Islam And the Law Of Non Contradiction.

[Vermehlo_Steele]

Give up Icup, then again you fanatics never do.

How can the Kuran be written 1300 years ago by a handful of power-hungry old men and women be true? It's riddled with inconsistancies and probblems (see, J.T.'s post sources). Your muslim tendancy to say "STFU n00bz, it b word of Allah G, so it b tru, broo!1!!" is just a rather sad attempt to avoid crucial discussion that all belief systems need to improve themselves. But the, what would an uncivilised infidel like me know?

 

[Profesco]

I asked, Icup, because it seemed like you were very passionate about the religion. I feel it would be rude of me, not to mention a head-to-brick wall waste of time, to try and break through religious conviction.

And maybe we shouldn't focus so heavily on breaking people's religious convictions. Not only will it never work (and you all know that), it would be a shame to see this thread become what so many religiously inclined debates have in the past. At least this started out with a bit of a unique twist.

 

[shadow wolf]

Ha, Steele's an infidel.
I don't know what the Qu'ran says but how are other books not logical?

 

[Icup]

Not like you. You just make baseless claims. Totally different.



I have yet to see a single religion that does not rely on blind faith over logic. You act like your religion's the only one accused of such.



Your point? Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and according to the Bible, he had proof.



Some miracle.



Which is precisely what every other religion says about their own holy book. What makes yours so special?



According to the Quran, correct? If Mohammed had wanted to add to his claim of divinity, or simply just wanted people to start following his beliefs, he could easily lie in the Quran and say he was illiterate.



Holy ****ing ****, that's completely unprecedented! I mean, books containing facts? Surely you jest.



Similar claims have been made about the Bible.



Because it's inconceivable that someone would ever see a fetus. Also, you can say that something is "similar to" another thing without the two looking anything alike.



Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Pregnant women need to eat more, feel weaker, and experience all sorts of symptoms that would lead to comparisons of leeches.



And? Logic back then probably went "it's really big, it's really heavy, maybe it's used to hold it down". I don't know the context of the quote, though, so I can't say for sure.



And back then, freshwater and saltwater never met in areas where people could examine it. Ever.



One, I highly doubt they used those exact words.
Two, anyone who had ever been in a very high place - say, climbing a mountain - would realize, whoa, things change when you climb higher. You get less oxygen, lower air pressure, etc. I don't think it would take a lot of thinking to gather "well, if things happen as you go up, more things must happen as you go up more!"



For rather loose definitions of the word "recently".



We know the Quran is authentic because the Quran says so, and we know the Quran is true because the Quran says so, and oh my god the logic is making me dizzy.



Clearly, He didn't do a great job.



Are you kidding me? There's an example of a contradiction in the very first freaking post of this topic! This one page lists over a hundred of them!



Well, I'd damn well hope any well-written book would be grammatically correct.



Depending on your definition of unique, the same could be said of any book, factual or fictional.



Shocker.



And?



The Bible. Or hell, any religious text.



Really. Explain to me how the Bible is not similar. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that no one in the history of the world has ever created even a single verse that is in any way similar to the Quran. The Bible itself is loaded with similar verses.



Just because you refuse to see them, doesn't mean they're not there.



Once again, it's easy to claim it hasn't been disproven if you ignore every argument presented.



How about hundreds?



Again, explain to me how the Bible does not fit this criteria, and explain to me how not having a known copycat book proves it to be true.



Well, to be fair, you're technically right. There isn't a contradiction, there's several.

But okay, if contradictions don't count, how about scientific and biological inaccuracies? The Quran claims that man is created from a fluid between the loins and ribs (but semen originates in the testicles); Sura 16:66 says that cow's milk comes from between the excrement and blood of the cow's abdomen (um, what?); Sura 16:69 says that honey comes out of a bee's abdomen; Sura 6:38 claims that all animals and flying beings form societies like ours; Sura 25:45-46 claims that the movement of the sun causes shadows (supporting a geocentric universe model, rather than the correct heliocentric one); and according to Sura 65:12, "It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths" (I'd love to know what the other six Earths are; if they mean the other planets, then they got the number wrong).



Some miracle.



Face it, you use just as much blind faith as any other religious person.



You have yet to validly prove the Quran is a miracle in itself.



I'm not going to pretend that a single, 45-minute forum post is going to disprove an entire religion, but eh.

Ok...those were some interesting links. Now they were made by who and what has been said been proven? If it has don't you think that there would have been a huge impact on the Islamic world? And also the person who wrote this by translating the Quran (I'm pretty sure he doesn't speak Arabic, and if he DOES..then it's probably all on how he interpreted the book) it does change the meaning.

But...whatever to you your beliefs and to me my beliefs, it's getting late and I don't feel like replying to your post in great detail.

 

[Vermehlo_Steele]

Ok...those were some interesting links. Now they were made by who and what has been said been proven? If it has don't you think that there would have been a huge impact on the Islamic world? And also the person who wrote this by translating the Quran (I'm pretty sure he doesn't speak Arabic, and if he DOES..then it's probably all on how he interpreted the book) it does change the meaning.

It's like art really, for if you look hard enough and you'll see anything you want to. Humans are very good at polishing over the facts and interpreting what they will. Islam is just a hypocritical and flawed as all belief systems. Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Hinduism all have their problems. Noone's perfect.

The thing with Islam is that most (notice my wording there) muslims tend to say "It's teh wordz of gawd, so it be better than u'r pathetic delusions", Other faiths have been beaten and criticised (sometimes with a lot of malice), yet noone ever says anything even remotely critical of Islam for fear of their lives.

 

[DarkPsychoBoost]

After TheFightingPikachu's ignorant assertions, it was only a matter of time for a response like Icup's to show up. Hate breeds hate, you see.

Ok well following my theolgical studies, heres two Al Qu'ranic scriptures.


9:5 "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful."

and

Qur'an 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."

(Emphasis Added)

Now are these contradictory, or can both be used in Islam in a non contradictory manner?

Debate.

It's very easy to cherry-pick any two verses and show them as contradictory, isn't it?

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/surah9_5.asp

The above link should be an answer to your question, but ill explain here as well. Below are the first five verses of the surah from which you posted verse 9:5.

“A declaration of the dissolution of agreements from God and His messenger to the idolaters with whom you have made [no-war] agreements. Thus, you [O polytheists] may freely traverse in the land for four months, but know that you shall not escape God's judgment and that God shall surely humble the unbelievers. A proclamation [should be made] to these people from God and His messenger on the day of Hajj-e-Akbar , [declaring] that God and His messenger are no longer under any obligation toward these polytheists. If you repent, [O polytheists,] it shall be better for you but if you turn your backs [paying no heed], then know that you shall not be able to escape God's judgment. Give these rejecters the glad tidings of a painful punishment, except those polytheists who have not dishonored their treaties with you and have not aided anyone against you. With these, fulfill your treaties till the appointed term. Indeed, God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them.” ( Al-Taubah 9: 1 – 5)

(note bolded part)
The verse only refers to those who had broken the treaty at that time, not everyone.

Now was that too hard to understand?

In the first post, Ninja penguin mentioned the law of non-contradiction. It should be noted that said law should only apply to those holy scriptures which are still in their original form i.e those which are proved not to be changed by men in any way. If a scripture or book is modified then it means that contradictions which existed in it beforehand were most likely removed later on. Thus invalidating the authenticity of said scripture.

 

[7 tyranitars]

sounds like a 7th century horror story that last part

but I'ts hard to translate something that has been rewriten for 13 centuries and things could have changed it's like telling someon a story and that persons tell another one and another one etc. till it's back to you but then you hear a differend story

 

[The_Panda]

I don't really want to argue with any religious fundamentalists here... so I guess I'll argue with people who I would (largely) agree with.

The thing with Islam is that most (notice my wording there) muslims tend to say "It's teh wordz of gawd, so it be better than u'r pathetic delusions", Other faiths have been beaten and criticised (sometimes with a lot of malice), yet noone ever says anything even remotely critical of Islam for fear of their lives.

There are several things wrong with this. The first and most obvious part is your conclusion, that "noone ever says anything even remotely critical of Islam for fear of their lives". That's just so obviously not true. Atheists, feminists, fundamentalist Christian groups and many others tend to criticise Islam very harshly (and Islam, not Islamism). Some people (like Salman Rushdie) get into huge trouble over supposed blasphemy but by and large you'll realise that nothing substantial ever comes out. The second major point of criticism I have is that even if there was a real substantial danger in me admitting I really don't like a lot of stuff that goes on in much of the Islamic world today (which is an admission I'll make), it's not really one unique to Islam. If I said I disliked the bible and I lived in say Spain in around 1500, I'd be dead, wouldn't I? A lot of these supposed bad things about Islam, while awful, aren't really unique to Islam in any way... in previous time periods Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and many other religions had similar phases of serious repression. The third major problem is that while I'd admit there are calls for Fatwa on people like Salman Rushdie, this isn't peculiar to Islam. Violence inspired by Christian belief isn't nonexistent, you can see the numerous murders of abortion doctors for evidence of that. My fourth point of contention isn't really a serious argument, rather I'd like to say that childish imitative straw-men don't make the opponents argument look silly, rather your own.

I don't like the large amount of Islamophobia hanging around society at the moment though. For one, I think it's simply irrational. Take headscarves for example as an issue. People who think they should be banned usually use fronts such as security in banks as an excuse, but in reality it's somewhat obvious its a guise for xenophobia (xenophobia isn't very good at disguise anyway). The thing is if you go to a place like Singapore, which is about 10% Muslim, one of the things you notice is that while a tenth of the women wear headscarves, it's not a menacing or evil thing in any way. There are stores devoted to selling headscarves and other Islamic garments, and in some ways it can be quite pretty. The most fundamental thing though is it's not any impediment on society at all, and Singaporeans more or less just live with it as a permanent part of that countries' multicultural identity. After living in Singapore for a year (and especially after going to Malaysia several times) you do realise exactly how valuable tolerance is.

On the other hand, Islamophobia is in some ways a cycle (as is xenophobia in general). The more people complain about immigrants and multiculturalism, the more alienated immigrant groups become, and from that the problems arise. It's because of the alienation, the lack of a sense of belonging that general racist attitudes espouse that half the problems demagogues rave on about arise in the first place. The Italian community in Australia is well integrated (much better than it was in the 50's and 60's) not because suddenly the Italian 'gangs' disappeared some time twenty or so years ago, but because we grew far more accepting as a whole. What I hope you'll see is that the demagoguery about Islam is more harmful to the fabric of society than whatever minor problems said demagogues proclaim.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Open-Mindedness

What I mean here is that if we are going to believe extraordinary things solely only eyewitness accounts, it makes about as much sense as a guy with some overall knowledge of how we should live and die (sounds like someone familiar?).

Solely on eyewitness accounts? What other types of accounts would you prefer? What better types of accounts are there? Are there even any other types of accounts?

Fine. I'm not going to bet then and I do not have the knowledge of the history of Islam to continue further with this point, but what I wanted to leave you with here is that I see no difference in logic used in both of these religions. Both have shaky grounds in many areas, and I honestly think if somebody's going to choose between the other, it's just going to be preference.

You see no difference in logic? Muhammed assumed away history; I go with history. (They teach history in schools BTW.) What you are saying is that no matter what the evidence says, you “just can’t” believe in something outside of your own experience. Now that is just based on preference.

Another miracle of the Quran is it's AUTHENTICITY! Something that every holy scripture was unable to have...is the Old\New testament authentic? Is the Torah authentic?

The New Testament's Gospel of Mark was written no later than A.D 70, as even most liberal scholars admit. That indicates that it was written close to Jesus' life. It's only about forty years removed from Jesus' life, while most ancient biographies are more than a hundred years after their subjects.

This bugs me.

How is it biased? I don't have any reason to believe that something so outrageous and reality-denying has ever happened. I could get a bunch of people who'll swear that they've seen Criss Angel teleport from the top of a building to the ground, but what would that prove?

The fact that it bugs you shows your bias. Historians, even liberal ones, consider it a historical reality that Jesus performed deeds that were extraordinary. They might doubt whether these were actually supernatural, but there is no reason they can't be supernatural.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Eyewitness accounts" in a number of books, written 2,000 years ago, filled to the brim with contradictions, does not qualify as "extraordinary evidence", especially when the only only reason we have to believe that it's 100% true is its own say-so.

Only on the Bible's say-so? What I quoted was not the Bible. I quoted the Talmud, which is considered a reliable source of historical information regarding 2,000 year ago Jewish culture. It is opposed to Jesus, so to compare that to bribing people is simply...history/religion/logic fail. Totally.
BTW, what constitutes extraordinary evidence in history if not eyewitness accounts? Do you expect archaeologists to dig up a miracle?

The Bible claims that pi is 3, rabbits chew their cud, and bats are birds. I don't have to assume anything to know that those are incorrect.

(1) The Bible never states "pi=3" so I know you interpreted a bit. How do you know your own highly dogmatic reading of that passage is the only one?
(2) I believe the word you're looking for is "hare." And since you believe evolution, J.T., how do you know that no hares or rabbits chewed cud several thousand years ago?
(3) Did you know that some ancient Greek scientists' classification systems labeled bats birds? Why do you insist on judging an ancient book by modern standards?
A quote from Profesco applies to all three:

Strawman, maybe? That's not very nice of you.

Perhaps you're being a bit presumptuous and arrogant to assume we're atheists out of ignorance.

Perhaps.

Well first, GhostAnime--like you and Muhammed--are willing to ignore the evidence that Jesus did miracles. So I don't call you unintelligent, but you are ignoring history.

And second, GhostAnime presumes to defend Islam, which he doesn't believe and which he later admits he doesn't know enough about Islam; all while he's seeking to get out from the weight of the evidence...yet you call me presumptuous?

After TheFightingPikachu's ignorant assertions, it was only a matter of time for a response like Icup's to show up. Hate breeds hate, you see.

Ignorant? I think the word you are looking for is historical. And don't think I hate Muslims just because I disagree with them.

Jesus died as ancient sources unanimously affirm. Muhammed denied this, which makes him a revisionist.

Yep. I'd be angry if it wasn't so sad. It's looking like open-mindedness is a virtue urged on Christians while atheists feel free to be as closed-minded as they like.

 

[GhostAnime]

Solely on eyewitness accounts? What other types of accounts would you prefer?

Hint hint. This is me saying eyewitness accounts aren't things I trust by themselves.

(They teach history in schools BTW.)

I took history in both college and high school. Jesus is scarcely mentioned as anything more than a prophet.

So how am I being biased?

So I don't call you unintelligent, but you are ignoring history.

You do realize that you haven't actually posted a credible source that says historians say anything, right?

 

[Profesco]

So whatever happened to "Islam and the Law of Non-Contradiction?"

 

[J.T.]

The fact that it bugs you shows your bias.

The hell? I don't like being told that I'm biased when I'm not. How the hell does that prove your point?

Historians, even liberal ones, consider it a historical reality that Jesus performed deeds that were extraordinary.

And anyone living in modern times will say that David Blaine, Criss Angel, and other street magicians do "extraordinary" things. If you see one of them do something like that in public or on TV, you'd stop and say "whoa, how did he do that?!" - I highly doubt you'd think it was real. Now if your friend told you they saw Criss Angel do some ridiculously crazy trick (but you didn't personally see it, or hadn't even heard of him), you probably wouldn't even believe it at all. But somehow, being told by a book that some guy did some crazy tricks thousands of years ago, without any proof to back itself up, and we're not only supposed to believe it, but worship the guy?

They might doubt whether these were actually supernatural, but there is no reason they can't be supernatural.

There's no reason it couldn't be supernatural? Seriously? How about the fact that supernatural things have not been proven to occur. It's entirely possible that there's a supernatural explanation for lightning, and it's really Zeus chucking things at us because he's ******/bored. But that hasn't been proven to be the case.

Only on the Bible's say-so? What I quoted was not the Bible.

Never said it was.

I quoted the Talmud, which is considered a reliable source of historical information regarding 2,000 year ago Jewish culture. It is opposed to Jesus, so to compare that to bribing people is simply...history/religion/logic fail. Totally.

Quick search resulted in this. Look at the "Commenting on the COmmentary" section.

BTW, what constitutes extraordinary evidence in history if not eyewitness accounts? Do you expect archaeologists to dig up a miracle?

I expect them to bring up evidence of such a miracle occurring, or at least to show that he could have done everything that he was claimed to have done.

(1) The Bible never states "pi=3" so I know you interpreted a bit.

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it – ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. (NIV)

In this passage, the ratio of cubits to gourds is said to be 30:10 - in other words, 3:1.

How do you know your own highly dogmatic reading of that passage is the only one?

It's the clearest one that comes to mind when I read it, and I believe the most literal. How do you know your reading of that passage is the only correct one? For that matter, how do you know your interpretation of any verse is the correct one?

Also how convenient that you can handwave any inaccuracy in your holy book just by saying "you're interpreting it wrong lols". Icup's just as guilty of this.

(2) I believe the word you're looking for is "hare."

Oh, that makes things better.

And since you believe evolution, J.T., how do you know that no hares or rabbits chewed cud several thousand years ago?

Because no evidence of them ever existing and evolving away from such a state has never arisen.

Oh, by the way, you just implied that the Bible could be wrong.

(3) Did you know that some ancient Greek scientists' classification systems labeled bats birds?

You'd think a "divinely inspired" book would do better than that. Or are you admitting that it was written by fallible human beings who can and probably will make mistakes?

Why do you insist on judging an ancient book by modern standards?

Because you insist on judging modern standards according to your ancient book. According to you, your Bible should be taken as fact. Whether or not it was commonly known fact at the time it was written is irrelevant - you and people like you claim the Bible is God's Word, the key to salvation, and factual. If God's divinely inspired book has a mistake in it, then something is wrong with what you're saying.

A quote from Profesco applies to all three:

How is this a strawman? This is all directly from your source material.

Well first, GhostAnime--like you and Muhammed--are willing to ignore the evidence that Jesus did miracles.

Show me the ****ing evidence. Look at it this way - eyewitness accounts are never enough to convict a person of a crime. You. Need. Proof. Your claims are not exempt from that rule.

So I don't call you unintelligent, but you are ignoring history.

And like GA said, you have no sources for any of your historical claims.

And second, GhostAnime presumes to defend Islam, which he doesn't believe and which he later admits he doesn't know enough about Islam;

It's called playing devil's advocate. It's a valid debate method, and it helps to affirm your knowledge of both sides or just plain make the debate more interesting. The fact that he was able to defend his argument reasonably well despite the fact that he doesn't believe it says something.

all while he's seeking to get out from the weight of the evidence...

How so? You have yet to show any evidence. Get on with it and show it to us if you have it. You did this in the evolution topic too.

yet you call me presumptuous?

"lololol i think he's more presumptuous than me, therefore i can't possibly be presumptuous"

Ignorant? I think the word you are looking for is historical.

You have yet to prove that one word of what you've said is historical.

Jesus died as ancient sources unanimously affirm.

No ****. Everyone dies. It's entirely possible that Jesus existed, but whether or not he was the Son of God and whether or not he did all that they say he did is a bigger question.

Yep. I'd be angry if it wasn't so sad. It's looking like open-mindedness is a virtue urged on Christians while atheists feel free to be as closed-minded as they like.

Close-minded refers to those who don't even consider new ideas, not those who consider them and reject them based on evidence (or lack thereof).

Ok...those were some interesting links. Now they were made by who and what has been said been proven?

I don't have a Quran on hand, but I'm pretty sure I can pull a Google search on all the verses mentioned and find multiple sites with that verse.

If it has don't you think that there would have been a huge impact on the Islamic world?

Not if you guys ignore them. Hey, it's done well for pretty much every other religion ever.

And also the person who wrote this by translating the Quran (I'm pretty sure he doesn't speak Arabic, and if he DOES..then it's probably all on how he interpreted the book) it does change the meaning.

Which you said God wouldn't allow.

and if he DOES..then it's probably all on how he interpreted the book

Okay. So how does one know what is the correct interpretation? How do you know his is wrong and yours isn't?

 

[Vermehlo_Steele]

You know what I don't like, Panda? It's people who scream "RACISM!!1!" when a genuine debate about religion/culture comes up. How xenophobia/racism came up in your speech, I'll never really know (last I looked, Islam is a RELIGION, not a RACE/ETHNICITY, maybe your being steroetypical here Panda...)

While I'll take the fact that mainstream society isn't being fully cooperative (I hate ACA, I would be a terrorist to kill that program and all connected to it, if I could) but, at the same time muslims need to lighten up a little and open themselves to the scorn and criticism that all other belief systems have to endure.

a sociologist Michael Humphrey, who has studied Australia’s Lebanese community, said that Muslim community in Australia were defensive upon anything regarded as being direct criticism and negative pressure over them. Humphrey observed that Muslims in Australia were talking by their ethnical terminologies more than about the more local Islam. They preferred to refer the Middle Eastern ethnical root as the base of Islam’s birth. There has been no attempt, for instance, to create a new model of Islam which is specific to Australia, which would lead to the more comprehensive way to assimilation.

You get problems, da?

Now, while the media likes to show him as an Evil Conservative, Cardinal Pell is a smart fellow and does have valid points.
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/...cared-of-criticising-islam-20090312-8whz.html

The outspoken Catholic Archbishop of Sydney said laws intended to promote tolerance were being used to stifle debate, which was "fermenting intolerance under the surface".

Da, we are scared of offending muslims, Internationally and Nationally. Now while racism does need to be crushed, let's not crush debate and concerns at the same time.

Now Panda, you said

That's just so obviously not true. Atheists, feminists, fundamentalist Christian groups and many others tend to criticise Islam very harshly (and Islam, not Islamism). Some people (like Salman Rushdie) get into huge trouble over supposed blasphemy but by and large you'll realise that nothing substantial ever comes out.

Never heard of the director of the movie 'Submission'? Never heard of the Dansk cartoonist? Here is a list of critics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam#Responses_to_criticism) pretty much all on the list have been threatened in some way (Hirsi Ali requires constant police guard just because she defends women's rights in Islamic societies, the SELFISH INFIDEL BI-TCH!!1!)


Basically, what I'm saying is that society ranges form discrimantory ideology to suspicion, but while discrimination is tragic and will always be harmed by it (the repressed always have their revenge, one way of another) can you really blame the post 9-11 world? Western Society needs to be more welcoming, but Muslims need to drop the "I'm a muslim and are holier than thou" mentality of exclusion and hyper-piety. I know this as there is a muslim community where I live, and they aren't angels and it isn't completely non-muslims fault, contary to common liberal belief. I want to be tolerant to muslims, but most resemble Osama bin Laden or Islamic Rage Boy more than they resemble Waleed Aly or post-1964 Malcolm X. I'm fine with everyone else (Roughly half of my friends are non-white, BTW), but you can't deny that trouble and bitterness arise whenever muslims come into contact with other civilizations.

It's the fault of both sides, not one and one alone and you know what? the solution will only come when both sides compromise and give respect.



Holy Mudkip, I'll go back to the topic; If one or a few contradictions ever rendered a religion false, then ALL religions are then false. But then, how can 33% of the world's population (Christianity's adherents) or 20% (Islam's adherents) of the world population be incorrect?

 

[J.T.]

But then, how can 33% of the world's population (Christianity's adherents) or 20% (Islam's adherents) of the world population be incorrect?

Quite easily. Please recall, for example, when nearly 100% of the world believed the earth was flat. Or when they believed the earth was the center of the universe, and all celestial bodies were encased in crystal spheres orbiting the earth.

 

[GhostAnime]

Lol popularity is a reason to believe in something. This is new.

 

[Vermehlo_Steele]

Yes, a divine being is comparable to flat earth... spherical planets are fact and can be proven with certainty, but the presence of deities is a question of faith and perception. This is either truth or the biggest delusion ever.

I don't believe in Christianity because other people do, GA. I'm not even Christian.

 

[GhostAnime]

Yes, but at the same time you seem to imply the popularity of a perception makes it harder to be wrong. Anything can be wrong regardless of what people think.

 

[Vermehlo_Steele]

Lets look at Christianity in context. It is pprevelant in Europe, Russia, North/Central/South America, West/Southern/Central Africa/ Australia and parts of Asia (predominately parts of China, the Phillipines and cluster all around Asia).

These lands are some the most educated and populated; now if a foreign religion can have such pulling power, than how exactly can it be overly wrong? Popularity may not make something right, but if 33% of the world comes to accept and keep Christianity, even with the development and education of N.America, Europe, Russia and parts of Asia, than that says something about even a part of it's teachings. People don't (generally) accept things that are evil, stupid and against the ordinary flow of the world, da?

 

[Rabidmunchlax]

The Islamic god isn't forgiving or merciful in the first place.

Neither is Yahweh, or the old testament god

 

[X~ Gengar ~X]

The Islamic god isn't forgiving or merciful in the first place.

Allah will forgive you for saying that.