disbelievers of God - Holy Quran & Holy Bible What Is The Main Difference Between Religions?

[iGuest 3]

disbelievers of God - Holy Quran & Holy BibleWhat Is The Main Difference Between Religions?

Doesn't the KORAN when it talks about disbelievers of Allah:

"Take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you a clear warrant."

AND

"I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger."

The BIBLE when it talks of non-christians says:

"thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."

AND

"Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, wether man or woman."

[Saint_Michael 3]

Names and places and thats pretty much it other then that most religions are the same, kill the infidels or try to convert the infidels and if they can't be converted then kill them. Religion is about power and control and fear and for those who say our religion is about peace are lying to you because all religions roots have murder and chaos in them, but some religions take it a bit to far with some horrible brain washing people that the need to kill for Allah or God and that pretty much sums it up for most of the religions. Violence begin religions and violence ends religions that is the only truth about them, just ask the radical Islamist's and most of the middle east who hate Israel and or the Jewish race, even Christianity was started from violence and hatred, just look at the Old Testament and the conquest of the America's and other parts of the world during the 1500-to now abotu converting the savages.

[truefusion 3]

I'm not sure if this is wishful thinking on my side, but maybe some day people will stop commiting the fallacy of taking things out of context.

What Is The Main Difference Between Religions?

By the looks of the topic, this question is rhetorical, so there's no point in answering it. The interesting part is the topic starter quotes from two Abrahamic religions. Since it'll be better if a Muslim explained the Qur'anic verses, i'll just explain the Biblical verses.

The BIBLE when it talks of non-christians says:

Those verses are no where in the New Testament. You were misinformed or assumed improperly.

"thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."

Kindly provide the verse number next time—Deuteronomy 13:9. The context is about a false prophet who tries to lead people into sin—detestable sin. The wages of sin is death. Consider the following scenario to help you better understand the reasoning behind the context: There was once a man who enjoyed manipulating people into doing what would only lead to their doom. He was quite cunning in his ways, capable of manipulating people to do things that he wanted without them knowing it. He brought distress and chaos into peoples' lives, many losing their lives because of it. You have two choices: allow this person to continue in their ways, or put an end to his ways. By portraying the verse in a way that you believe is a bad thing, you are therefore in favor of this person's deeds. Therefore what loses integrity and credibility is not the verse, but you yourself. This is what happens with ignorance.

"Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, wether man or woman."

Verse: 2 Chronicles 15:13. Here's the irony: if you read chapter 15, you'll realize that this was done to cease the wars that were happening at that time and the distress that came with these wars. If we look at verse 19 (the last verse in the chapter), you'll find that they succeeded for a while:

There was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of Asa's reign.

Names and places and thats pretty much it other then that most religions are the same, kill the infidels or try to convert the infidels and if they can't be converted then kill them. Religion is about power and control and fear and for those who say our religion is about peace are lying to you because all religions roots have murder and chaos in them, but some religions take it a bit to far with some horrible brain washing people that the need to kill for Allah or God and that pretty much sums it up for most of the religions. Violence begin religions and violence ends religions that is the only truth about them, just ask the radical Islamist's and most of the middle east who hate Israel and or the Jewish race, even Christianity was started from violence and hatred, just look at the Old Testament and the conquest of the America's and other parts of the world during the 1500-to now abotu converting the savages.

The main fallacy you commit in this statement is hasty generalization. You state that due to how religion has been misused, that therefore means that religion itself is inherently evil—this is obviously flawed. You also speak like the only religions that exist are the Abrahamic ones—the topic starter commits this same fallacy, so you're not alone in this one. No religion has a large amount of good representatives. Not even those that say that they have no faith can represent themselves well. It's not a new fact; the only thing is that Christianity seems to be the only one that acknowledges that a person can never work themselves into Heaven.

[mahesh2k 0]

disbelievers of God - Holy Quran & Holy Bible

 

What Is The Main Difference Between Religions?

 

 

 

<p><strong>Doesn't the KORAN when it talks about disbelievers of Allah:</strong></p>

<p><em>"Take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you a clear warrant."</em></p>

<p>AND</p>

<p><em>"I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger."</em></p>

<p><strong>The BIBLE when it talks of non-christians says:</strong></p>

<p><em>"thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."</em></p>

<p>AND </p>

<p><em>"Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, wether man or woman."</em></p>

 

This whole thing shows that, how much religions are feeling unsecured that if anyone disbelieves their holy comic book, how they'll be treated by society. Thank galactus for taking society out of such useless delusion for manipulating society. Just because people are getting out of this delusion, humans are making progress. Otherwise it was pretty clear that how religion manipulated people and created hatred/wars earlier. Still religions are doing the work of spreading hatred and faith manipulation in the name of imaginary friend to oppose agnostics/atheists. Hope thy'll get well soon out of this delusive psychological disorder.

[truefusion 3]

This whole thing shows that, how much religions are feeling unsecured that if anyone disbelieves their holy comic book, how they'll be treated by society. Thank galactus for taking society out of such useless delusion for manipulating society. Just because people are getting out of this delusion, humans are making progress. Otherwise it was pretty clear that how religion manipulated people and created hatred/wars earlier. Still religions are doing the work of spreading hatred and faith manipulation in the name of imaginary friend to oppose agnostics/atheists. Hope thy'll get well soon out of this delusive psychological disorder.

Actually, this whole thing shows just how much unbelievers are willing to accept things that are taken out of context (i.e. just how gullible they are, too). You talk about people being manipulated by tactics taken by believers. How apparent is it for this for unbelievers? One simple, small, taken-out-of-context example, and you already are in some kind of hidden agreement, even though the topic starter commited obvious fallacies just like everyone else who is in agreement. But for some reason these fallacies aren't obvious to those who agree. You talk about the believers spreading hatred and faith manipulation against unbelievers, yet you and this topic shows the same thing except it is against believers.

[mahesh2k 0]

How apparent is it for this for unbelievers? One simple, small, taken-out-of-context example, and you already are in some kind of hidden agreement, even though the topic starter commited obvious fallacies just like everyone else who is in agreement. But for some reason these fallacies aren't obvious to those who agree.

I call this circular logic believers use to counter every explanation that non-believers give. Remember, how Copernicus/Galileo treated when they made sense with their discoveries?

You talk about the believers spreading hatred and faith manipulation against unbelievers, yet you and this topic shows the same thing except it is against believers.

I disagree. Just because i pointed out this will not going to make me fall in that category. And look at the world around you, you'll get proof of it that how believers are responsible for chaos around the world. It's just that some believers like you managed to debate for the sake of religion & to keep faith alive. And every time, we make point against this delusion & superstitious imaginary concept it is usually taken as offense by believers isn't it? Look at your reply, even you took at as offense.

[truefusion 3]

I call this circular logic believers use to counter every explanation that non-believers give. Remember, how Copernicus/Galileo treated when they made sense with their discoveries?

Call it what you want, but you still need to show it's circular. And concerning Copernicus or Galileo, i never studied them, but were they told that they used circular arguments without the opposing side showing that they did? My arguments have reason and are observable.

I disagree. Just because i pointed out this will not going to make me fall in that category. And look at the world around you, you'll get proof of it that how believers are responsible for chaos around the world. It's just that some believers like you managed to debate for the sake of religion & to keep faith alive. And every time, we make point against this delusion & superstitious imaginary concept it is usually taken as offense by believers isn't it? Look at your reply, even you took at as offense.

You didn't really point anything out, you just asserted things without proof or reason by calling things delusional and superstitious. By calling it delusional and superstitious without reason or proof, you can't help but fall into that category. You appear to have hanged on the way this topic was presented, on the verses that were taken out of context.
The "look at the world around you" argument never holds. If i look at the world around me, i am forced to go back to the cliché of how many murders were committed by unbelievers, which total to more than any killings committed by believers. In case you're wondering about names: yes, it's the same old Stalin, Pol Pot, etc—you name it. I don't like using old arguments because i'd rather use new ones. But when unbelievers continue bringing up these old, fallacious arguments, it can't be helped. And if i continue looking around the world, i see plenty of believers going on missions, setting up missionary hospitals, churches, etc, that help those in need—they're known for that.

I'm not fond of falsehood; you appear to be not fond of falsehood too, or else why would you call the things i believe in delusions and imaginary? (Which makes me wonder if you read certain atheist books, as those are very old assertions.) If i told you that your faith (i.e. the belief that there is no god) was delusional and imaginary, you'd most likely talk against it. But i didn't really take offense at your statement, since no actual point was made (for me to take offense at). I don't really take offense at many things; however, i may go "overboard" in taking things down, as my goal concerning these things tend to be to take things down entirely. Do research on MBTI INTP if you don't believe me—for that's what i am.

[mahesh2k 0]

And concerning Copernicus or Galileo, i never studied them, but were they told that they used circular arguments without the opposing side showing that they did? My arguments have reason and are observable.

No both these guys fall prey to circular logic of believers and prophets claiming earth is flat, but they tried their best to prove them wrong. But you know the story what believers did to them. My argument here is reasonable as i have seen what believers do to this world a mess more than what unbelievers are did throughout the history.

You didn't really point anything out, you just asserted things without proof or reason by calling things delusional and superstitious. By calling it delusional and superstitious without reason or proof, you can't help but fall into that category. You appear to have hanged on the way this topic was presented, on the verses that were taken out of context.

Oh yes i did. By pointing to Copernicus and the chaos of that religion in this world. You know the city in which i work is recently attacked in the name of that religion. So it's your lookout to put people in some category, and i simply put people based on on their actions not by what they think cause I've gone through such verses of that religion as well as verses of religion which is practiced in my country.

The "look at the world around you" argument never holds. If i look at the world around me, i am forced to go back to the cliché of how many murders were committed by unbelievers, which total to more than any killings committed by believers. In case you're wondering about names: yes, it's the same old Stalin, Pol Pot, etcyou name it. I don't like using old arguments because i'd rather use new ones. But when unbelievers continue bringing up these old, fallacious arguments, it can't be helped. And if i continue looking around the world, i see plenty of believers going on missions, setting up missionary hospitals, churches, etc, that help those in needthey're known for that.

That argument is for showing you the point that throughout the history more than 60% wars are based on religion and rest for the point of territory. And try grabbing the stats at least in time 1900-2009 and calculate how many terrorist attacks/religious fights are because of believers. and you'll be surprised. Try and calculate how much money is spent on god worshiping/churches/temples/darghas etc and then you'll come to know the point i'm trying to make. And if you want to argue based on charity and missionary work,hospitals then it is pretty clear that these missions are for religion conversion i.e to bring people under one religion roof.So its more of promotional tactics than good work done all over the world and these days you can even see fights between religions as they resist conversion from one religion to another.

I'm not fond of falsehood; you appear to be not fond of falsehood too, or else why would you call the things i believe in delusions and imaginary? (Which makes me wonder if you read certain atheist books, as those are very old assertions.) If i told you that your faith (i.e. the belief that there is no god) was delusional and imaginary, you'd most likely talk against it. But i didn't really take offense at your statement, since no actual point was made (for me to take offense at). I don't really take offense at many things; however, i may go "overboard" in taking things down, as my goal concerning these things tend to be to take things down entirely. Do research on MBTI INTP if you don't believe mefor that's what i am.

I'm glad that you don't take it offense, as i've experience with people taking such talks in offense. And i don't understand why people take it on their nerves. So coming back to topic, my intention behind these delusional statements in verses is that, these poetic stuff is less productive if you take it in materialistic sense. and for the faith(belief that god doesn't exist is based on experiments not on some holy books/dreams/spiritualistic game. Taking down things for the sake of argument and casual opposition is not my goal and that why i'm unbeliever instead of blind follower/believer. BTW you take those INTP and things too seriously? I'm INTJ but i don't take those personality profiles seriously. These things are just for analysis which can vary with time imo.

[truefusion 3]

No both these guys fall prey to circular logic of believers and prophets claiming earth is flat, but they tried their best to prove them wrong. But you know the story what believers did to them. My argument here is reasonable as i have seen what believers do to this world a mess more than what unbelievers are did throughout the history.

Before attempting to address your post, i read the entire thing just in case you attempted to show that my argument was circular before this little section. However, you didn't attempt to do it. You're still asserting; and you say your argument(s) has (or have) reason. It's easier to believe that they have reason if they didn't beg the question. (As a side note, the Bible says the earth is a sphere. To tell you the truth, "the earth is round" is similar in logic as "the earth is flat." Just 'cause it's round doesn't mean it's not flat.)

Oh yes i did. By pointing to Copernicus and the chaos of that religion in this world. You know the city in which i work is recently attacked in the name of that religion. So it's your lookout to put people in some category, and i simply put people based on on their actions not by what they think cause I've gone through such verses of that religion as well as verses of religion which is practiced in my country.

You only mentioned their names; you didn't point to them as in provided a link. It's in a way assuming that i would find the same sources of information on them as you have. What if i don't? How could "pointing" to them, therefore, help you prove anything if i don't find the information you assume i would find? I don't know where you live (though i could take a guess) and i don't know what "that religion" is referring to (since this topic contains more than one religion and Copernicus could have delt with people from many different religions), but that doesn't follow that for that reason it's my lookout to put people in a category. My religion puts people in a category based on actions just like you say you do. Just because followers of my religion may not do so or do so differently, it doesn't follow that the religion itself is just as the followers make it seem like it is. You can look it up yourself, you'll find that all people are placed under the same category, equally. That's the problem with your reasoning: it's basically generalizing in the same way Saint_Michael was. You can't show me that your arguments have reason if they commit fallacies. (As another side note, i have no idea to what religion you are referring to when you talk about a religion that is practiced in your country.)

That argument is for showing you the point that throughout the history more than 60% wars are based on religion and rest for the point of territory. And try grabbing the stats at least in time 1900-2009 and calculate how many terrorist attacks/religious fights are because of believers. and you'll be surprised. Try and calculate how much money is spent on god worshiping/churches/temples/darghas etc and then you'll come to know the point i'm trying to make. And if you want to argue based on charity and missionary work,hospitals then it is pretty clear that these missions are for religion conversion i.e to bring people under one religion roof.So its more of promotional tactics than good work done all over the world and these days you can even see fights between religions as they resist conversion from one religion to another.

You make a lot of things that aren't necessarily bad appear bad. For example, you can't argue that all wars are bad, for that's to say that all wars have an unbeneficial, unproductive outcome. But another problem in your argument is that you leave out unbelievers. You make it seem that more wars with less killings is worse than rulers who terminated probably more lifes than these wars combined. I'll agree war can be bad, but it doesn't follow that all wars are.
Concerning the income of religious organization, you again try to make something look bad though it's not necessarily bad. Last i checked, a lot of this income (at least for my religion) goes into what i previously said: churches, missionary hospitals, etc, that help those in need—be it spiritually or not. You don't need to accept a spiritual side, but that doesn't make things bad, nor does it make spirituality false or imaginary. Why should it matter if they're trying to bring people to Christ at the same time? Why is that bad? Because it can lead to chaos? If that were the case, might as well get rid of life itself, for life can lead to chaos. You have to realize the intentions behind bringing people to Christ. It's not to start chaos—never was—it was to bring salvation. It's not the bringing salvation that causes chaos, it is resistance that can occur that causes it. The problem is not, therefore, on the religion that brings salvation to all, but on those that resist, and when they resist start chaos. And before you start saying, "Well, there's been a lot of 'salvation-bringers' which only caused a mess wherever they brung it," that would be a twist of my words, because that would be replacing the intended definitions of my words to make things appear otherwise—kind of like a straw man argument. People should be smart enough to know what kind of salvation-bringing i'm talking about—the kind my religion talks about.

That's the problem, though; people assume things about my religion that aren't true, therefore causing people to reject it. One of the main reasons why i join debates like these is to clear falsehood, for falsehood and ignorance is one of the main causes of resistance or disbelief.

I'm glad that you don't take it offense, as i've experience with people taking such talks in offense. And i don't understand why people take it on their nerves. So coming back to topic, my intention behind these delusional statements in verses is that, these poetic stuff is less productive if you take it in materialistic sense. and for the faith(belief that god doesn't exist is based on experiments not on some holy books/dreams/spiritualistic game. Taking down things for the sake of argument and casual opposition is not my goal and that why i'm unbeliever instead of blind follower/believer. BTW you take those INTP and things too seriously? I'm INTJ but i don't take those personality profiles seriously. These things are just for analysis which can vary with time imo.

Although you still have to show that they're delusional, etc, some of these verses make no sense in a materialistic sense, for they weren't meant to be in that sense. If you can point out to me why poetry is to be taken materialistically and literally and not as an artistic way of expressing something, then maybe you can convince me that it is sensible to take these poetic verses into a materialistic sense. Many (non-poetic) verses can be taken in a literal sense, sure, but you'll notice the same message is bound to come out anyway. I don't really see the need or logic to take things materialistically if it degrades things, but that's up to the people. Concerning a posteriori, it's interesting on how my faith is based on experience as well. Concerning the topic, there can't be two contradicting a posterioris. Therefore a debate on the matter can help here in finding the truth.
Concerning personality typing, i prefer Socionics myself; i only pointed to an MBTI page because it's the most comprehensive one i've found on my type. I can't say i'm 100% as mentioned in that page, but it says enough to understand me better. In Socionics i'm an INTj; i love to anaylize. I'ma assume when you said INTJ you meant MBTI, due to the fact that the last letter is capitalized and because that was what the context was. But if it's accurate on a significant level, then i'll accept it and put it to use. I find it intersting, though, that this whole personality typing thing came from a believer. Socionics with their V.I. can imply design, which makes things even more interesting.

[mahesh2k 0]

(As a side note, the Bible says the earth is a sphere. To tell you the truth, "the earth is round" is similar in logic as "the earth is flat." Just 'cause it's round doesn't mean it's not flat.)

I consider this as cirular logic as this point is made just to debate for sake of it. Considering tennis ball as flat is mere a argument for the debate. You don't call Ball as flat.

 

You only mentioned their names; you didn't point to them as in provided a link. It's in a way assuming that i would find the same sources of information on them as you have. What if i don't? How could "pointing" to them, therefore, help you prove anything if i don't find the information you assume i would find?

Nope. I assume you have that information cause you're debating on the topic of theology and those who defend theism are likely to know this point irrespective of any internet links for information. Besides you defend BIBLE, so i thought you know this point.

 

You can look it up yourself, you'll find that all people are placed under the same category, equally. That's the problem with your reasoning: it's basically generalizing in the same way Saint_Michael was. You can't show me that your arguments have reason if they commit fallacies.

How come they have fallacies if i have showed you with that Copernicus example, that science always gets opposition from theists on the point of belief in some human written holy books. Don't you think many religious people opposed LHC on the topic of spirituality and without scientific reasoning?and i pointed to religion of Islam in my post, when i referred to terrorist attack recently. My view is not generalized about religion as you assume it to have. You're religious and that's why you assume to have others views as fallacies. In fact, its preety clear that how religious concepts from time to time are shattered by scientific study.

 

You make a lot of things that aren't necessarily bad appear bad. For example, you can't argue that all wars are bad, for that's to say that all wars have an unbeneficial, unproductive outcome. But another problem in your argument is that you leave out unbelievers. You make it seem that more wars with less killings is worse than rulers who terminated probably more lifes than these wars combined. I'll agree war can be bad, but it doesn't follow that all wars are.

Yes. Wars are bad because aftermath is very costly. Ask this question to japenese people if you want answer for wars are bad or not.

 

 

Why should it matter if they're trying to bring people to Christ at the same time? Why is that bad? Because it can lead to chaos? If that were the case, might as well get rid of life itself, for life can lead to chaos.

lol. What an argument for the sake of religion. My view is regarding the productivity. It doesn't matter what religion you're if you're doing good for others like hospitals,charity etc. Why need some Christ's name and religion conversion for the same? and all for that. And if you want to argue that Christians are not doing promotional & conversion stuff then please do travel to Asia where Christians promote religion by bribing jobless people and people which are in hospitals. Whats the productivity of that? Expecting some creator to come solve the problem by following a religion/human written holy books is biggest fallacy and on that i'm attempting to take down as that is the root of all social problems like war/terrorism.

 

 

 

Although you still have to show that they're delusional, etc, some of these verses make no sense in a materialistic sense

Okay. Here you go. Look at the first statement in this thread about BIBLE where it is said:

 

"Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, wether man or woman."

So let me dissect this statement one by one. First BIBLE is written by believer human being. So to protect his belief on GOD, he wrote this logical restriction for those who falsify the BIBLE. So whoever resists BIBLE for authenticity of gods words will be threatened in the name of god in the society.example is Copernicus & galilio, Einstein. And you are asking me to show whether its delusional or not?

I don't really see the need or logic to take things materialistically if it degrades things, but that's up to the people.

It degrades things? Why? if these poetic or plain meaning verses are such pure and transparent then no matter how person reads it should convey straight message rather than complex multiple meaning which changes as per time isn't it?

 

But if it's accurate on a significant level, then i'll accept it and put it to use. I find it intersting, though, that this whole personality typing thing came from a believer. Socionics with their V.I. can imply design, which makes things even more interesting.

I would love to discuss more about MB TI, but that way we'll go away from topic i guess.

[truefusion 3]

I consider this as cirular logic as this point is made just to debate for sake of it. Considering tennis ball as flat is mere a argument for the debate. You don't call Ball as flat.

Straw man: you make me appear i call a tennis ball flat when i didn't. You didn't prove that statement of mine is circular. However, that last sentence is true, in that you're right, i don't call ball flat; a ball is a sphere. Now if you could try to show that the first argument of mine that you called circular is circular, then you would finally fulfill what i have been requesting from you concerning circular arguments. You can try again on this one, too, if you like.

 

 

Nope. I assume you have that information cause you're debating on the topic of theology and those who defend theism are likely to know this point irrespective of any internet links for information. Besides you defend BIBLE, so i thought you know this point.

I don't do research on something unless i see a need in doing so.

 

How come they have fallacies if i have showed you with that Copernicus example, that science always gets opposition from theists on the point of belief in some human written holy books. Don't you think many religious people opposed LHC on the topic of spirituality and without scientific reasoning?and i pointed to religion of Islam in my post, when i referred to terrorist attack recently. My view is not generalized about religion as you assume it to have. You're religious and that's why you assume to have others views as fallacies. In fact, its preety clear that how religious concepts from time to time are shattered by scientific study.

Considering the context, i'll repeat myself: "[chaos and attacks on the area you work in which you say were caused by religion] doesn't follow that for that reason it's my lookout to put people in a category." That's what was the fallacy i was pointing out. You didn't need Copernicus and his experience, which can't objectively prove by itself that religious folk are against science, to show me that believers are against certain things in the scientific community. I know believers don't believe in everything science preaches, but that doesn't mean believers, religion and science don't get along. The generalization i was referring to was when you concluded it was my lookout to place people under a category. However, your view on religion is pretty general (and overused by unbelievers, i might add): it's a delusion, imaginary, and a causer of chaos. And the only religious concepts i've seen science shatter was faulty God of the gaps arguments.

 

Yes. Wars are bad because aftermath is very costly. Ask this question to japenese people if you want answer for wars are bad or not.

Even if i ask Japan, it still wouldn't prove that all wars are bad. Let us consider a country with a leader who did not care for human life except his own. Anyone who didn't see it his way were put to death or jailed or stripped of everything they owned. Listening to him provided no real benefit either—people would still be oppressed to some significant level. The people one day had had enough. They started war to end the non-sense—the only method they had to put an end to the oppression. In the end they prevailed. Though there were many casualties, the outcome and what followed was prosperous.

 

lol. What an argument for the sake of religion. My view is regarding the productivity. It doesn't matter what religion you're if you're doing good for others like hospitals,charity etc. Why need some Christ's name and religion conversion for the same? and all for that. And if you want to argue that Christians are not doing promotional & conversion stuff then please do travel to Asia where Christians promote religion by bribing jobless people and people which are in hospitals. Whats the productivity of that? Expecting some creator to come solve the problem by following a religion/human written holy books is biggest fallacy and on that i'm attempting to take down as that is the root of all social problems like war/terrorism.

Thanks for the compliment. But i had assumed you knew about Christianity. I'll explain the need for Christ very briefly and simplistically: Man sins; sin leads to death; man can't save himself from sin, therefore requiring a Savior; that Savior is Christ, which gives life. Though simple, it shouldn't be hard to see the point. And i won't argue that Christians don't go around trying to gain converts in their missions. Assuming you're using sound judgment and since i don't live where you live, i'll take your word for it in that certain Christians bribe the poor into faith. I won't agree that that's the best way of converting people; however, i don't see how you can find that unproductive. But if that last sentence of yours is supposed to provide insight on how you see it as unproductive, then i am looking at more fallacies. It doesn't follow that attempting to form unity is the root of all social problems. You're better off arguing that the love for money is.

 

Okay. Here you go. Look at the first statement in this thread about BIBLE where it is said:"Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, wether man or woman."

So let me dissect this statement one by one. First BIBLE is written by believer human being. [1]So to protect his belief on GOD, he wrote this logical restriction for those who falsify the BIBLE. [2]So whoever resists BIBLE for authenticity of gods words will be threatened in the name of god in the society.example is Copernicus & galilio, Einstein. And you are asking me to show whether its delusional or not?

(Quote the Biblical verses next time, not italicizing them; it's against the rules to use BBcode that allows the earning of myCENTs when you are not the source of the text.) Thanks for attempting to show that it's a delusion. Here are the fallacies: #1 asserts, without proving, that the intentions of the believing writers were to protect their belief in God. #2 is a subset of #1 in that it assumes intentions that haven't been shown to be true but adds to #1. You're begging the question again (a common thing among unbelievers): you're assuming religion was caused into existence for the sake of manipulation and for the sake of having power and authority over others, and you therefore try to conclude that. You can't conclude presumptions, it's illogical.

 

(By the way, Einstein was a deist.)

 

It degrades things? Why? if these poetic or plain meaning verses are such pure and transparent then no matter how person reads it should convey straight message rather than complex multiple meaning which changes as per time isn't it?

You're asking me here questions that your previous post answers—your very own words. I don't see that the verses degrade themselves; however, you stated that if taken in a materialistic point of view, they become less productive. As to not repeat myself on the matter, i'll end this part with this: The Biblical verses don't change over time; the interpretations are the ones that are capable of doing that. If interpretations changing over time was a bad thing, scientific evidence would be considered in the same way you consider Biblical verses. After all, scientific theories are mere interpretations of scientific evidence; these interpretations are subject to change as new data is presented. There's no difference.

 

I would love to discuss more about MB TI, but that way we'll go away from topic i guess.

Mhmm

[mahesh2k 0]

Straw man: you make me appear i call a tennis ball flat when i didn't. You didn't prove that statement of mine is circular. You can try again on this one, too, if you like

I already shown that how you replied to my question of earth is flat or round example. For that instead of accepting the fallacy you asked me to prove you that if you used circular logic or not. Which you yourself can see that asking the obvious itself goes to court of circular logic.I didn't get you here. Are you just making debate for the sake of argument with circular logic. that's why you said to me to try this one?

I know believers don't believe in everything science preaches, but that doesn't mean believers, religion and science don't get along. The generalization i was referring to was when you concluded it was my lookout to place people under a category. However, your view on religion is pretty general (and overused by unbelievers, i might add): it's a delusion, imaginary, and a causer of chaos.

Science and religion goes along. lol. So you proved my point which yo say fallacy when i gave you explanation about verses as delusion. Don't you think the point of science and religion goes along is your fallacy? So instead unbelievers are overusing some points i guess, beleivers are overusing the point that science disapproves religion most of the time when there is any discovery that thrashes religious concept.

And the only religious concepts i've seen science shatter was faulty God of the gaps arguments.

Wrong.Many concepts from verses in many religions are proved to be myths. It's not gaps its what religious books are preaching. and yes, they're modifying the interpretation as per current time so as the meaning stays alive in favor of religion. So it's pretty clear that fallacy is in which side.

Let us consider a country with a leader who did not care for human life except his own. Anyone who didn't see it his way were put to death or jailed or stripped of everything they owned. Listening to him provided no real benefit eitherpeople would still be oppressed to some significant level. The people one day had had enough. They started war to end the non-sensethe only method they had to put an end to the oppression. In the end they prevailed. Though there were many casualties, the outcome and what followed was prosperous.

This example is assumption you can even take such example, when particular leader preaches religion and restricts in the name of god. So chaos can be in this situation as well. So if it is against freedom then people are likely to resist.

I'll explain the need for Christ very briefly and simplistically: Man sins; sin leads to death; man can't save himself from sin, therefore requiring a Savior; that Savior is Christ, which gives life.

This is just imagination from many years.It lacks evidence,that proves things like sins/hell/heaven etc. So even if you want to argue and continue with it, its your choice and your right,freedom have this thinking.

And i won't argue that Christians don't go around trying to gain converts in their missions. Assuming you're using sound judgment and since i don't live where you live, i'll take your word for it in that certain Christians bribe the poor into faith. I won't agree that that's the best way of converting people; however, i don't see how you can find that unproductive.

First point is i can give you enough proof for this conversion thing around me. And how people are using conversion and making it more of slavery than religious preaching. So you can see the negative side of this, and thats the unproductive part. Using people in the name of religion, and expecting it to be productive? This conversion and slavery type of things lead to terrorism if you can understand this is how people are being forced to take weapons in hand for protecting their religion. So where is the productive part? oh for religious follower there is productivity of protecting religion and increasing followers either by debating or by taking weapons isn't it?

(Quote the Biblical verses next time, not italicizing them; it's against the rules to use BBcode that allows the earning of myCENTs when you are not the source of the text.) Thanks for attempting to show that it's a delusion.

Thanks for warning. I had no idea about this. I will use quotes with color next time.

Here are the fallacies: #1 asserts, without proving, that the intentions of the believing writers were to protect their belief in God.

Wrong. It is fallacy from believers side. as it can be easily proved, every beleiver of any faith tries to protect it as he/she feels insecurity ?& you expect proof for such obvious thing?

#2 is a subset of #1 in that it assumes intentions that haven't been shown to be true but adds to #1. You're begging the question again (a common thing among unbelievers): you're assuming religion was caused into existence for the sake of manipulation and for the sake of having power and authority over others, and you therefore try to conclude that. You can't conclude presumptions, it's illogical.

Yes. Religion is product of insecure feeling that human gets when he/she needs some creator's existence to look forward his questions regarding his lfe goals/creation etc. For that he use this religion and creator's imagination and he/she expects large number of people to carry his faith to make him/her secure from the feeling they get unsecured from. So for this explanation do you need any proof or you want to try this on any believer? So don't you think from those human written holy books are more of presumptions from concepts around the world and from science to just to keep faith alive? So it's clear that what is illogical,isn't it?

As to not repeat myself on the matter, i'll end this part with this: The Biblical verses don't change over time; the interpretations are the ones that are capable of doing that. If interpretations changing over time was a bad thing, scientific evidence would be considered in the same way you consider Biblical verses.After all, scientific theories are mere interpretations of scientific evidence; these interpretations are subject to change as new data is presented. There's no difference.

There is difference. It's up to you to look at things that way. Which most of the believers resist as their faith gets hurt over it.Science being in experimental and therautical always evolves. While, religious books/verses are not rewritten and followed for ages. So it is pretty clear that many concept which religious people claim that go along with science are trashed out as science community evolves. For which you can see how unproductive they were in the past, this is my point. The verse which tells believers that non-believers will be killed by god is mere a insecurity believer as the book is written by believer and not by unbiased person or even by a god. So how come those verses be productive if they are written in favor of insecurity of believer?

[Parubilla 0]

The two religions have some similarities, starting by the fact that both believe in only one God, both have a sacred book and well if you put those two verses together just like that yes maybe they both look like they are provoking violence into the believers. But here's the point I do agree you just can't take two verses and throw it into a statement like that without studying what was happening at that time when that was written. I don't think religions are violent the violent are the human beings because we like to be the ones on power the ones that are right, we are not tolerant, and people had fight through the history whether is for religion, territory, love whatever they feel it's not to their complacence. So religion it's not the one at fault, the perfect example is in just what you just did with the verses, you interpret them like you felt to prove your point, you are not being objective, so just imagine all the selfish people in the world trying to put the sacred books to their convenience, wars will happen, misunderstandings, anything.. I believe anything in the extremes is bad, so extremists group that turn into violence and kill tons of innocent people in the name of any religion or country or idea, I'm never going to agree with that, and I don't know if I'm wrong, but I don't think a real Muslim will agree that Allah demand them to kill people because they aren't part of their believes, that just pure human greediness... And the same for the Christians, God doesn't demand them to kill others, He tells them to expand his word all over the world even to the last place on earth, so everyone knows about Him, killing is not part of it.

[truefusion 3]

I already shown that how you replied to my question of earth is flat or round example. For that instead of accepting the fallacy you asked me to prove you that if you used circular logic or not. Which you yourself can see that asking the obvious itself goes to court of circular logic.I didn't get you here. Are you just making debate for the sake of argument with circular logic. that's why you said to me to try this one?

How did you show that my argument was circular? All you've been saying is that you call it and consider it circular—that doesn't make it circular. If the fallacy was as obvious as you say it is, i would have seen it by now. If in order for me to accept what is seen, how can i accept it if i don't see it? I don't even see how asking "the obvious" is the byproduct of circular logic. Take this for example: Me: Is the sun bright? You: Circular logic! It doesn't follow. You didn't prove to me once that i committed circular arguments. When i said just how unbelievers act exactly like believers in my first response to you in this topic, you called my argument circular and pointed to Copernicus and Galileo, implying that my statement was false (for whatever reason that was) (i.e. that i was acting like one of the people speaking against Copernicus, etc) while your statement was the (absolute) truth (i.e. like which you say Copernicus, etc, spoke). That's begging the question: you assumed my statement was false or held no truth and concluded it by mentioning Copernicus, etc.
Then came the round and flat earth situation—your second assertion that i was committing circular logic. You committed a straw man in trying to prove that my statement was circular: I never mentioned any ball in my statement. A circle is round, but that doesn't make it a sphere. A quarter, dime, you-name-it, is round, but it's not a sphere. The Bible mentions the earth is a sphere. Put these two statements in any order you like, it won't make it circular. I am not arguing for the sake of argument, i am arguing for the sake of proof.

Science and religion goes along. lol. So you proved my point which yo say fallacy when i gave you explanation about verses as delusion. Don't you think the point of science and religion goes along is your fallacy? So instead unbelievers are overusing some points i guess, beleivers are overusing the point that science disapproves religion most of the time when there is any discovery that thrashes religious concept.

Science and religion do get along in whatever area they get along—which there are plenty. Saying that doesn't prove your previous statement. Sure, the theory of evolution is not in agreement, but i wouldn't say it makes up science, nor would i say it's as widely supported as it is said to be—but that's another topic. I supplied a link for the sake of proving that my statement is not a fallacy or false. And i haven't observed this "overuse" you speak of.

Wrong.Many concepts from verses in many religions are proved to be myths. It's not gaps its what religious books are preaching. and yes, they're modifying the interpretation as per current time so as the meaning stays alive in favor of religion. So it's pretty clear that fallacy is in which side.

Sure many concepts have been shown false. I just used another term for "concepts:" "interpretations." But "religious books" is ambiguous. There are many religious books, but that doesn't mean they're all sacred to the religion. If i were to assume the sacred ones, the ones held above the rest, it doesn't follow that because certain interpretations were taken down, that the books fell down with them. Pull up a Biblical verse and shine "science" on it, since the burden of proof is on you to show that they were proved myths. You keep saying that there more than a handful of them, so it shouldn't be hard to do this—probably the easiest burden (at least from your perspective) given to you.

This example is assumption you can even take such example, when particular leader preaches religion and restricts in the name of god. So chaos can be in this situation as well. So if it is against freedom then people are likely to resist.

The example was merely an example. I don't deny actions done in the name of religion and in the name of anti-religion. But that doesn't prove that all wars are bad. Remember, the keyword is "all," not "some;" it's easy to prove that some wars were bad.

This is just imagination from many years.It lacks evidence,that proves things like sins/hell/heaven etc. So even if you want to argue and continue with it, its your choice and your right,freedom have this thinking.

You argued that wars are bad. That implies that you believe sin exists, for how can there be something that is "bad" yet no sin? So either wars aren't bad in any way, or sin exists. And by the way you've been speaking, in order for something to exist, there must be evidence of it. Do i even have to point to wars to show that people are evil? I don't need to bring in heaven or hell to show that people are sinners and are trapped in sin.

First point is i can give you enough proof for this conversion thing around me. And how people are using conversion and making it more of slavery than religious preaching. So you can see the negative side of this, and thats the unproductive part. Using people in the name of religion, and expecting it to be productive? This conversion and slavery type of things lead to terrorism if you can understand this is how people are being forced to take weapons in hand for protecting their religion. So where is the productive part? oh for religious follower there is productivity of protecting religion and increasing followers either by debating or by taking weapons isn't it?

How'd you pull up slavery, weapons and terrorism from bribing the jobless? That's taking things beyond context. But i have already said i don't deny crimes committed in the name of religion. I only state that just because there have been such instances, it does not follow that religion is inherently evil, the source of evil, and whatever else you said it was. I think it was Christopher Hitchens that said he was an anti-theist and not an atheist. But concerning the context, the productive part would be the jobless actually receiving an earning they can live off of.

Wrong. It is fallacy from believers side. as it can be easily proved, every beleiver of any faith tries to protect it as he/she feels insecurity ?& you expect proof for such obvious thing?

False dichotomy. There is still the case that they wanted the knowledge of that to spread without caring for its protection. To expound further on the fallacy of your argument: All unbelievers seek to protect their faith, therefore they are insecure. And yes, i request for proof for things that are fallacious.

Yes. Religion is product of insecure feeling that human gets when he/she needs some creator's existence to look forward his questions regarding his lfe goals/creation etc. For that he use this religion and creator's imagination and he/she expects large number of people to carry his faith to make him/her secure from the feeling they get unsecured from. So for this explanation do you need any proof or you want to try this on any believer? So don't you think from those human written holy books are more of presumptions from concepts around the world and from science to just to keep faith alive? So it's clear that what is illogical,isn't it?

Yes, it's clear what is illogical: you're begging the question again, which came from a previous begging-the-question—circular. You're still asserting insecurity as if it's the only alternative. I won't deny that there are some believers that believe because they are insecure. Pull up whoever to show it, but it doesn't follow that one instance is every instance, and it doesn't follow that the first instance was due to insecurity—that's a form of hasty generalization. The Bible being written by humans doesn't bother me. Not everything written in the Bible was for the belief in God or faith—it deals with a lot of Jewish history, etc, as well. For me it's not necessarily how they obtained the information written in the Bible, but rather if it is deniable and supportive. If one claims "such and such is false," they have to show it is if it's not already obvious. I can do whatever it takes to show that there is no god, only to find out that's impossible. So i am left with two choices: believe that there is a god or take the agnostic approach. I can choose to remain ignorant (i.e. take the agnostic approach) or seek truth. I'm not one that can sit still remaining ignorant concerning something i sought to disprove or concerning something i am interested in. This is why i see atheism as the least logical: atheism tries to deny that which it can't. Therefore statements like "it requires more faith for atheism" come up. In a sense, it can be said that atheism is to live in denial, for that's what it is: it is seeking to deny purpose, objective morality, deities, a spiritual realm (though science doesn't deny the possibility of other realms), etc.

There is difference. It's up to you to look at things that way. Which most of the believers resist as their faith gets hurt over it.Science being in experimental and therautical always evolves. While, religious books/verses are not rewritten and followed for ages. So it is pretty clear that many concept which religious people claim that go along with science are trashed out as science community evolves. For which you can see how unproductive they were in the past, this is my point. The verse which tells believers that non-believers will be killed by god is mere a insecurity believer as the book is written by believer and not by unbiased person or even by a god. So how come those verses be productive if they are written in favor of insecurity of believer?

There is no difference in science and what you are asserting about religion. Planned conventions were shut down before they even got a chance to open because the topic was on the criticizing of the theory of evolution (see Michael Polanyi Center). Ernst Haeckel drew inaccurate images of evolution for scientific advancement. Biology books are filled with old, out-dated data with many not even saying it's old and outdated. People have lost their jobs for suggesting something, based on what they observed, that would contradict the theory of evolution. All for scientific advancement. Should i then do similar to what you've been doing? Or do you see the fallacy in claiming that something is false due to supposed insecurities? There is no difference.

[mahesh2k 0]

How did you show that my argument was circular? All you've been saying is that you call it and consider it circular—that doesn't make it circular. If the fallacy was as obvious as you say it is, i would have seen it by now. If in order for me to accept what is seen, how can i accept it if i don't see it? I don't even see how asking "the obvious" is the byproduct of circular logic. Take this for example: Me: Is the sun bright? You: Circular logic! It doesn't follow.

lol. No .i didn't assume your answer. but said when i asked you about flat and round argument. Your response was rather circular logic instead of accepting that we take shape for granted . And as for sun is bright example, isn't that obvious from question? You could have used another example cause that way it will be better argued how circular logic is presented usually from believers.

The Bible mentions the earth is a sphere. Put these two statements in any order you like, it won't make it circular. I am not arguing for the sake of argument, i am arguing for the sake of proof.

If BIBLE says such things then why Copernicus and Galileo were tortured in the name of religion and holy book? this is my question? so this is straight question, for which i don't want you to answer instead of saying every circle is not sphere type answer.

If i were to assume the sacred ones, the ones held above the rest, it doesn't follow that because certain interpretations were taken down, that the books fell down with them. Pull up a Biblical verse and shine "science" on it, since the burden of proof is on you to show that they were proved myths. You keep saying that there more than a handful of them, so it shouldn't be hard to do this—probably the easiest burden (at least from your perspective) given to you.

lol.Burden on me? I would say it burden on believer to protect their faith as they are the one's opposing science & other religions in the name of their religion and god. It's just that you try to repel it with circular logic.

You argued that wars are bad. That implies that you believe sin exists, for how can there be something that is "bad" yet no sin? So either wars aren't bad in any way, or sin exists. And by the way you've been speaking, in order for something to exist, there must be evidence of it. Do i even have to point to wars to show that people are evil? I don't need to bring in heaven or hell to show that people are sinners and are trapped in sin

Wars are bad for the next generations and for people whom survived in it. So calling this thinking that Sins exist is mere a wishful thinking forced with help of circular logic onto society. Sins are something which are like "you saw what you reap" idiom in society so if you're trying to prove in other words its mere an argument for sake of proving evil and heaven/hell. For those who kill or have hatred hold grudge than something you call committing sins. It's your perspective adopted from holy books.

How'd you pull up slavery, weapons and terrorism from bribing the jobless? That's taking things beyond context. But i have already said i don't deny crimes committed in the name of religion. I only state that just because there have been such instances, it does not follow that religion is inherently evil, the source of evil, and whatever else you said it was. I think it was Christopher Hitchens that said he was an anti-theist and not an atheist. But concerning the context, the productive part would be the jobless actually receiving an earning they can live off of.

I'm not talking about evil and all that. My point is bribing and slavery proves my point that religion manipulates people in the name of god. If you're not familiar with situation of Asia, then Rome around that continent to see how people are being trained to slaughter other people outside their religion. How debates are organized between multiple religions are carried out just for the sake of increasing number of followers in particular religion. Now tell me what's the productivity in this?

False dichotomy. There is still the case that they wanted the knowledge of that to spread without caring for its protection. To expound further on the fallacy of your argument: All unbelievers seek to protect their faith, therefore they are insecure. And yes, i request for proof for things that are fallacious.

I already gave you proof that BIBLE is human written not written by God. Then how come that be applicable to all type of people like agnostics, atheist, raelians, theists? When one person writes book to protect his faith in that religion he defintely writes things that protects his faith and yes the verse i've pointed earlier is the proof that how thesit who wrote bible feel insecure about other people like agnostics, atheists etc.
If he have understood god and have experience of his existence then he would have understood that such omnipotent creature have no offense from his own creations so worshiping him/her won't make any difference as he can control them isnt it? but BIBLE wasn't written by keeping this thing in mind instead it was written for Followers of perticular religion. Same holds true for quran, for that book all religions except that falls into kafir(unbeleivers) so you and i are kafirs for that religion. So when it comes to protecting their faith they'll slaughter in the name of religion. So now try to prove me which side is more insecure.

This is why i see atheism as the least logical: atheism tries to deny that which it can't. Therefore statements like "it requires more faith for atheism" come up. In a sense, it can be said that atheism is to live in denial, for that's what it is: it is seeking to deny purpose, objective morality, deities, a spiritual realm (though science doesn't deny the possibility of other realms), etc.

lol. Things which you reject with circular logic and expressing begging of question to those who give you reasons and say you choose to believ itself shows you leav in denial of truth and you think atheist live in denial?

Biology books are filled with old, out-dated data with many not even saying it's old and outdated. People have lost their jobs for suggesting something, based on what they observed, that would contradict the theory of evolution.

Lost jobs for suggesting? Look at this debate. If i posted something that is against your belief you'll call me living in denial isn't it? People taking help of spirituality, rebirth and all concept are infecting science these days they're not showing productivity in science theories rather they come and stagnate at point that from this point creator exist, so how come that be entertained? Do you think spirituality can solve all the problems? And how can you say biology is having old-dated data? Oh you mean thats why they found blood group converter recently? How can one invent new things with outdated and old data ? i don;t mind saying old concepts on protein folding is outdated,yes it is. But there is reaserch going on by improving flaws in old data.

All for scientific advancement. Should i then do similar to what you've been doing? Or do you see the fallacy in claiming that something is false due to supposed insecurities? There is no difference.

Yes. there is difference. when LHC was criticized when by religious followers around the world in the name of spirituality it showed the biggest difference that even though people wish to advance religion hold them back with old scientific data or from some verses/concepts in holy books.
Edited January 16, 2009 by mahesh2k (see edit history)