robots then that's how we would be. That isn't God's will for man, obviously. Not that I claim to know it in full, but it is aparent that it isn't contrary to nature or evolution or the continuation of profitable existence for all of that creation.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Warning and threatening ARE the same, when the person doing the warning is the one who chooses whether or not the bad thing happens.

I'm imagining the  Kray twins: "That's a very nice immortal soul you have there. Be a shame if someone was to... damn it to hell. Very easily damned, souls. You want to be more... careful. Know what I mean?"

 

[DBT]

.

Both books state that the innocent and ignorant will be justly paid for what they do in life. Not exactly do this or else. Again warning and threatening aren't the same.

Yet I produced verses that clearly and concisely describe the status of non believers - those who 'believeth not' - that make no mention of extraneous factors such as ignorance (innocence is arguable), but tell the reader what awaits those who do not believe.

And God gave us freedom.
If we where to all be like robots then that's how we would be.

That is an assumption that's not supported by the bible. Nor is it a matter of freedom, but information. Can you freely choose to not believe the things that you in fact do believe are true? Is that one of your so called freedoms?

You probably don't believe in the existence of Zeus and the gods of Olympus, for example....can you freely choose to believe that Zeus is an actual God who resides on Mt Olympus?

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is actually what I struggle the most with both with Islam and Christianity. It's this acknowledgement that their arguments are transparent and shit, so they stop trying to convince and revert to petty threats. Believe or else my daddy is going to get you. This makes it very hard for me to respect any Christian or Muslim.

What is a transparent argument, and could yo give examples from the Qur'an and bible.

Both books state that the innocent and ignorant will be justly paid for what they do in life. Not exactly do this or else. Again warning and threatening aren't the same. And God gave us freedom. If we where to all be like robots then that's how we would be. That isn't God's will for man, obviously. Not that I claim to know it in full, but it is aparent that it isn't contrary to nature or evolution or the continuation of profitable existence for all of that creation.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Deja vú. We've already had this discussion and I wrote a long post about it. A post that could be hundred times longer btw. It's all over the Bible. Same deal with the Quran

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...are-equivalent&p=265701&viewfull=1#post265701

Also... wtf are you talking about? This is threats. Obey or else. If you want to read a book on advice for life go to any non-fiction section in any book store and compare styles. Do this because otherwise that will happen (outside the authors control). In the Bible and Quran God is what will happen. God is talking down to us. Obey or else. That's a problem with positing an omnipotent (or just very powerful) agent. Any demand is immediately a threat. Especially since they've introduced the option of going to hell. Or even threatened with not going to heaven.

Another note, the word "freedom" is an empty platitude unless you qualify it. This is especially true when it comes to the will. Are you sure you can freely chose what you want? Let's take something simple like food. Are you sure you aren't more inclined to some foods rather than others? Do you really like all foods exactly the same? Unless you do how are you free? When talking freedom of the will always make sure to qualify what it is that is free. What is it free from? And how how is it free? None of those are obvious. Please don't answer. I'm just pointing out why a statement like "God gave us freedom" is nonsense. I'm not saying God didn't give us freedom. I'm saying that the statement is meaningless. It's like saying that your flarge is blargled.

 

[popsthebuilder]

2:67. (Recall) when Moses said to his people for their own good, ‘Verily, Allâh commands you to slaughter a cow.’ They said, ‘Do you make a mockery of us?’ He said, ‘I seek refuge with Allâh from being of the ignorant.’

10:26. There shall be the fairest reward and a good deal more for those who do good to others. Neither gloom nor ignominy shall overspread their faces. It is these who are the owners of the Paradise, there they shall abide forever. 10:27. And those who knowingly committed evil deeds, they shall be punished in measure with the evil done and ignominy shall cover them. They shall have none to protect them against Allâh. And as if their faces have been covered with patches of night with no light. It is these who are t he fellows of the Fire, they shall abide in it for long.

Just a start

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

2:67. (Recall) when Moses said to his people for their own good, ‘Verily, Allâh commands you to slaughter a cow.’ They said, ‘Do you make a mockery of us?’ He said, ‘I seek refuge with Allâh from being of the ignorant.’

10:26. There shall be the fairest reward and a good deal more for those who do good to others. Neither gloom nor ignominy shall overspread their faces. It is these who are the owners of the Paradise, there they shall abide forever. 10:27. And those who knowingly committed evil deeds, they shall be punished in measure with the evil done and ignominy shall cover them. They shall have none to protect them against Allâh. And as if their faces have been covered with patches of night with no light. It is these who are t he fellows of the Fire, they shall abide in it for long.

Just a start

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Exactly. Don't be good to each other because it's the right thing to do because [insert justification]. It's; be good or else. It's just threats. This isn't words of wisdom. This is a school yard bully.

 

[skepticalbip]

2:67. (Recall) when Moses said to his people for their own good, ‘Verily, Allâh commands you to slaughter a cow.’ They said, ‘Do you make a mockery of us?’ He said, ‘I seek refuge with Allâh from being of the ignorant.’

10:26. There shall be the fairest reward and a good deal more for those who do good to others. Neither gloom nor ignominy shall overspread their faces. It is these who are the owners of the Paradise, there they shall abide forever. 10:27. And those who knowingly committed evil deeds, they shall be punished in measure with the evil done and ignominy shall cover them. They shall have none to protect them against Allâh. And as if their faces have been covered with patches of night with no light. It is these who are t he fellows of the Fire, they shall abide in it for long.

Just a start

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Exactly. Don't be good to each other because it's the right thing to do because [insert justification]. It's; be good or else. It's just threats. This isn't words of wisdom. This is a school yard bully.

Popsthebuilder is apparently trying to draw a distinction. When a thug tells you to act in a certain way or the gang leader will kill your children in front of you then break your legs, then that is a threat. However when someone relaying the demands of some skydaddy tells you to act in a certain way or the skydaddy will send you to hell to be tortured then that is a warning. The skydaddy doesn't want to send you to hell - he has no choice. You made the skydaddy do it. You didn't make the gang leader kill your children and break your legs - he did it only because he is an authoritarian, evil bastard that gets pissed when anyone doesn't obey his demands.

 

[bilby]

Exactly. Don't be good to each other because it's the right thing to do because [insert justification]. It's; be good or else. It's just threats. This isn't words of wisdom. This is a school yard bully.

Popsthebuilder is apparently trying to draw a distinction. When a thug tells you to act in a certain way or the gang leader will kill your children in front of you then break your legs, then that is a threat. However when someone relaying the demands of some skydaddy tells you to act in a certain way or the skydaddy will send you to hell to be tortured then that is a warning. The skydaddy doesn't want to send you to hell - he has no choice. You made the skydaddy do it. You didn't make the gang leader kill your children and break your legs - he did it only because he is an authoritarian, evil bastard that gets pissed when anyone doesn't obey his demands.

'I didn't want to, but your behaviour left me with no choice' is a poor excuse from a mobster.

It is downright illogical from an omnipotent entity.

But then, logic and gods are fundamentally incompatible. One must choose one or the other; you cannot have both.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Popsthebuilder is apparently trying to draw a distinction. When a thug tells you to act in a certain way or the gang leader will kill your children in front of you then break your legs, then that is a threat. However when someone relaying the demands of some skydaddy tells you to act in a certain way or the skydaddy will send you to hell to be tortured then that is a warning. The skydaddy doesn't want to send you to hell - he has no choice. You made the skydaddy do it. You didn't make the gang leader kill your children and break your legs - he did it only because he is an authoritarian, evil bastard that gets pissed when anyone doesn't obey his demands.

'I didn't want to, but your behaviour left me with no choice' is a poor excuse from a mobster.

It is downright illogical from an omnipotent entity.

But then, logic and gods are fundamentally incompatible. One must choose one or the other; you cannot have both.

Does explain the death of the dinosaurs.
-"You lot behave or that funny looking over-weight lizard gets it".
-"hey, I'm just big-boned".

 

[DBT]

2:67. (Recall) when Moses said to his people for their own good, ‘Verily, Allâh commands you to slaughter a cow.’ They said, ‘Do you make a mockery of us?’ He said, ‘I seek refuge with Allâh from being of the ignorant.’

Moses did not worship Allah. His God was Yahweh, the god of the tribe of Israel.

 

[DrZoidberg]

2:67. (Recall) when Moses said to his people for their own good, ‘Verily, Allâh commands you to slaughter a cow.’ They said, ‘Do you make a mockery of us?’ He said, ‘I seek refuge with Allâh from being of the ignorant.’

Moses did not worship Allah. His God was Yahweh, the god of the tribe of Israel.

You are wrong. In Islamic theology Yahweh is Allah. Moses (or Musa) is considered an Islamic prophet and was spreading the teachings of Islam. Muslims consider the Torah as being equal in sacredness to the Quran. And before you go and say that this sounds crazy and makes no sense because these are clearly different gods. Does it sound more crazy than the rest of it?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Moses did not worship Allah. His God was Yahweh, the god of the tribe of Israel.

You are wrong. In Islamic theology Yahweh is Allah. Moses (or Musa) is considered an Islamic prophet and was spreading the teachings of Islam. Muslims consider the Torah as being equal in sacredness to the Quran. And before you go and say that this sounds crazy and makes no sense because these are clearly different gods. Does it sound more crazy than the rest of it?

What am I wrong about? Your going off on some tangent I don't even know. Yes Islam considers Moses a messenger/ prophet of GOD. No, they do not consider the Torah to have th e same significance as the Qur'an. What difference does it make if they did though? And yes, they consider the God of Abraham to be their God and the only true GOD. Again what is your point?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.