Question for Creationists

First topic message reminder :

QUESTION FOR CREATIONISTS

For the sake of this argument we must assume God was responsible for the creation of all life on Earth.    To put the question in the right perspective, a brief quote from Genesis:

Genesis 24: ‘And God went on to say “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to their kind.” And it came to be.’

Now the scene is set for this serious question to our Creationist members:
If God was/is so powerful, able to create suns and planets, and all the life on Earth, why create dinosaurs then allow them to be exterminated from the planet about 65 million years ago? This event was believed to have been caused by a meteor 6 miles wide, (and a couple of others) slamming into Earth. Coupled with huge volcanic eruptions such events caused a change in the atmosphere, consequently responsible for a climate change making food resources in short supply and the ultimate death of the dinosaurs, coupled with poisonous gasses from the volcanic eruptions. This was exacerbated  due to thick dust  darkening the skies for a year or more causing the death and destruction of a lot of plant life as well as the dinosaurs.

As asked above, why did God allow this to happen and have to start all over again with different, new species of life? Surely with his power he could have stopped the meteors, or was it beyond his abilities, thereby making him not so powerful as portrayed and believed?

Over to you folks.

Brasidas wrote:Also disappointed you have not taken on on Victors point Zack.
Like he says this is a golden opportunity to explain your faith how you view as a practicing Muslim.

I've answered Vic above as to why we are tested. What else have I missed?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Then it is not perfect which it claims to be and to claim it is a test is basically nothing short of a contradiction.
These are jut more excuses to me as to why the religion contradicts.
The worst part is that a perfect and complete boik should need outside unauthenticated sources.
The outsider test is difficult to do for people because they will hold back in how they view their own faith compared to how they would view another.

As the one of the verses stated above, God could have created us with perfect knowledge that is easy to understand but the Quran also serves as a purpose to test our wisdom.

Some get it wrong.  That doesn't make the book imperfect. It makes people imperfect.  

Great it also claims to be perfect and complete and something perfect would negate needing to test people, as it ceases to be perfect because then people can fail to understand the message.
So it certainly does make the book imperfect.
Something open to interpretation is not perfect.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Also disappointed you have not taken on on Victors point Zack.
Like he says this is a golden opportunity to explain your faith how you view as a practicing Muslim.

I've answered Vic above as to why we are tested. What else have I missed?

The majority of his points.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I've answered Vic above as to why we are tested. What else have I missed?

The majority of his points.

Such as?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

The majority of his points.

Such as?

Come one zack most of the points based around your own deity based on tests.
Is up to you, just is disappointing you are using a link which is again views of Muslims themselves in regards to this test based on the verses.
Hey ho

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

As the one of the verses stated above, God could have created us with perfect knowledge that is easy to understand but the Quran also serves as a purpose to test our wisdom.

Some get it wrong.  That doesn't make the book imperfect. It makes people imperfect.  

Great it also claims to be perfect and complete and something perfect would negate needing to test people, as it ceases to be perfect because then people can fail to understand the message.
So it certainly does make the book imperfect.
Something open to interpretation is not perfect.

A perfect book can still test people. And indeed should. You were the one saying one should test their faith. The Quran enables that. Some will fail the test. But that is by design.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Great it also claims to be perfect and complete and something perfect would negate needing to test people, as it ceases to be perfect because then people can fail to understand the message.
So it certainly does make the book imperfect.
Something open to interpretation is not perfect.

A perfect book can still test people. And indeed should. You were the one saying one should test their faith.  The Quran enables that. Some will fail the test. But that is by design.

A perfect book is not open to interpretation regardless of a test, let alone translation variations.
You do realise early arabic had no vowels.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Such as?

Come one zack most of the points based around your own deity based on tests.
Is up to you, just is disappointing you are using a link which is again views of Muslims themselves in regards to this test based on the verses.
Hey ho

Funny how you can't actually state any of his points you think I've missed.

And after you called me a liar, of course I'm going to use links from other Muslims to show you I don't make stuff up as I go along.

So make your mind up which one you want and stop flipping.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Come one zack most of the points based around your own deity based on tests.
Is up to you, just is disappointing you are using a link which is again views of Muslims themselves in regards to this test based on the verses.
Hey ho

Funny how you can't actually state any of his points you think I've missed.

And after you called me a liar, of course I'm going to use links from other Muslims to show you I don't make stuff up as I go along.

So make your mind up which one you want and stop flipping.

You are being a mssive copou, of course I can go back and point them all out, you are just avoiding them and clearly so.
Not concerend whether you do or not
As far as i am concerned Victors points remain unchallenged.
So the ball is in your court until you do.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

A perfect book can still test people. And indeed should. You were the one saying one should test their faith.  The Quran enables that. Some will fail the test. But that is by design.

A perfect book is not open to interpretation regardless of a test, let alone translation variations.
You do realise early arabic had no vowels.

It used 'short vowels'.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Funny how you can't actually state any of his points you think I've missed.

And after you called me a liar, of course I'm going to use links from other Muslims to show you I don't make stuff up as I go along.

So make your mind up which one you want and stop flipping.

You are being a mssive copou, of course I can go back and point them all out, you are just avoiding them and clearly so.
Not concerend whether you do or not
As far as i am concerned Victors points remain unchallenged.
So the ball is in your court until you do.

I'm not copping out - I asked you nicely for some help.

From what I've read of his posts, I've answered all his points. Esp. About why we're tested.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

A perfect book is not open to interpretation regardless of a test, let alone translation variations.
You do realise early arabic had no vowels.

It used 'short vowels'.

Really where is this earliest Quran to confirm this?
The incomplete Samarkand Kufic Quran has no vowels

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

It used 'short vowels'.

Really where is this earliest Quran to confirm this?
The incomplete Samarkand Kufic Quran has no vowels

The red dots are short vowels.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Really where is this earliest Quran to confirm this?
The incomplete Samarkand Kufic Quran has no vowels

The red dots are short vowels.

Nonsense, that is again more evidence of interepretation.
This also shows the book differs in its earliest incomplete form.
That is variation for you and open to error.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The red dots are short vowels.

Nonsense, that is again more evidence of interepretation.
This also shows the book differs in its earliest incomplete form.
That is variation for you and open to error.

Lol! Nonsense? Interpretation?

Of course you think I'm a liar or employing some taqiyah tactics - so you can educate yourself.

See the Kufi script again - red dots were used as short vowels to help with pronounciation.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Nonsense, that is again more evidence of interepretation.
This also shows the book differs in its earliest incomplete form.
That is variation for you and open to error.

Lol! Nonsense? Interpretation?

Of course you think I'm a liar or employing some taqiyah tactics - so you can educate yourself.

See the Kufi script again - red dots were used as short vowels to help with pronounciation.

Please, you are making me laugh now, it had no vowels, and the earliest arabic is very much open to interpretation.
So you need to educate yourself on your own faith, when I am showing up the massive flaws:




Uthman's version was written in an older Arabic script that left out most vowel markings; thus the script could be interpreted and read in various ways. This basic Uthmanic script is called the rasm; it is the basis of several traditions of oral recitation, differing in minor points. The Quran is always written in the Uthmanic Rasm (Rasm al Uthman). In order to fix these oral recitations and prevent any mistakes, scribes and scholars began annotating the Uthmanic rasm with various diacritical marks indicating how the word was to be pronounced.




His Excellency, the Minister of Public Instruction.

The Commander of the Zariavshansky District has handed over to me a Qur'an, written on parchment in Kufic characters without diacritical points or vowels, which previously was in the possession of the Mosque of Khoja Akhrar in Samarqand. Being aware of the great value of this Qur'an, and its sacredness in the eyes of the Muslims, Major General Abramov commissioned the Commander of the Samarqand District, Lieutenant Colonel Sierov, to investigate whether the acquisition by us of that manuscript would in any way violate the religious susceptibilities of the community. The 'Ulama' of the Mosque and certain honourable citizens testified:

1) that this Qur'an, though it was permanently deposited in the Mosque of Khoja Akhrar, did not really belong to it, but was regarded as the possession of the Crown, being the property of the Emir of Bokhara.

2) that this Qur'an is at present of no importance either to the Muslim community or to the Mosque. Formerly (indeed, very long ago) it used to attract many worshipers, but lately only the Emirs ar­riving at Samarqand have worshiped before it.

3) that nobody is able to read it, and that for many years it has been lying around without any use.

Thereupon Major General Abramov received the book, and in return for it donated from his own money 500 kokans (100 roubles), with which the clergy of Samar­qand were completely satisfied.

In view of the fact that such a book may, from a bibliographical point of view, be of great value to the scholarly world, I hasten to send the Qur'an thus ac­quired to your Excellency, together with the depositions of the two 'Ulema' of the Mosque of Khoja Akhrar, Mullah Abdul Jalil and Mullah Mughin Mufti, as ar­ranged by me, describing the origin of the Qur'an and how it came to the Mosque of Akhrar, and I humbly ask you, Sir, to deliver the book with the enclosed depositions, in my name, as a gift to the Imperial Library.

Signed-Adjutant General von Kaufmann.
Countersigned-Director of Chancellery
Major General Gomzin.


Oh Dear.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Re: shaking my faith. I have no problem with this. I do it to myself all the time. This is how I test my faith.

Zack we may have different faiths - well I don't actually have one but do believe in god - but we both see things very similarly!
I've agreed with alot of your posts

Some people believe Elvis is still alive, at least we allow such silliness in the world .

The only thing non-believers ever say is "prove it!" when believers say they believe in God, and yet they're happy to believe in science even though scientists don't have all the answers.

We are happy to believe in the goodness and love of our loved ones, even though, at times, it may appear that a loved one is being "horrible" or "rude" or "unloveable"
We have faith in them and don't stop loving them becasue they aren't perfect.

It seems the only argument non-believers have is that "If God is so perfect why does he let bad things happen?"

Yet no one ever claimed he was perfect, did they?
I don't think he is; I'm made in his image (or come from him) and I'm not perfect.

There is no such thing as perfect; name soemthing that is!

eddie wrote:The only thing non-believers ever say is "prove it!" when believers say they believe in God, and yet  they're happy to believe in science even though scientists don't have all the answers.

We are happy to believe in the goodness and love of our loved ones, even though, at times, it may appear that a loved one is being "horrible" or "rude" or "unloveable"
We have faith in them and don't stop loving them becasue they aren't perfect.

It seems the only argument non-believers have is that "If God is so perfect why does he let bad things happen?"

Yet no one ever claimed he was perfect, did they?
I don't think he is; I'm made in his image (or come from him) and I'm not perfect.

There is no such thing as perfect; name soemthing that is!

No we do not say anything like that, we know there is no evidence so we have no need to ask any such thing if there is no evidence.
To me religion is a form of mental illness, because people do believe in something they cannot prove themselves exist. Not only that the pain and harm religion does based off false beliefs is what concerns me more than anything else. The dgoma and ideology, where it allows people to lose any rational thoughts because of views on faith. There is many rational reasons against such a being you are just seeiong some of them, but the reality is religion does hold a sway over people which can be very dangerous when they believe in commands.
You yourself seem to follow a deity which is very useless to be honest based on the views you follow.
Its up to you what you believe, but I have watched 6 members of my family slowly die and watch countless of my family waste time praying over them with a daft belief they are going to be saved through divine intervention. Their time would have been better spent accepting the situation. Reaching out to something that is not there is a wasetless pray. Its so silly how people still cling to such false hope, where it is so damaging to people where they see they efforts and prays are not answered. They fear to admit that nobody is listening, because nobody is.

Religion is a form of mental illness? Hahahaha that is laughable didge, seriously!

Perhaps arguing until you're blue in the face, spitting feathers and repeating yourself over and over and over and over...........
Perhaps that's a form of mental illness?

Perhaps being too logical and not having any faith in something just because it's not "proven" is a form of mental illness??

I've often heard you say that you shouldn't put everyone in th same box, or tar with the same brush and there you are, calling every religious person "mentally ill"

Seriously????? So you will go on record as saying all Muslims are mentally ill? Those same Muslims you defend woth every ounce of yourself over on flap???

Seriously??????

eddie wrote:Religion is a firm of mental illness? Hahahaha that is laughable didge, seriously!

Perhaps arguing until you're blue in the face, spitting feathers and repeating yourself over and over and over and over...........
Perhaps that's a form of mental illness?

Perhaps being too logical and not having any faith in something just because it's not "proven" is a form of mental illness??

I've often heard you say that you shouldn't put everyone in th same box, or tar with the same brush and there you are, calling every religious person "mentally ill"

Seriously?????

Seriously it is a form of mental illness.
Most people would laugh at someone if they claimed to be both Muhammad and Jesus today, and in some countries they would be stonned to death. If somebody says they speak to God and a God answers them, most people would think they were insane, yet stick a religious label on this with prayer and people excuse this insanity.


Harris continues by examining the nature of belief itself, challenging the notion that we can in any sense enjoy freedom of belief, and arguing that "belief is a fount of action in potentia." Instead he posits that in order to be useful, beliefs must be both logically coherent, and truly representative of the real world. Insofar as religious belief fails to ground itself in empirical evidence, Harris likens religion to a form of mental illness which, he says, "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy." He argues that there may be "sanity in numbers", but that it is "merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your prayers, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window."


Harris ios right it is a form of mental illness

For Eddie to watch:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7662-one-of-the-best-smack-downs-on-religious-belief

Didge I'm afraid that I won't be watching that.
My belief in "God" or a "higher power" if we don't want to use names, is very real.
I've had my "proof" - very real proof - on two separate and very spiritual occasions.

I don't feel the need to argue the intricacies becasue I've already said what I think.

Zack will understand this: People who don't want to know will never want to know and no amount of words will ever change them as they see things in black and white only.

And btw? I really do know I'm quite a long way from mentally ill.

eddie wrote:Didge I'm afraid that I won't be watching that.
My belief in "God" or a "higher power" if we don't want to use names, is very real.
I've had my "proof" - very real proof - on two separate and very spiritual occasions.

I don't feel the need to argue the intricacies becasue I've already said what I think.

Zack will understand this: People who don't want to know will never want to know and no amount of words will ever change them as they see things in black and white only.

And btw? I really do know I'm quite a long way from mentally ill.

Which says it all, that those religious shy away from anything that may make them challenge their perceptions.
You forget I was once very religious myself and believed with all my heart in God, I then later saw that this was nothing short of being lied and fooled to.
So its again up to you what you believe but it is like also what I have said that many people will never look at what they believe with the oustider test.
I not claiming you are mentally unbalanced but the belief in religion certainly can be viewed along this line where people believe that there prayers are being heard or even worse answered. It brings about false hope. This to me is so wrong emotionally to how it does affect people.
You see here again you are taking this as an insult, but if again somebody said to you they have fairies visit their bedroom each night and they engage in orgies you would think they were a nutball. So what is any different in your views? The point is and like I said to Ben the other day, you can never reason with religious people because they take offense so easily, because they are unwilling to look with a critical eye at their beliefs.

I don't follow a religion didge. That's the first thing that I need to correct you on.

Secondary, why would I need my perceptions challenged? What can you do but put up an argument that's just as valid as mine? Becasue as I've stated, no one can prove anything either way.

Why do prayers bring about false hope didge? If praying helps someone fall asleep easier then what's wrong with that?
Some might say that arguing on a forum before you fall asleep is detrimental to a good night's sleep whereas praying is peaceful and quiet and just like "consoling yourself" if you believe someone is listening.

Personally, I don't pray as I think unless you're praying for totally unselfish reasons, them it's pointless.
I'm also a believer in fate - which is probably why I don't think God steps in whenever we feel he should.

eddie wrote:I don't follow a religion didge. That's the first thing that I need to correct you on.

Secondary, why would I need my perceptions challenged? What can you do but put up an argument that's just as valid as mine? Becasue as I've stated, no one can prove anything either way.

Why do prayers bring about false hope didge? If praying helps someone fall asleep easier then what's wrong with that?
Some might say that arguing on a forum before you fall asleep is detrimental to a good night's sleep whereas praying is peaceful and quiet and just like "consoling yourself" if you believe someone is listening.

Personally, I don't pray as I think unless you're praying for totally unselfish reasons, them it's pointless.
I'm also a believer in fate - which is probably why I don't think God steps in whenever we feel he should.

You have your own religion, with a belief in God.
My view is you shy away from your views being challenged to the pointg you have made the last few posts as if we are the ones wrong here and we only have one argumnent against this, when the reality is there is no eveidence of a God. You came into this making that assertion and I have followed up on your claims.
As I say its up to you what you believe but religion can and does bring false hope.
Your view of a deity is not even something I would class a a god, only something that was intelligent more so than humans, where it is incapble of doing anything.
The fact is you cannot prove your God exists, I have no need to find any evidence, because there is no evidence for amn existance of a deity.
Belief is born around a fear of death in many cases.
Belief is also born around a fear of what might happen in the afterlife.
Which ever way you look at it belief in God is based around fear in its simplest form..
You choose to make your views just as i will challenge them, which is what a forum is all about.
All faith gives to people is a false reassurance to that there is something after the physical body dies.

My belief is not based around fear of death?
Im not afraid of dying, perhaps worried about my children, but not scared of dying per se.

No I cannot prove God exists and you cannot prove he doesn't.

I'm not sure most people who believe in God only believe to get a seat in heaven either!
I'm not sure if I believe in a "heaven" (up for interpretation) or reincarnation anyway....so that view certainly doesn't hold true for me.

I just know that from an early age, and with zero input from my parents who never swayed me either way, I "found" God on my own.
I am very spiritual.

Ive had experiences that I won't deliver to non-believers lol as I onlymshare them with people more open to God (sorry that ain't a dig at you or anyone just a fact)

Been nice debating on a thread without it descending into a slanging match for once, hasn't it? X

That is silly to say I may not be able to connect because I am a fine with spirituality, which can have no religious affiliation, where not only that I was once very religious and believed in God.

Anyhow yes it has been nice, we rarely have slanging matches anyway so fail to see the relevance of that.

Haven't been on this thread.  Quick look a while back, and thought it said "Questions for Cartoonists".

Hi Quill. Indeed I asked a question about the demise of the dinosaurs, but there wasn't much response to it, instead the discussion has taken a side-turning and seems to be concentrating on believing or not believing. When we read some of the Old Testament stories, which were written by very pimitive people, (by our standards), there can be only one conclusion, that due to ignorance of the reason for many natural events, many of those stories are pure fiction.

stardesk wrote:Hi Quill. Indeed I asked a question about the demise of the dinosaurs, but there wasn't much response to it, instead the discussion has taken a side-turning and seems to be concentrating on believing or not believing. When we read some of the Old Testament stories, which were written by very pimitive people, (by our standards), there can be only one conclusion, that due to ignorance of the reason for many natural events, many of those stories are pure fiction.

Well,to be fair I think I did try to answer your question in my first post lol but these kind of threads always end up about people trying to prove or disprove God.

Perhaps you should have made it more hypothetical and made the rules tighter, then not so much room for manoeuvre.

stardesk wrote:QUESTION FOR CREATIONISTS

For the sake of this argument we must assume God was responsible for the creation of all life on Earth.    To put the question in the right perspective, a brief quote from Genesis:

Genesis 24: ‘And God went on to say “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to their kind.” And it came to be.’

Now the scene is set for this serious question to our Creationist members:
If God was/is so powerful, able to create suns and planets, and all the life on Earth, why create dinosaurs then allow them to be exterminated from the planet about 65 million years ago? This event was believed to have been caused by a meteor 6 miles wide, (and a couple of others) slamming into Earth. Coupled with huge volcanic eruptions such events caused a change in the atmosphere, consequently responsible for a climate change making food resources in short supply and the ultimate death of the dinosaurs, coupled with poisonous gasses from the volcanic eruptions. This was exacerbated  due to thick dust  darkening the skies for a year or more causing the death and destruction of a lot of plant life as well as the dinosaurs.

As asked above, why did God allow this to happen and have to start all over again with different, new species of life? Surely with his power he could have stopped the meteors, or was it beyond his abilities, thereby making him not so powerful as portrayed and believed?

Over to you folks.

And I'm going to answer your question with two very telling questions:

Why did you click on "new topic" and ask a random question and doesn't it feel good to write on nice clean white space when you want to create something and find some answers?

Brasidas wrote:For Eddie to watch:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7662-one-of-the-best-smack-downs-on-religious-belief

it is funny but it only applies to Abrahamism
In a lot of ways I dislike Sam Harris... he is an ignorant racist twat... much like Dawkins..

they have found provable fault in one religion and one definition of god(s) and then proceed to claim it applies to all when just reading the basic explanation of some other religions will show that is not the case. they NEVER made any of the claims that Harris or Dawkins are refuting, And both simply refuse to listen to or accept that what they are talking about is Not nor ever was part of their belief system.. they act just like Colonial era Europeans and just try and shout over smaller weaker cultures and deny them their beliefs and history simple because they don't fit with in the very limited framework they accept and are willing to debate.

the Dalai Lama has already made mockery of ALL his arguments. Because Buddhists can Change their system on encountering a better explanation..
Buddhist are encouraged to reach their own opinion through observation and meditation.. Science's Critical difference it the requirement of Mathematical evidence.. but apart from that the reach for the same goal... enlightenment through he attainment of knowledge about the universe

stardesk wrote:Hi Quill. Indeed I asked a question about the demise of the dinosaurs, but there wasn't much response to it, instead the discussion has taken a side-turning and seems to be concentrating on believing or not believing. When we read some of the Old Testament stories, which were written by very pimitive people, (by our standards), there can be only one conclusion, that due to ignorance of the reason for many natural events, many of those stories are pure fiction.

well first you would need to find some that denies palaeontology

the issue is Newsfixers are too smart for that.
As I don't think Eddie denies dinosaurs... The only one that really call themselves Christian are Raggs and Groomsy and I still doubt either of them don't believe in dinosaurs

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:For Eddie to watch:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7662-one-of-the-best-smack-downs-on-religious-belief

it is funny but it only applies to Abrahamism
In a lot of ways I dislike Sam Harris... he is an ignorant racist twat... much like Dawkins..

they have found provable fault in one religion and one definition of god(s) and then proceed to claim it applies to all when just reading the basic explanation of some other religions will show that is not the case. they NEVER made any of the claims that Harris or Dawkins are refuting, And both simply refuse to listen to or accept that what they are talking about is Not nor ever was part of their belief system.. they act just like Colonial era Europeans and just try and shout over smaller weaker cultures and deny them their beliefs and history simple because they don't fit with in the very limited framework they accept and are willing to debate.

the Dalai Lama has already made mockery of ALL his arguments. Because Buddhists can Change their system on encountering a better explanation..
Buddhist are encouraged to reach their own opinion through observation and meditation.. Science's Critical difference it the requirement of Mathematical evidence.. but apart from that the reach for the same goal... enlightenment through he attainment of knowledge about the universe

What a load of gobbledygook.
So now two brilliant liberal minded men are now some how racist based on no evidence other than you have no comprehension what racism is.
Try taking on their points, instead of some feeble attempt to bash them. Both have earned the far greater credibility then you would ever hope to achieve based off their works. Just because you believe something is a better argument does not mean it is, it again proves my point on religious people being so clouded in their judgements. They have found fault in many religions and also good points in religions, which shows you have no conception what you are talking about or have even read any of their books it seems. They just see that there is no evidence for a God and have are very critical of the very poor and discriminating parts of religion, which they like any sound minded person will see as bad.
So if you want to take on their points, please do not even attempt to claim someone is better because you think so.

Eddie, spirituality does not = to a belief in god.

You can be a Buddhist atheist, no one would say a Buddhist isn't spiritual.

And you can't really compare your experience with god to Zack's. His god is much different to your god. His god has massive expectations and endless rules (many nonsensical) about how humans should behave. Fact is you, Zack, George W and a Hindu guru all believe in something very different BUT you are all resolute that YOU believe in the TRUE god.

@brasiadis
Already did
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7857-having-criticized-atheism-now-its-time-to-defend-it-against-strawmen#162620

Really easily you see
for starters the leader of the world 3rd largest religion Straight up Contradicted his assertion About NOT adapting to Science... He talks about something he knows SO LITTLE about he completely ignored the the Largest NON ABRAHAMIC Religion in the world, that interacts PEACEFULLY with other religions and has coexisted with them for Millennia.

   Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

   Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is "appropriate for us to worship".

that Idea that you can discount all but the Abrahamic definitions of the Divine is RACIST as fuck and plain cheating, NO!! Humanity is not limited to such pathetic idea as Abrahamism TO even suggest it just shows how little they have investigated the beliefs of billions of people that are not descended from Europe or with such closed mind as to not consider them on their own terms and only through he preconception of Abrahamism..

'Gods' in a lump of coal FITS fine in Shinto-ism. yet he claim this centuries old religion that has been followed by hundreds of million of people. Should not even be discussed since it varies too far from HIS personal preconceived ideas.


Sorry but when A guys points relys on telling Multiple cultures and religions that Their beliefs Do not count at all!! they Are not even allowed to be discussed and HE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER their definitions that they have been using for thousands of years!!!

there is a name for that person 'A RACIST PIECE OF SHIT'

Honestly Anyone that finds anything enlightening in Dawkins work is pretty thick...  Did you not learn to count until you were in your teens?? I have been able to bring scripture teachers to tears since I was 8 years old, disproving the Bible is a child's game.. Being able to count gives you enough knowledge to disprove it.

Eilzel wrote:Eddie, spirituality does not = to a belief in god.

You can be a Buddhist atheist, no one would say a Buddhist isn't spiritual.

And you can't really compare your experience with god to Zack's. His god is much different to your god. His god has massive expectations and endless rules (many nonsensical) about how humans should behave. Fact is you, Zack, George W and a Hindu guru all believe in something very different BUT you are all resolute that YOU believe in the TRUE god.

Buddhism is a non-deist religion... Atheism makes no sense in it's context that is part of the reason I am so Sure atheism is just a mentally simplistic assertion having been more exposed myself to Buddhist Philosophy than Christian. the Possibilities are more apparent, the requirements that Abrahamism sets are stupid.

veya_victaous wrote:@brasiadis
Already did
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7857-having-criticized-atheism-now-its-time-to-defend-it-against-strawmen#162620

Really easily you see
for starters the leader of the world 3rd largest religion Straight up Contradicted his assertion About NOT adapting to Science... He talks about something he knows SO LITTLE about he completely ignored the the Largest NON ABRAHAMIC Religion in the world, that interacts PEACEFULLY with other religions and has coexisted with them for Millennia.

   Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

   Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is "appropriate for us to worship".

that Idea that you can discount all but the Abrahamic definitions of the Divine is RACIST as fuck and plain cheating, NO!! Humanity is not limited to such pathetic idea as Abrahamism TO even suggest it just shows how little they have investigated the beliefs of billions of people that are not descended from Europe or with such closed mind as to not consider them on their own terms and only through he preconception of Abrahamism..

'Gods' in a lump of coal FITS fine in Shinto-ism. yet he claim this centuries old religion that has been followed by hundreds of million of people. Should not even be discussed since it varies too far from HIS personal preconceived ideas.


Sorry but when I guys points rely on telling Multiple cultures and religions that Their beliefs Do not count at all!! they Are not even allowed to be discussed and HE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER their definitions that they have been using for thousands of years!!!

there is a name for that person 'A RACIST PIECE OF SHIT'

Honestly Anyone that finds anything enlightening in Dawkins work is pretty thick...  Did you not learn to count until you were in your teens?? I have been able to bring scripture teachers to tears since I was 8 years old, disproving the Bible is a child's game.. Being able to count gives you enough knowledge to disprove it.

Ok first of all how is there is anything 'racist' about defining god in a particular way? You are totally misusing (indeed abusing) the term when you say things like that. Especially considering people who DO define god in an Abrahamic way (by whichever doctrine they follow) range from Latinos, white Europeans and Americans, black people everywhere, middle-easterners and even people in the far east.

Again on the definition of god, in the God Delusion, Dawkins' makes it clear he is talking about god as in a 'creator'. And unless you are being really petty over his use of a word then it ought to be understood that atheism directly addresses belief in the idea of a god that is a creator (a 'theist' believes in a creator god, usually- but not always- one god). 'A' theism should therefore be taken as being the opposite of theism (or deism) and not twisted into being a comment on every other branch of religion out there.

It is NOT racist by any definition.

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Eddie, spirituality does not = to a belief in god.

You can be a Buddhist atheist, no one would say a Buddhist isn't spiritual.

And you can't really compare your experience with god to Zack's. His god is much different to your god. His god has massive expectations and endless rules (many nonsensical) about how humans should behave. Fact is you, Zack, George W and a Hindu guru all believe in something very different BUT you are all resolute that YOU believe in the TRUE god.

Buddhism is a non-deist religion... Atheism makes no sense in it's context that is part of the reason I am so Sure atheism is just a mentally simplistic assertion having been more exposed myself to Buddhist Philosophy than Christian. the Possibilities are more apparent, the requirements that Abrahamism sets are stupid.

Atheism is simply disbelief in a creator god. It is entirely compatible with Buddhism (though I don't follow Buddhism myself).

Sorry I am now laughing that they are racist based on a myth, if they discount this.

Seriously Veya you did not do anything and will see if others want to debate, because you are one wackadoodle to think people are racist based off a myth.
I suggest you take it up with the scientists who shows there is no utter evidence and you are just a bloke on a forum.
If you think you have proven them wrong, where is the academic paper you have presented?

Please I want to see this where scientist have been proven wrong and you have the evidence. Can we also have the peer review.
It is not racist to dismiss myths out of hand, which goes for any ethnicity or culture. It this has nothing to do with racism all but religion, so stop making the most idiotic claims as you have just proven you have no idea what racism is.

I seriously am thinking of putting you on ignore you are that bloody stupid that I am astounded the nonsense you keep coming outwith.
This conversation is over on this thread between us after that load of bollocks.


So basically you are calling Eilzel, Ben and myself etc racist, because we dismiss religion out of hand.

Sure they will appreciate that load of bollocks.

I suggest you stop smoking the crack.


laters

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@brasiadis
Already did
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7857-having-criticized-atheism-now-its-time-to-defend-it-against-strawmen#162620

Really easily you see
for starters the leader of the world 3rd largest religion Straight up Contradicted his assertion About NOT adapting to Science... He talks about something he knows SO LITTLE about he completely ignored the the Largest NON ABRAHAMIC Religion in the world, that interacts PEACEFULLY with other religions and has coexisted with them for Millennia.




that Idea that you can discount all but the Abrahamic definitions of the Divine is RACIST as fuck and plain cheating, NO!! Humanity is not limited to such pathetic idea as Abrahamism TO even suggest it just shows how little they have investigated the beliefs of billions of people that are not descended from Europe or with such closed mind as to not consider them on their own terms and only through he preconception of Abrahamism..

'Gods' in a lump of coal FITS fine in Shinto-ism. yet he claim this centuries old religion that has been followed by hundreds of million of people. Should not even be discussed since it varies too far from HIS personal preconceived ideas.


Sorry but when I guys points rely on telling Multiple cultures and religions that Their beliefs Do not count at all!! they Are not even allowed to be discussed and HE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER their definitions that they have been using for thousands of years!!!

there is a name for that person 'A RACIST PIECE OF SHIT'

Honestly Anyone that finds anything enlightening in Dawkins work is pretty thick...  Did you not learn to count until you were in your teens?? I have been able to bring scripture teachers to tears since I was 8 years old, disproving the Bible is a child's game.. Being able to count gives you enough knowledge to disprove it.

Ok first of all how is there is anything 'racist' about defining god in a particular way? You are totally misusing (indeed abusing) the term when you say things like that. Especially considering people who DO define god in an Abrahamic way (by whichever doctrine they follow) range from Latinos, white Europeans and Americans, black people everywhere, middle-easterners and even people in the far east.

Again on the definition of god, in the God Delusion, Dawkins' makes it clear he is talking about god as in a 'creator'. And unless you are being really petty over his use of a word then it ought to be understood that atheism directly addresses belief in the idea of a god that is a creator (a 'theist' believes in a creator god, usually- but not always- one god). 'A' theism should therefore be taken as being the opposite of theism (or deism) and not twisted into being a comment on every other branch of religion out there.

It is NOT racist by any definition.

See you later Eilzel, the debate has turned into farce with nonsense claims like this.
See you in a few hours as all us atheists are now racist apparantly according to the delusional world of Veya.

Enjoy mate, I will rejoin when others are back on and hope Veya turns back to normal when I return

See you later didge

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@brasiadis
Already did
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7857-having-criticized-atheism-now-its-time-to-defend-it-against-strawmen#162620

Really easily you see
for starters the leader of the world 3rd largest religion Straight up Contradicted his assertion About NOT adapting to Science... He talks about something he knows SO LITTLE about he completely ignored the the Largest NON ABRAHAMIC Religion in the world, that interacts PEACEFULLY with other religions and has coexisted with them for Millennia.

   Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

   Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is "appropriate for us to worship".

that Idea that you can discount all but the Abrahamic definitions of the Divine is RACIST as fuck and plain cheating, NO!! Humanity is not limited to such pathetic idea as Abrahamism TO even suggest it just shows how little they have investigated the beliefs of billions of people that are not descended from Europe or with such closed mind as to not consider them on their own terms and only through he preconception of Abrahamism..

'Gods' in a lump of coal FITS fine in Shinto-ism. yet he claim this centuries old religion that has been followed by hundreds of million of people. Should not even be discussed since it varies too far from HIS personal preconceived ideas.


Sorry but when I guys points rely on telling Multiple cultures and religions that Their beliefs Do not count at all!! they Are not even allowed to be discussed and HE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER their definitions that they have been using for thousands of years!!!

there is a name for that person 'A RACIST PIECE OF SHIT'

Honestly Anyone that finds anything enlightening in Dawkins work is pretty thick...  Did you not learn to count until you were in your teens?? I have been able to bring scripture teachers to tears since I was 8 years old, disproving the Bible is a child's game.. Being able to count gives you enough knowledge to disprove it.

Ok first of all how is there is anything 'racist' about defining god in a particular way? You are totally misusing (indeed abusing) the term when you say things like that. Especially considering people who DO define god in an Abrahamic way (by whichever doctrine they follow) range from Latinos, white Europeans and Americans, black people everywhere, middle-easterners and even people in the far east.

Again on the definition of god, in the God Delusion, Dawkins' makes it clear he is talking about god as in a 'creator'. And unless you are being really petty over his use of a word then it ought to be understood that atheism directly addresses belief in the idea of a god that is a creator (a 'theist' believes in a creator god, usually- but not always- one god). 'A' theism should therefore be taken as being the opposite of theism (or deism) and not twisted into being a comment on every other branch of religion out there.

It is NOT racist by any definition.

Actually your whole argument about why it is not is RACIST and Disrespectful to ANY NOT ABRAHAMIST
Why do I OR ANYONE ELSE have to accept your White man's already proven Wrong Definition??? HE is RACIST because he is telling me I HAVE To use HIS definition ONLY, If I want to use a definition that is held by another race he is going to stick his fingers in his ears and sing LALALLALALAL.

AND 2 why on earth use a Definition that you know is wrong? that is either being disingenuous and not actually debating anything? Literally IF you tried that in any debating Club You would be Laughed at for being pathetic.
But No this guy has So many Blind Faithful that they lap it up like he was the fucking Pope.

AT no Point EVER in his entire career has he address Plato's Animus, He has never addressed Buddhism. Obvious from his statements he doesn't even understand the cross relationship Between Buddhism and Hinduism (Buddha is a Hindu God).
Man the Guy is So SMART he can Make up a definition then prove that Specific Definition is wrong Fuck me Why not just follow the bible if your gonna refuse to think

Yes as you point out he is taking about 1 VERY specific God and then proceeds to make claims about ALL religious people..
Gods are linked to Cultures and Races.
So Yes Very Racist TO TELL other people What they can believe, Even when Your really telling them what you believe or YOUR old culture did! how the fuck does that apply to them.

So even if NOT racist then he is Just Stupid

AND he is Racist BECAUSE he is telling propel they CANT even propose what they have believed for hundreds or even thousands of years... he literally just reduces their entire history and culture to nothing While raising his own to 100% all importance..

IF you cant see how that is Racism Then Obviously England hasn't improved since the colonial era.. European Definitions are no more important than anyone else's .. to promote them as being the ONLY ones.. is beyond disrespectful.

NO Atheism Does NOT address the idea of god as a creator,
Another Abrahamism being FORCED of people by another white man forcing his opinion (yeah and how did those other races start believing this crap OH yeah White guys KILLED them if they didn't)

For Starters Atheist existed before Christians and THEIR definition of god as a creator

The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods",

So yeah Atheism Actually comes from the Age of Plato. THUS why he has works showing how it could be wrong.. You see Plato Is actually smart so when he believes something rather than railroading everyone into accepting a very limited definition He goes out of his way to try and Prove him self wrong. he opened up his definitions to any possibility he could think of or someone else proposed to him.. Because Unlike Dawkins his isn't a Cheat using mental shorthand and proceeding to make humanity dumber through simplifying ideas that are not simple.

I repeat Dawkins is only enlightening to those that have not sort information for themselves. Plato proved Dawkins logic wrong over 2300 years ago.

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ok first of all how is there is anything 'racist' about defining god in a particular way? You are totally misusing (indeed abusing) the term when you say things like that. Especially considering people who DO define god in an Abrahamic way (by whichever doctrine they follow) range from Latinos, white Europeans and Americans, black people everywhere, middle-easterners and even people in the far east.

Again on the definition of god, in the God Delusion, Dawkins' makes it clear he is talking about god as in a 'creator'. And unless you are being really petty over his use of a word then it ought to be understood that atheism directly addresses belief in the idea of a god that is a creator (a 'theist' believes in a creator god, usually- but not always- one god). 'A' theism should therefore be taken as being the opposite of theism (or deism) and not twisted into being a comment on every other branch of religion out there.

It is NOT racist by any definition.

Actually your whole argument about why it is not is RACIST and Disrespectful to ANY NOT ABRAHAMIST
Why do I OR ANYONE ELSE  have to accept your White man's already proven Wrong Definition??? HE is RACIST because he is telling me I HAVE To use HIS definition ONLY, If I want to use a definition that is held by another race he is going to stick his fingers in his ears and sing LALALLALALAL.  

AND 2 why on earth use a Definition that you know is wrong?  that is either being disingenuous and not actually debating anything? Literally IF you tried that in any debating Club You would be Laughed at for being pathetic.
But No this guy has So many Blind Faithful that they lap it up like he was the fucking Pope.

AT no Point EVER in his entire career has he address Plato's Animus, He has never addressed Buddhism. Obvious from his statements he doesn't even understand the cross relationship Between Buddhism and Hinduism (Buddha is a Hindu God).
Man the Guy is So SMART he can Make up a definition then prove that Specific Definition is wrong             Fuck me Why not just follow the bible if your gonna refuse to think

Yes as you point out he is taking about 1 VERY specific God and then proceeds to make claims about ALL religious people..
Gods are linked to Cultures and Races.
So Yes Very Racist TO TELL other people What they can believe, Even when Your really telling them what you believe or YOUR old culture did! how the fuck does that apply to them.

So even if NOT racist then he is Just Stupid

1. Racism is based on prejudice based on race- atheism, of which there are black, white, Asian, etc does not differentiate. Nor do the religious. That you want to pigeon hole religions according to race is actually the racist assumption here.

2. Dawkins' has talked little about Buddhism- but he doesn't NEED to. Since Buddhism is not in itself a THEISTIC religion.

3. Buddha is a Hindu god according to Hindus. He is an avatar of Vishnu. BUT according to millions of Buddhists around the world Buddha is NOT a god and the man himself did NOT consider himself to be one. So Buddhism and atheism can and indeed do co-exist often.

4. No atheism does not address one specific god. It addresses the god of the 3 core Abrahamic faiths, it also addresses the gods of Hinduism, and it also addresses the long 'dead' gods of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt etc. It addresses ANY religion or believe which suggest a 'god' 'created' 'everything' one way or another- which all those faiths do- Buddhism and some others do NOT do that, ergo they are NOT the targets of atheism. Since 'theism' or even 'deism' are specifically beliefs about a creator god/s.

5. What do you actually understand by the word 'theism' (no a) because you are all over the show until you pin that one down.

6. If I tell you you MUST be a socialist, that is NOT racist. Nor is it racist to state it is silly to believe in gods of any kind. You are just using a stock word based on the simplistic background notion that all atheists are intelligent white men and believers are colourful tribal people.

veya_victaous wrote:AND he is Racist BECAUSE he is telling propel they CANT even propose what they have believed for hundreds or even thousands of years... he literally just reduces their entire history and culture to nothing While raising his own to 100% all importance..

IF you cant see how that is Racism Then Obviously England hasn't improved since the colonial era.. European Definitions are no more important than anyone else's .. to promote them as being the ONLY ones.. is beyond disrespectful.

Dictionary of Veya Victaous:

R- Racism

Telling people they can't propose what they have believed for hundreds of years.











Yeah your definition of 'racism' and mine (and Oxford's) are vastly different veya.