CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,307
    113
    Gtown-ish
    You reasonably concluded an implication from what it seemed I was saying, I even told you so.

    The fact that I guessed right is not evidence that you reasoned well. I guessed right because I heard it before. I was a Christian for 40+ years. I've heard what you've asserted many times about Islam. In those days I believed that Satan inspired Mohamed to write what he wrote. I've made the same arguments you have. I guess right because I've used nearly the very same language myself.

    That's the only relevant thing you've achieved from skimming and chattering about everything but this topic, and most everyone else already got that part. It was obvious.

    I wanted you to explicitly commit to what you're saying. You did.

    You made an assertion that Mohamed was inspired by an angel of Satan. That is absolutely on topic. It's reasonable for people to dispute that because it's based on your faith, not on facts. If we're going to bring in the possibility supernatural causes, why does it have to be the enemy of Jesus?. One could argue the same way that it was the enemies of Prometheus that put Mohamed up to it. It's fine and well that you live by faith, but in a religious discussion thread, other people get to rebut what you say. A faith based argument requires circular reasoning.

    Send some Muslims please, I prefer to challenge and be challenged. You can't do that.

    As I said, you can walk away from it without answering. But it doesn't matter who or how you want to be challenged. You make a statement holier than swiss cheese on a public forum you shouldn't expect that people won't disagree.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    ...You make a statement holier than swiss cheese on a public forum you shouldn't expect that people won't disagree.

    If I didn't think people would want to disagree, it would hardly have been worth saying.

    Perhaps you were once capable of challenging me on something important, perhaps not. I truly wish you could and would. I love a challenge, not a nuisance.

    Seems you just opted out of such a huge segment of reality for some reason. I'd love to hear your personal story if you ever care to offer it. Can't imagine.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,729
    113
    Indianapolis
    One reason why I should not be particularly skeptical of trusting a Muslim? Use the currently accepted definitions of Muslim, Quran, Allah, Islam. All Muslims. Don't give me that same old of liner that they can't ALL be suicide bombers, either. Try a bit harder since that's the only attempt at rebuttal I can recall.

    It's not an inaccurate rebuttal, though.

    GPIA said:
    I was probably more focused on the people blanketing all Muslims as potentially violent, etc... in that simply being a Muslim makes a person a risk.

    I do not wish to attack the person. That is not my goal. I also have acquaintances and even one friend that claims Islam. He admits to not practicing the religion, only claims it from his upbringing. I've had the discussions with him. So maybe I should spend time with clarifying that I am asking someone to refute that simply being a Muslim makes a person a risk. Please use our accepted tens of Quran, Islam, Muslim, and Allah.

    Meh. You have your opinion on the subject, and I have mine. It's really not a big deal, at least not big enough to argue over. :)

    Your opinion doesn't harm me, and mine you.

    Now if only the rest of INGO would realize the similarities between internet arguments and the special olympics...
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    Also, if anyone can rebut what I say, get on with it. I'd still like to hear from some believers of Islam.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    What do you do with the fact that (Shi'a-dominated) Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism?

    I was addressing the fact that T.Lex excluded them from being part of the problem in spite of their being in first place.

    Well, that's a bit of a bridge further than I was thinking, but I can roll with it.

    From my personal perspective, if we can focus on Shia and Salafists, then we've already focused on approximately 10% of the Muslim population. For INGO purposes, that's a huge step in the right direction.

    Now, to answer your question, I see 2 forms of response:
    - US foreign policy: Iran is an enemy (or was). It is important at many levels to label them as a terrorist organization.
    - To the extent that Iran supports (or supported, there's been a dropoff) Hezbollah, the terrorism "exported" wasn't really exported, but was directed at Israel. VERY little effect directed at Western countries. I haven't read up on that angle for awhile, so my understanding could be stale. I'm open to more information on that.

    Moreover, I think there's some overlap between the hardcore Shia and the Salafists. Of course, they would disagree. But as non-Muslims, I see no downside to lumping that part of Shia in with Salafists.

    Oh, I must have just missed where someone gave some compelling evidence to the contrary.

    Hello, I'm T. Lex. Not sure if you've been skipping my posts, but am more than willing to provide compelling rebuttal and an occasional pun. Sometimes at the same time.

    If BBI had made a point responding to anything that I said, I would have responded. His post accused unnamed people of cherry-picking Quran quotes out of context, without interpreting them and using them to target and divide people.

    I haven't quoted the Quran, nor would I need to. I have differentiated people from their beliefs and made historical arguments with mind to the OVERALL effect that the religion, the belief SYSTEM, has had over the course of human history. The ONLY argument I have seen presented by anyone defending Islam is that #NOTALLMUSLIMS are violent. The argument does nothing to defend the doctrine. It does nothing to defend Muslims who actually ACT based on this belief system. It does nothing to defend the ACTUAL historical violence that has been the direct effect of a system created to perpetuate itself through death and human suffering.
    Hmmm... interesting rhetoric, without really offering any of your claimed evidence. Though perhaps I missed it.

    Every religion is a 'system' designed to get people to act a certain way. Your indictment of Islam could just as easily be turned against Catholicism. Perhaps you mean it that way?

    Specific to Islam, there are a multitude of verses expressing how to get along, not to mention that the other holy books include parts of the Christian Bible.

    Though again, as I seem to have missed your posts on the topic, I likely missed the support for your statements. Please either repost or direct me to what I missed.

    Islam is a system designed to enslave and destroy human beings. Being a Muslim is an inherently risky proposition. I'm not trying to demonize PEOPLE. I'm exposing the system. I don't want any person to strap a bomb to himself and kill people because he believed in lies.
    This inherently raises the issue of "truth." I would suggest that to participate in a civil discussion of Islam, one should intellectually separate from the idea that Christianity - or any other religion - is the Truth.

    And again, every organized religion is an effort to motivate people to act a certain way - to "enslave" them.

    Muslims are not to kill other devout Muslims. Aside from that, the restrictions on violence are applied to non-Muslims.
    Whoa, hoss. I think you misunderstand some fundamental parts of Islam. The most disgusting violence Daesh dishes out is against other Muslims. Being considered apostate by them is a seriously bad day.

    I do not wish to attack the person. That is not my goal. I also have acquaintances and even one friend that claims Islam. He admits to not practicing the religion, only claims it from his upbringing. I've had the discussions with him. So maybe I should spend time with clarifying that I am asking someone to refute that simply being a Muslim makes a person a risk. Please use our accepted tens of Quran, Islam, Muslim, and Allah.
    What does that mean - "being a Muslim makes a person a risk"? Are you saying every Muslim should be considered a risk of becoming a suicide bomber? Or is this where you play games again about "real" Muslims?
     

    Kaneda13

    Adeptus Mechanicus
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Aug 13, 2013
    311
    18
    Indianapolis
    ATM, what is your core point?

    Is it simply that the beliefs and tenets of Islam are not grounded in reality? I agree, they are ridiculous...almost as ridiculous as Christianity's core beliefs and tenets.

    That is a vey real problem with supposed "revealed truths", there is no way to verify that God is speaking anyone, including oneself.

    christianity-the-belief-that-some-cosmic-jewish-zombie-can-make-15317308.png


    I find your lack of faith, disturbing...
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    christianity-the-belief-that-some-cosmic-jewish-zombie-can-make-15317308.png


    I find your lack of faith, disturbing...

    Compared to:

    A tiny sphere containing all the mass of the universe decides to explode, creating everything in an infinite scope... and within that scope, a lonely blue watery planet, devoid of life, was magically formed, eventually creating life from non-life via a process in which single celled organisms become larger celled, growing into primates (and millions of other things), and eventually to humans.

    Kut (gives perspective)
     

    hog slayer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 10, 2015
    1,087
    38
    Camp Lejeune, NC
    What does that mean - "being a Muslim makes a person a risk"? Are you saying every Muslim should be considered a risk of becoming a suicide bomber? Or is this where you play games again about "real" Muslims?

    T.Lex, what sort of game is it? If being something requires that you fall under that definition, how is it a game to say a thing pertaining to all people claiming that title?
    download.jpg
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,307
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Compared to:

    A tiny sphere containing all the mass of the universe decides to explode, creating everything in an infinite scope... and within that scope, a lonely blue watery planet, devoid of life, was magically formed, eventually creating life from non-life via a process in which single celled organisms become larger celled, growing into primates (and millions of other things), and eventually to humans.

    Kut (gives perspective)

    There are two competing ideas for how the universe came into being. Supernatural and natural. Complexity beyond our knowledge is not evidence of supernatural causes.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    There are two competing ideas for how the universe came into being. Supernatural and natural. Complexity beyond our knowledge is not evidence of supernatural causes.

    I'm clear. I personally believe that one does not have to exclude the other... but for those who choose one camp or the other, the explanations are equally ridiculous depending on which side you coin you favor. If I gave you a told you that God's consisted of 1,000,000 pieces, or that the universe was broken into 1,000,000 equal pieces, and gave you one piece of each, then asked "now tell me everything about God," or "explain the universe to me." My logic tells me, that you simply can't do it.
     

    Think

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2012
    21
    1
    Mohamed claimed an angel spoke to him and he wrote it down. Since there's no objective evidence of angels, it's reasonable to interpret that in a secular sense rather than a spiritual sense. So, Mohamed either made it up to try to invent a religion for whatever reason: political power, fame, whatever. Or perhaps he hallucinated it. Or some other imagined event happened. A dream. Whatever. But I have no reason to believe that a literal angel actually spoke to Mohamed. Because of your frequent vague references to "designer", and your apparent belief in angels, it seems you were implying that an evil angel or perhaps Satan himself whispered that in Mohamed's ear, and that was the "designer". Is that reasonable? Only from an interpretation of faith. That's what "your faith's interpretation means."

    The Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad who was an illiterate man who claimed to be a prophet just like Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
    The question is how do we know he was telling the truth? He was either Lying, deluded or telling the truth:


    1. Lying

    Before he claimed to be a prophet, he was nicknamed “Al Amin” The trustworthy" one as he was never known to lie. People would lie to get material gain however he was offered wealth, position and women to leave his message but he rejected this and instead lived a life of struggle.
    This is not the profile of a liar.
    [video=youtube;SLplKvhEKok]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLplKvhEKok[/video]


    .2. Deluded

    He might think he is a prophet but is not.However someone who is deluded could bring about a miraculous book like the Quran. The Quran could not be produced by a human so for it to be revealed to Mohammad shows that he was not deluded.

    [video=youtube;2ZrJLSDhKUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZrJLSDhKUQ[/video]

    3. Speaking the truth

    So therefore when we look at the life and character of Muhammad pbuh we see he was telling the truth and that he is what he claims which is a prophet of God.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    ...Every religion is a 'system' designed to get people to act a certain way...

    Incorrect, but very telling. Did you adopt a religion to act a certain way? I'm sure most do, so it's quite relevant to the discussion.

    What way did you want to act that made Catholicism attractive? Was it a cultural thing? What way do people want to act that makes Islam attractive?
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    ...He was either Lying, deluded or telling the truth:

    .2. Deluded

    He might think he is a prophet but is not.However someone who is deluded could bring about a miraculous book like the Quran. The Quran could not be produced by a human so for it to be revealed to Mohammad shows that he was not deluded.

    You're doing it wrong. ;)

    The best choice is DELUDED. He couldn't have pulled it off himself, it was revealed to him by a non-human. He just wrote it down, word for word, nothing difficult in doing that or believing the non-human is whatever and whomever it says it is. He was deceived by a deceiver, nothing new.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    There are two competing ideas for how the universe came into being. Supernatural and natural. Complexity beyond our knowledge is not evidence of supernatural causes.

    Simplicity beyond your knowledge is not evidence of natural causes, either. You really never got any of this, did you?
     
    Top Bottom