the story of Our Lady "the Virgin Mary" in the muslims holly book (quran)

[Thorne]

What could be a good chance to have a thread examining commonalities between muslims and chirsitans so they could maby find some common ground..

So you're saying that atheist should have no say in these matters? Isn't that rather ... dogmatic?

you are trying to divert into yet another aethisms hates anything thats not aethism rant.

I'm sorry that this is all you can see of my arguments. I'm not preaching hate. I'm preaching understanding. And the first thing I am trying to get people to understand is that your belief system, or domaster's, or anyone else's, is always based on the presumption that gods exist, without ever requiring evidence for that existence.

I'm sorry if you find that hateful.

[denuseri]

So you're saying that atheist should have no say in these matters? Isn't that rather ... dogmatic?

No, Im saying that they should perhaps be respectful when discusing these matters instead of hateful.

I'm sorry that this is all you can see of my arguments. I'm not preaching hate. I'm preaching understanding.

You dont preach understanding by constantly drawing analogies between someone elses faith and make believe childrens stories or fantastical flying pigs and the like.

And the first thing I am trying to get people to understand is that your belief system, or domaster's, or anyone else's, is always based on the presumption that gods exist, without ever requiring evidence for that existence.

Thats no different than aethism being based on the "presumption" of a god or gods not existing and you know it, so why try to spin it otherwise, you stated that enumerable times, you state it every single time you post a responce, you will even I predict re-state it againg and try to wiggle your way around the fact of it yet again and ignore the fact that your beliefs have no more validity than any others.

So whats the point in my continued participation if you refuse to debate without clinging to such hypocricy hummm?

I'm sorry if you find that hateful.

You cant prove god doesnt exist any more so than anyone can prove he does...ergo, all arguments eaither way are moot.

All of which you continously ignore and then try and twist with the upmost of sophistry against all logic, becuase it doesnt agree with your dogmatic agenda.

Which is why I am done.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR=pink]Thats no different than aethism being based on the "presumption" of a god or gods not existing

But that's just the point, a point which you cannot seem to accept. I DON'T presume that gods do not exist; I don't see evidence FOR their existence and so I don't see any reason to presume that they do.

[denuseri]

But that's just the point, a point which you cannot seem to accept. I DON'T presume that gods do not exist; I don't see evidence FOR their existence and so I don't see any reason to presume that they do.

Which is in and of itself a "presumption" of something's non-existance.

Yet again, you prove my own point for me with blatant hypocrisy.

You are still making a presumtion/ assumption/ corolation/ guestimation etc etc etc eaither way regardless of what word you wish to use, becuase you cannot "KNOW" for sure with any real certitude any more than anyone else can one way or the other.

And Ive come to realize that no amount of logic will work with you on this topic becuase you choose to not let logic apply to your own arguments, you just keep on trying to mince words just so you can maintain your dogmatic agenda you are being an outright sophist and insist anyway that only your way is the right one, which my dear Thorne makes you no different than those very secular fundamentalists that you blame for all wrongs on the earth.

Which is really sad, since you appear to be smart enough to actually be able to understand and realize when your doing it, yet consiously choosing to ignore it for your own convience.

[Thorne]

Which is in and of itself a "presumption" of something's non-existance.

All right, then, maybe you can explain it to me. Just how is NOT presuming the existence of something the same as presuming its non-existence? I honestly cannot understand how the two are the same.

You are still making a presumtion/ assumption/ corolation/ guestimation etc etc etc eaither way regardless of what word you wish to use, becuase you cannot "KNOW" for sure with any real certitude any more than anyone else can one way or the other.

I have already admitted that I cannot know for certain that there are no gods. All I can know is that there is no viable evidence FOR gods, and therefore there is no rational reason for ME to assume that there are. I don't claim they do not exist, I don't presume they do not exist, I simply do not assume or presume that they do. You rationalize your beliefs with faith. That's fine. I choose not to rely on faith, but on evidence. Why is that so bad?

And Ive come to realize that no amount of logic will work with you on this topic becuase you choose to not let logic apply to your own arguments, you just keep on trying to mince words just so you can maintain your dogmatic agenda you are being an outright sophist and insist anyway that only your way is the right one, which my dear Thorne makes you no different than those very secular fundamentalists that you blame for all wrongs on the earth.

Again, I have never claimed that my way is the right one. I leave those claims to religion. All I claim is that my way is right for ME.

Do I ridicule religious dogma? Absolutely, when it makes ridiculous claims without evidence! Do I call people stupid? No, not usually. When they blindly accept the teachings of a religion without really understanding it then yes, I believe they are acting stupidly. Do I attack people because they have faith? No! I disagree with them.

The OP in this thread posted a little story from the Quran dealing with the mother of Jesus. Did I launch an attack against him? No, I derided the story! I did not compare him to evil Muslims, past or present. I did not ridicule his faith. I pointed out what I perceived to be fallacies in the story! If this had been a modern book and I had made these kinds of claims to the author no one would have cared. But because some people seem to think that this particular collection of stories is somehow holy, then I am not permitted to point out where I think they are wrong? Sorry, but I don't play by those rules. Everything is fair game.

[denuseri]

All right, then, maybe you can explain it to me. Just how is NOT presuming the existence of something the same as presuming its non-existence? I honestly cannot understand how the two are the same.

Seriously? This is a prime example of the type of sophistry Im talking about.


I have already admitted that I cannot know for certain that there are no gods. Ergo your presuming there to be no god or gods...duh.

All I can know is that there is no viable evidence FOR gods,( in your opinion) and therefore there is no rational reason for ME to assume that there are. (again, thats your presumtion to make, other highly ratinonal people however apparently disagree with that assumption) I don't claim they do not exist, I don't presume they do not exist, I simply do not assume or presume that they do. (Same thing honey child)You rationalize your beliefs with faith. Just like you rationalize yours since by your own admission you dont know one way or the other. That's fine. (then why try to associate my belief and those of others in a derogatory manner every single time you make a post on religion?) I choose not to rely on faith, but on evidence. (what evidence?) Why is that so bad? Its not, using sophistry and acting like the fundamentalists you claim to oppose however imho is.


Again, I have never claimed that my way is the right one. Actually you do that bery thing with the way you present your arguments. I leave those claims to religion. Aethiests make just as many unfounded claims from what I can tell. All I claim is that my way is right for ME. And then in the same breath tell everyone else how they are a bunch of superstitiot idiots for believing what they believe. See the hipocracy at work there yet?

Do I ridicule religious dogma? Absolutely, when it makes ridiculous claims without evidence! Do I call people stupid? No, not usually. Actually you do several times in each and every thread on religion Ive seen you post in. In fact you implied it just now yet again. When they blindly accept the teachings of a religion without really understanding it then yes, (who are you to know weather or not someone is blindly doing anything? Are you in their minds? ) I believe they are acting stupidly. Do I attack people because they have faith? No! I disagree with them. All while calling what they believe in "ridiculous, superstition, stupid. fanciful etc etc the list goes on"...those are all forms of attack.

The OP in this thread posted a little story from the Quran dealing with the mother of Jesus. Did I launch an attack against him? No, I derided the story! I did not compare him to evil Muslims, past or present. I did not ridicule his faith. Um Im sory sugar, you actually did ridicule his faith and mine, and everyone else who wasnt an aetheist. I pointed out what I perceived to be fallacies in the story! In a rather belicose manner I might add. If this had been a modern book and I had made these kinds of claims to the author no one would have cared. But because some people seem to think that this particular collection of stories is somehow holy, (here you go again attacking all people of faith) then I am not permitted to point out where I think they are wrong? Pointing out where one doesnt share the same beliefs as anoyther isnt the issue, its calling them all stupid, ridiculous, fanciful, superstitious, blind, etc etc when you do it. Sorry, but I don't play by those rules. Everything is fair game.

Apparently...(thats the battle hymn of the sophists btw) ...which is why I get very tired of trying to discuss religion with you. You even make it where its inpossible for people of any different faiths outside of yours to try and seek any common ground between each other.

[Thorne]

All right, then, maybe you can explain it to me. Just how is NOT presuming the existence of something the same as presuming its non-existence? I honestly cannot understand how the two are the same.
Seriously? This is a prime example of the type of sophistry Im talking about.

I think this is a primary sticking point between us, and until we can resolve it I'd prefer to hold off discussion of the other points here.

So yes, I'm quite serious. I truly cannot understand your point here. I maintain that NOT believing in something is very different from believing that something is not. I see a large difference between saying, "I do not believe in God", and saying, "I believe there is no God." The first is a statement of disbelief while the second is a statement of belief. It is POSSIBLE to say both, but saying the first does not necessarily mean that the second is true. In my mind what you are seeming to imply is like saying, since I do not believe in RED, therefore I must believe in GREEN. Both MAY be true, but neither is dependent upon the other.