.

[senbonzakura]

.

[theymos]

Most of the Christians I know barely know who Muhammad is. So I'd say that this is fake, or at least a very rare occurrence.

[DannyHamilton]

http://youtu.be/4aaRfU3axpA

Probably fake, but even if it isn't...

A "Christian" who doesn't believe that Jesus is God, and hasn't read the Bible?  He wasn't a Christian to start with. A Christian, by definition, is someone that believes that Jesus is God.  He was someone who is searching for meaning and spirituality in life and a few months ago thought he'd give Catholicism a try.  Then along came a charismatic speaker who put him on the spot and gave him another religion to try.  No surprise in the end result.

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

http://youtu.be/4aaRfU3axpA

Christians , what you think of the above video , do you think its fake and the other videos too ?

Asking Christians whether something is or isn't fake probably isn't going to yield great results.  They're not great with that historically

[JoelKatz]

A "Christian" who doesn't believe that Jesus is God, and hasn't read the Bible?  He wasn't a Christian to start with. A Christian, by definition, is someone that believes that Jesus is God.  He was someone who is searching for meaning and spirituality in life and a few months ago thought he'd give Catholicism a try.  Then along came a charismatic speaker who put him on the spot and gave him another religion to try.  No surprise in the end result.

I'm an atheist. But I agree with this assessment. The guy was just someone easy to manipulate who just became convinced that there wasn't much difference between Islam and Christianity. He seemed to only be trying on Christianity anyway and was ready for a switch. I bet I could have gotten him to stop believing in God in about the same amount of time by using comparable techniques.

What's it supposed to show anyway? That some people don't really care what religion they belong to as long as they belong?

[Garr255]

I was raised Christian, but I call myself Diest now.The guy in that video wasn't really a strict or "by the books" Christian, and had mostly Muslim views.

The guy was just super gullible and manipulable.

[JoelKatz]

I was raised Christian, but I call myself Diest now.The guy in that video wasn't really a strict or "by the books" Christian, and had mostly Muslim views.

I don't think that's true. I think he was tricked into thinking that. I'm pretty sure if you ask him his views on the treatment of women or the relationship between religion and government, Jihad, the pope, and so on, you'll find his views are much more like those of Christians than Moslems. He was tricked into thinking that that big difference between Muslims and Christians is whether they believe Jesus is God or sent by God. That's like saying the difference between Americans and British people is whether the flag has stars on it or a big X on it.

[Clipse]

Wow, talk about street bullshitting the dumbest denominator.

Im an atheist and these kind of approaches is disgusting, I really hope muslims dont actually feel this is a fair tactic to try trick people into being a muslim.

Wether its a christian doing this to try and convert a muslim or vica versa, its pretty gross to observe. I wonder why these types of street converters never seem to hit me up or anyone likeminded to me.

[Garr255]

Wow, talk about street bullshitting the dumbest denominator.

Im an atheist and these kind of approaches is disgusting, I really hope muslims dont actually feel this is a fair tactic to try trick people into being a muslim.

Wether its a christian doing this to try and convert a muslim or vica versa, its pretty gross to observe. I wonder why these types of street converters never seem to hit me up or anyone likeminded to me.

Because religious man cannot reason with an atheist, because atheists depend on factual information hence their logical conclusion that there is no god. I'm on neither side of the religion argument, because we have so little proof either way.

This has more to do with space than religion, but I believe in infinity. "What is smaller than a cell?", you might ask. Well, supposedly strings. "What are these made of?", Many dimensions wrapped around this string, which contain universes of their own. Therefore our galaxy as we know it could just be a minuscule fraction of some guy's shoe string.

[JoelKatz]

Because religious man cannot reason with an atheist, because atheists depend on factual information hence their logical conclusion that there is no god. I'm on neither side of the religion argument, because we have so little proof either way.

Do you believe that it is reasonable to believe something, and act on it as if it were true, with no proof? If so, how should people decide which things they'll believe without proof and act on? Say I decide to believe (and act on the belief), without proof or evidence, that god thinks you should be killed. Is there any reason I shouldn't do that? I mean, there's so little proof either way, so can I just pick one side? Are you on neither side of my "god thinks you should be killed" argument?

And don't think these aren't the stakes -- there are people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, or strapping bombs to themselves and running into crowds of children, because they think god wants them to.

[AndrewBUD]

Wow, talk about street bullshitting the dumbest denominator.

Im an atheist and these kind of approaches is disgusting, I really hope muslims dont actually feel this is a fair tactic to try trick people into being a muslim.

Wether its a christian doing this to try and convert a muslim or vica versa, its pretty gross to observe. I wonder why these types of street converters never seem to hit me up or anyone likeminded to me.

a lot of atheists around here.... I do not believe in god, I believe there was a Jebus and the stories (yes stories) about him are greatly exagerated.....


I believe in being good to your fellow man,,,,,, that's it...... no reason to talk to my self pretending to talk to someone in the sky.... it seems well crazy....

[Garr255]

Because religious man cannot reason with an atheist, because atheists depend on factual information hence their logical conclusion that there is no god. I'm on neither side of the religion argument, because we have so little proof either way.

Do you believe that it is reasonable to believe something, and act on it as if it were true, with no proof? If so, how should people decide which things they'll believe without proof and act on? Say I decide to believe (and act on the belief), without proof or evidence, that god thinks you should be killed. Is there any reason I shouldn't do that? I mean, there's so little proof either way, so can I just pick one side? Are you on neither side of my "god thinks you should be killed" argument?

And don't think these aren't the stakes -- there are people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, or strapping bombs to themselves and running into crowds of children, because they think god wants them to.

Obviously religion is going to cause conflict, and even what we justify as totally unnecessary deaths, which strongly supports the argument against religion. If we had no religion the world would be a better place in the sense that nobody would fight for their religion. The world would also be a worse place because (probably) over 90% of people act in a different (better) way than they would if they didn't believe in heaven or hell.

I know a lot of athiests who believe religion was manifested by a government trying to (and succeeding in) providing the people something to work for.

[AndrewBUD]

is being an atheist a religion?

[myrkul]

here is interesting one for atheists http://youtu.be/b_AOwmd4Vvs

He sounded more agnostic than atheist.

"I take bits of every religion."

[Clipse]

I dont believe these videos are fake but they do show how gullable most people are and exactly why these same gullable people end up within some sort of religion.

The evidence of just how gullable religion is, is all evident in these videos.

[Clipse]

is being an atheist a religion?

No, a religion is the belief in something else(whatever that may be). An atheist doesnt believe in anything other than facts and if there is no facts to back up mystical claims then there is nothing to believe in. In essense if I believed in pixies and a puffycloud filled with magical unicorns then it could be considered a religion and my religion.

So if you want to grasp at straws then Atheists could be the religion of facts.

[DannyHamilton]

hmm, well this video is from europe, so I would say more people know of islam/middle-east in europe than in USA ?

here is another one http://youtu.be/Am2Pn8KjXOo?t=3m2s

in norway, some young people convert to islam in some small town in norway

I was wondering does any christian here have a link to a video of muslims being stopped on the street and converting to Christianity ?

The fact that many people convert from any one religion to any other religion really doesn't have any bearing on the how likely that particular religion is to be "the one true religion".  People make poor decisions all the time.  It is the one thing we seem to be really good at.  If we try to use number of believers as proof of "the one true religion", we find that there isn't a single religion that the majority of the world population believes in.  I read somewhere recently that it is estimated that 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every year.

If you can't find information about Muslims converting to Christianity, then you really aren't looking very hard for it.  As a matter of fact, I'd say you are avoiding looking for it:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Muslims+converting+to+Christianity

[rjk]

Notice in the first video how long ago the guy "converted" to Christianity in the first place - only 2 months ago? For that reason it should be pretty obvious that he is a pushover and inclined to believe anyone with somewhat reasonable language skills. Next he will probably meet a Jehovah's Witness, and convert again. After that, who knows what he will waffle around to next.

[JoelKatz]

Obviously religion is going to cause conflict, and even what we justify as totally unnecessary deaths, which strongly supports the argument against religion. If we had no religion the world would be a better place in the sense that nobody would fight for their religion. The world would also be a worse place because (probably) over 90% of people act in a different (better) way then they would if they didn't believe in heaven or hell.

Did you watch the video? One of the techniques used several times was to assure the convert that all they had to do was believe a small set of things (none of which had anything to do with being a good person) and they were *assured* entry in heaven.

Ask a typical Christian if the Bible is the revealed word of a living God who holds their eternal salvation in his hands and they'll say "yes". Then ask them if they've ever read the whole thing or bothered to understand what each section was saying. Their religious beliefs have no real effect on their behavior.

Perhaps without religion, people would have found the right reasons to be better people. And no one would have to get nailed to anything. (Perhaps not. My point is simply that it's easy to see the advantages of the actual and easy to not see the advantages of the potential. For example, NASA frequently talks about the technological advances they are responsible for. But who knows what advances the money spent on NASA would have brought if spent elsewhere.)

Also, I think religion is still a horrible evil, even if it did make 90% of people act better (which I do not accept), because of the people who fight and kill for religion. Think about a really good doctor, say one so much better than most other doctors that he saves an extra 20 people per year. However, he does ask in exchange that he be permitted to murder 1 patient per year. So, this doctor will save 19 lives per year. However, he does murder one random person, who otherwise would have lived. Maybe you're enough of a pragmatist that you'd reluctantly hold your nose and hire this doctor. But I don't think you would argue that he's perfectly entitled and morally justified in killing one person, given that he saves 20.

You can't make up for the bad with good that way.

[check_status]

God centric monotheistic religions are just fraternities, organizations where like minded individuals get together to share an experience or work towards an agreed upon goal. God is One, yet there are so many religions, why? We tend to congregate with people we have things in common and disassociate ourselves from those whom we do not. It is the law of attraction, like begets like. Even atheists keep it.

After watching Derren Brown I'd say it's possible to mesmerize many people who have a weak will power. As such the video can only provide testimony to the ability of the converter and the method used to persuade the individual.

[Clipse]

God centric monotheistic religions are just fraternities, organizations where like minded individuals get together to share an experience or work towards an agreed upon goal. God is One, yet there are so many religions, why? We tend to congregate with people we have things in common and disassociate ourselves from those whom we do not. It is the law of attraction, like begets like. Even atheists keep it.

After watching Derren Brown I'd say it's possible to mesmerize many people who have a weak will power. As such the video can only provide testimony to the ability of the converter and the method used to persuade the individual.

Correct, its a tribal thing and not a civil thing.

Civilization is the evolution of tribalism, so why do we still have so many ancient tribalism still going on in the 21st century, scary.

[check_status]

Correct, its a tribal thing and not a civil thing.

Civilization is the evolution of tribalism, so why do we still have so many ancient tribalism still going on in the 21st century, scary.

I would hesitate to call it 'tribalism', it is human nature. Doesn't matter if it was 1 million years ago or in 2600AD, human nature will still follow the laws. Therefore, the various fraternities of various religions is not tribalism.

[JoelKatz]

is being an atheist a religion?

The usual flippant atheist response to this question is "Is not collecting stamps a hobby?"

Being an atheist just means you don't believe in a deity of any kind. It doesn't require any particular positive belief. There are no customs, traditions, or practices that are part of atheism or shared by atheists generally as part of their being atheists.

Some people do argue that large numbers of atheists have common views and that this makes atheism a religion. For example, many atheists have the affirmative belief that no god exists. Many believe in moral systems such as pragmatism or humanism. Many believe that beliefs must be justified by logic and reason and that faith is not an acceptable justification for belief.

However, nobody has explained how this can constitute a religion without making pretty much everything a religion. People who play golf tend to share a belief that golfing is enjoyable. They share the custom and practice of playing golf. They meet at golf courses on weekends. Is golfing a religion? What about vegetarians? Many of them share a belief that it is morally wrong to eat meat. They have customs and practices, shared beliefs, and so on. Is vegetarianism a religion? What about believing in the importance of regular exercise?

Still, I don't think this is something to argue over. We know what atheism is. Why does it matter what we label it? Whether or not you consider atheism a religion, it is clearly fundamentally different from religions like Christianity and Islam. It still is what it is. Even if atheism was fairly categorized as a religion, that wouldn't make "atheists are religious too" a sensible response to atheist's rejection of major religions, their arguments would still be precisely the same.

[Clipse]

Correct, its a tribal thing and not a civil thing.

Civilization is the evolution of tribalism, so why do we still have so many ancient tribalism still going on in the 21st century, scary.

I would hesitate to call it 'tribalism', it is human nature. Doesn't matter if it was 1 million years ago or in 2600AD, human nature will still follow the laws. Therefore, the various fraternities of various religions is not tribalism.

Sorry but the core of the problem is tribalism, you can get 2 tribes of same race who epicly hate/kill each other, that same issue still exist today with different naming schemes but same outcomes. You could even go as far as to say that the term 'cliques' is the new term used for 'tribalism'.

Middle-east being a very good example, in most cases blood brothers with a religious barrier.

We have ancient tribalism still going on since they havnt turned into a civilization yet, do you really think with technology and evolution of different areas of technology every single group of people on the planet move at the same pace ?

[DannyHamilton]

so far heard of atheists and non-Christians etc.. where are the Christians ?

I want to discuss other videos too with Christians and figure out trinity and what they think of the conversions

Perhaps you were confused and thought this was a Christian forum?  If you want to hold a discussion with Christians, you would be better off posting your thoughts to a Christian forum.  This forum is a good place to post if you want to hold a discussion with people active in the Bitcoin community.

[AndrewBUD]

is being an atheist a religion?

The usual flippant atheist response to this question is "Is not collecting stamps a hobby?"

Being an atheist just means you don't believe in a deity of any kind. It doesn't require any particular positive belief. There are no customs, traditions, or practices that are part of atheism or shared by atheists generally as part of their being atheists.

Some people do argue that large numbers of atheists have common views and that this makes atheism a religion. For example, many atheists have the affirmative belief that no god exists. Many believe in moral systems such as pragmatism or humanism. Many believe that beliefs must be justified by logic and reason and that faith is not an acceptable justification for belief.

However, nobody has explained how this can constitute a religion without making pretty much everything a religion. People who play golf tend to share a belief that golfing is enjoyable. They share the custom and practice of playing golf. They meet at golf courses on weekends. Is golfing a religion? What about vegetarians? Many of them share a belief that it is morally wrong to eat meat. They have customs and practices, shared beliefs, and so on. Is vegetarianism a religion? What about believing in the importance of regular exercise?

Still, I don't think this is something to argue over. We know what atheism is. Why does it matter what we label it? Whether or not you consider atheism a religion, it is clearly fundamentally different from religions like Christianity and Islam. It still is what it is. Even if atheism was fairly categorized as a religion, that wouldn't make "atheists are religious too" a sensible response to atheist's rejection of major religions, their arguments would still be precisely the same.

I don't think it should be labled........ Nothing wrong with just being a kind person....

[Xenland]

so far heard of atheists and non-Christians etc.. where are the Christians ?

I want to discuss other videos too with Christians and figure out trinity and what they think of the conversions

Perhaps you were confused and thought this was a Christian forum?  If you want to hold a discussion with Christians, you would be better off posting your thoughts to a Christian forum.  This forum is a good place to post if you want to hold a discussion with people active in the Bitcoin community.

I don't think he was confused, I think perhaps it was specifically targeted to Bitcoin community Christians or probably pulled a Xenland and was too lazy to join another forum and learn new rules and other social posting etiquette and instead posted in the off-topic forum... works everytime.

[sadpandatech]

some more links , fake or gullible ?

http://youtu.be/Jrg1IglpqqA

http://youtu.be/iwx4-Ot6vBQ

http://youtu.be/-Otpp200TIc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqWVsJXtygI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eldxkk5ZZw       pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg2DyQt7nOw    pt.2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDyOcPdC_0Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-airlkTRAE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_qTiNDFxB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmQbgAbvkgo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWzBzt0BzOI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_xDJncPsY   pt.1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD5Wf4oM_oI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBUdRWjSxHI


I already know what your reply will be. But I will hold assumptions and see.

[Taz]

I went to an atheist convention about 3 years ago, there were a lot of jokes made at the expense of believers, which were all laughed at furiously. I have never heard or seen anything that could make me laugh as much as these people did at every slight, their faces writhing in ridiculous caricature.

Eventually we got to the main speaker, Richard Dawkins was introduced followed by over 5 minutes of standing ovation, some people were clapping so hard, they must have been crippled on the way home. His lecture was slow going, any time he paused for breath, the clapping started up again, sometimes back to another standing clap session. I'll admit I can't remember a single thing he talked about.

After he finished his lecture, followed by some more clapping, came question time. One of the first to stand up was a timid old lady, who introduced herself as some sort of christian, before she could as her question the hall was flooded with laughing and jeering. Eventually she got to ask her question, something fairly level headed about whether people are entitled to their beliefs in the eyes of atheists, RD gave a rather undetailed response followed by a "thank you" signalling that the topic was over and for the next person to ask their question. As she walked back to her seat, no BS, there was booing and hissing and some attempted to get a chant going of "Sit Down".

I left that convention with a really bad taste in my mouth. My opinions on religion haven't changed but I won't identify myself as an atheist anymore. Though I do try to accept everyone with the same level of respect no matter what they believe.

Oh and up until six months ago, they were still emailing me trying to sell shit from the convention. Signed posters, t-shirts and bumper stickers

[myrkul]

So.... not only a religion, but a rather toxic form of cult.

[sadpandatech]

So.... not only a religion, but a rather toxic form of cult.

no doubt. I love the way Taz described it though. Very colorful. =)

I already know what your reply will be. But I will hold assumptions and see.

thanks for your links, i viewed all of them quickly , none of them is what i was looking for , i am looking specifically for videos like the one i posted but in opposite, a priest/preacher stopping a muslim, asking the muslim to embrace Christianity, bit of discussion/debate/arguments back and forth and then eventually the muslim person leaving islam and embracing Christianity.

I am aware of these videos , and i am aware many convert from islam to Christianity , but its not what i am looking for.

If you want to discuss or want me to give a comment on one of the links you posted above, select one and I give my opinion.

you Christian ? if so which denomination

Aye, that's what I knew you would say. ;p  I think you will be hard pressed to find video footage of many christians attempting ambush conversions like that.  Don't get me wrong, there are many christian based faiths that go door to door and hand out 'get saved' fliers or ask people to be 'saved' right there on the spot.  You know, now that I think about it more the 'recruiters' for christ are a bit pushier these days than what I recall them being, say 15 years ago. They just havn't uped their game to the big viral marketing scene yet, aka, Youtube.

It's all the same to me though. I consider myself 'christian' in that I believe A god may exist and that he sent his son(s) to earth in order to 'save' us all from ourselves...


I'll try to discuss more with you later. I am needing to take a small, very constipated kitten to the vet here before they close in 30 minutes.

Regards,
 Panda

[Matthew N. Wright]

is being an atheist a religion?

My favorite youtube channel of all time:

http://www.youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector

If atheism is a "religion",...

then Not Collecting Stamps is a "hobby".

If atheism is a "religion", ...

then Not Playing Football is a "sport".

If atheism is a "religion", ...

then 'OFF' is a "TV channel".

If atheism is a "religion", ...

then "Abstinence" is a "sex position".

[amencon]

Atheists are all part of a cult?  That doesn't make any sense.

A group of people ridiculed someone who believes in ridiculous things.  I don't condone the behavior but I do believe it's more senseless to create an environment where people are pressured to respect even the most ignorant of ideas and beliefs.  I tolerate people with idiotic notions every day, however I won't respect it.

When I have my stupid moments or ideas I would hope likewise others tolerate me as long as I'm not dangerous but would never ask them to respect me for them.

That being said, I can't imagine ever being tempted to attend a convention like that.  What would be the point?  Do these people really need that kind of validation?

[sadpandatech]

That being said, I can't imagine ever being tempted to attend a convention like that.  What would be the point?  Do these people really need that kind of validation?

That was my take from it. It seems more a product of 'group think' than a symptom of atheism.

[nimda]

Hmm... there has been a historical progression in most areas of the world:
animism (belief that everything has a spirit)
to polytheism (belief in many gods)
to monotheism (belief in one god)
to atheism.

Only in the present era is there such a large atheist section of the populace. We live in exciting times.

[JoelKatz]

That being said, I can't imagine ever being tempted to attend a convention like that.  What would be the point?  Do these people really need that kind of validation?

If scientists got together every Sunday to re-affirm their conviction in the validity of the theory of evolution, I'd think they were pretty insecure about it.

[goodlord666]

I believe in Bitcoin

[Xenland]

The thing i have a problem with athiesm is that its just basically anti-everything considering its not a philosophy, or a view point or a practice or anything its just "anti-" everything really...I don't really understand the point of declaring your self anti-everything, sounds like pure rebellion but then again their is no view point or atheism or philosophy so by definition its not rebellion its just "not" religious/spiritual practice,but in action athiests seem to just be rebal against everything(even though I have heard some athiests mention Altruism, i've never heard an atheist declare a anything that would back up any thoughts on how atheism is purely to condone to altruism scince that is no inline with their beliefs considering they don't believe in anything or have any practices or agree with culture)

So questions are going to be flawed when you compare it to stuff that is "anti-anti-" of atheism

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist%20Talking%20Points%20what%20is%20atheism.htm
A good link i think that clears up meh thoughts

[Matthew N. Wright]

The thing i have a problem with athiesm is that its just basically anti-everything considering its not a philosophy, or a view point or a practice or anything its just "anti-" everything really...I don't really understand the point of declaring your self anti-everything, sounds like pure rebellion but then again their is no view point or atheism or philosophy so by definition its not rebellion its just "not" religious/spiritual practice,but in action athiests seem to just be rebal against everything(even though I have heard some athiests mention Altruism, i've never heard an atheist declare a anything that would back up any thoughts on how atheism is purely to condone to altruism scince that is no inline with their beliefs considering they don't believe in anything or have any practices or agree with culture)

So questions are going to be flawed when you compare it to stuff that is "anti-anti-" of atheism

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist%20Talking%20Points%20what%20is%20atheism.htm
A good link i think that clears up meh thoughts

I see you one one-sided argument website and raise you wikipedia commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

Please check your FUD at the door, thanks.

[check_status]

Here is my spin on the value of Islam and the Koran:

Muhamed did not write a book called the Koran, he spoke to people as he traveled. Those people whom he talked to wrote down some of what he said. After Muhameds death, people got together and fashioned the book now called the Koran. During the time of Muhamed, there was still a strong bitterness of Christians, which may have influenced the accurate retelling of Muhameds words. Then as time moved on, someone decided to authorize a single Koran (as there were 8 versions in circulation), of which the Koran authority destroyed any versions but the one they promoted. Today there are 5 known versions of the Koran still in existence.

In legal terms they call this type of evidence, unwitnessed indirect testimony, heresay and it is inadmisible as evidence. Many sayings were attributed to Muhamed and some may not have been his words or ideas.

My second point, Muhamedans believe in God, yet are unwilling to accept that God wrote a book called the Torah, where He is credited with penning at least 1 out of 5 books, as well as the 10 commandments.

[myrkul]

you CANNOT be a muslim unless you believe in the torah , injeel (gospel), quran , zabur, moses , joseph, jacob, jesus etc..basically all the prophets/messengers that god sent, and all the holy books that god revealed to us.

So what is your opinion of the Bahá'í Faith, which basically is a continuation of that; Islam 2.0, if you will?

Islam teaches that God has sent prophets before, Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, and Bahá'í simply states that it's time for a new one.

Please note, I'm neither Christian, Muslim, Bahá'í, or Atheist. I would just like your opinion on that faith, as it seems to me that it would be natural for someone who believes that Moses was superseded by Jesus was superseded by Mohammad to take that next step.

[myrkul]

So what is your opinion of the Bahá'í Faith, which basically is a continuation of that; Islam 2.0, if you will?

no more messengers or prophets after mohammed, mohamed is the final messenger of god

"Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing." Qur'an 33:40

So...Moses was good for his time, Jesus was good for his, but Mohammed is for everybody, forever?

Convenient. Considering how much the world has changed around Islam, I'd say that life has left it behind. Like the religions before it, it's got some good points, and some useful advice remains, but many of the teachings are outdated, at best, and backward, at worst.

[myrkul]

So...Moses was good for his time, Jesus was good for his, but Mohammed is for everybody, forever?

yes

Convenient. Considering how much the world has changed around Islam, I'd say that life has left it behind. Like the religions before it, it's got some good points, and some useful advice remains, but many of the teachings are outdated, at best, and backward, at worst.

give me few examples, which you think are backward and/or outdated , some relevant link http://forum.islam.com/questions/3879/islamic-law-does-not-fit-for-modern-world-or-is-it-out-dated

Well, that link doesn't give me many examples to work with, but it does advance this argument:

if human nature does not change with time law given by creator of human being can get outdated or has to change with time?

Which is an interesting point. If that is to be the argument, what then of Moses and Jesus? Did human nature change from their time to Mohammed's? No, but society did. And I know you will not argue that society has been static since 632 CE.

The main problem most non-Muslims have with Islam is it's placement of women in the society. Women, in my understanding, have a strange "gilded cage" place in Islamic society. If I am incorrect, I welcome truer information.

i agree with you if you say so-called islamic countries are backward today, not always been backward though for instance consider islamic spain and baghdad library http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom

Aristotle / Plato , translated by islamic scientists/philosophers etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Classics

Don't get me wrong, I am tremendously thankful for the Islamic preservation of classical knowledge (and their improvement upon it). It just confuses me that a religion which openly acknowledges its basis in prior revelations would so vehemently deny the possibility of further revelations.

[JoelKatz]

The thing i have a problem with athiesm is that its just basically anti-everything considering its not a philosophy, or a view point or a practice or anything its just "anti-" everything really...I don't really understand the point of declaring your self anti-everything, sounds like pure rebellion but then again their is no view point or atheism or philosophy so by definition its not rebellion its just "not" religious/spiritual practice,but in action athiests seem to just be rebal against everything(even though I have heard some athiests mention Altruism, i've never heard an atheist declare a anything that would back up any thoughts on how atheism is purely to condone to altruism scince that is no inline with their beliefs considering they don't believe in anything or have any practices or agree with culture)

All atheists necessarily have in common is a lack of belief in a deity. But if there were an overriding philosophy behind atheism, it would be this: Almost all of the world's major religions have in common the doctrine of faith -- that people should believe things in the absence of any rational justification and then act on those beliefs. The problem is that there is no rational way to decide what to believe and act on in the absence of any rational justification -- rationally, one belief is equal to another if they both have no rational justification.

I have no rational justification for believing that god wants me to be a good person. I have equally no rational justification for believing that god wants me to kill you. If you accept the doctrine that belief without rational justification is permissible and one should act on those beliefs, you are equally justifying the terrorist who chooses to believe god wants him to kill people as you are the Jew who chooses to believe god wants him to help his fellow men.

That is what atheism stands against, to the extent it stands against anything.

[check_status]

you CANNOT be a muslim unless you believe in the torah

Can women be prophets?
Yes. Mirriam, the sister of Aaron was a prohetess. Exodus 15:20

Who can be a prophet?
Whom ever the Lord puts His spirit upon is a prophet. Numbers 11:29

How does God choose his prophets?
God will make Himself know to them in a vision and will speak to him in a dream. Numbers 12:6

Can a prophet be bad or evil?
Do not follow after a prophet who tells you to follow after other gods. Deuteronomy 13:1-3

What makes someone succeptable to becoming a prophet for God?
They are seers, today we call them psychics, who can become prophets for God. 1Samuel 9:9
Therefore, all prophets are phsychic, but not all phsychics are prophets of God.

Has God ever said he would no longer visit His spirit upon men?
Yes, but a specific group would be cut off. Those of the many nations who rise up against Mount Zion. Isaiah 29:8-10

"Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing." Qur'an 33:40

The Koran contradicts the Bible. No where in the Torah does it say there will be no more prophets.

What do you do when the Koran contradicts a book you are told to believe in?
You must conclude that one of them is wrong, of course. I wonder which one is wrong?

[Xenland]

The thing i have a problem with athiesm is that its just basically anti-everything considering its not a philosophy, or a view point or a practice or anything its just "anti-" everything really...I don't really understand the point of declaring your self anti-everything, sounds like pure rebellion but then again their is no view point or atheism or philosophy so by definition its not rebellion its just "not" religious/spiritual practice,but in action athiests seem to just be rebal against everything(even though I have heard some athiests mention Altruism, i've never heard an atheist declare a anything that would back up any thoughts on how atheism is purely to condone to altruism scince that is no inline with their beliefs considering they don't believe in anything or have any practices or agree with culture)

All atheists necessarily have in common is a lack of belief in a deity. But if there were an overriding philosophy behind atheism, it would be this: Almost all of the world's major religions have in common the doctrine of faith -- that people should believe things in the absence of any rational justification and then act on those beliefs. The problem is that there is no rational way to decide what to believe and act on in the absence of any rational justification -- rationally, one belief is equal to another if they both have no rational justification.

I have no rational justification for believing that god wants me to be a good person. I have equally no rational justification for believing that god wants me to kill you. If you accept the doctrine that belief without rational justification is permissible and one should act on those beliefs, you are equally justifying the terrorist who chooses to believe god wants him to kill people as you are the Jew who chooses to believe god wants him to help his fellow men.

That is what atheism stands against, to the extent it stands against anything.

Very informative, and now I understand atheism at its core. Obviously I can read an neutral article on Wikipedia but nothing works like a one on one explanation.
So basically the only way an atheist will become to accept that their is a power that tends to the reality we live in is to experience a presence of deity by some means of sensory perception(seeing, hearing, or feeling a deity). I see that as counter-intuitive as there could be a possibility that no organism is able to scan or process an deity physically with out the creation of such machines to process such information; Maybe a machine out there could look at the deity in visual form and possibly process the infinite knowledge and wisdom in some manner that physical beings could understand, yet the "lack of proof" made all of humanity not invest in such devices because there is no proof.

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse? ( Begin Rehtorical questions) Why try if it isn't already there? Why obtain water if it only exists in a seemingly unobtainable situation? (End rhetorical questions)

[myrkul]

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse?

On the contrary, an atheist applies the scientific method to his entire world-view. That includes religion, and since he cannot replicate a burning bush, or other deific manifestations, he declares the theory "there is a god" to be unprovable.

[nimda]

The thing i have a problem with athiesm is that its just basically anti-everything considering its not a philosophy, or a view point or a practice or anything its just "anti-" everything really...I don't really understand the point of declaring your self anti-everything, sounds like pure rebellion but then again their is no view point or atheism or philosophy so by definition its not rebellion its just "not" religious/spiritual practice,but in action athiests seem to just be rebal against everything(even though I have heard some athiests mention Altruism, i've never heard an atheist declare a anything that would back up any thoughts on how atheism is purely to condone to altruism scince that is no inline with their beliefs considering they don't believe in anything or have any practices or agree with culture)

All atheists necessarily have in common is a lack of belief in a deity. But if there were an overriding philosophy behind atheism, it would be this: Almost all of the world's major religions have in common the doctrine of faith -- that people should believe things in the absence of any rational justification and then act on those beliefs. The problem is that there is no rational way to decide what to believe and act on in the absence of any rational justification -- rationally, one belief is equal to another if they both have no rational justification.

I have no rational justification for believing that god wants me to be a good person. I have equally no rational justification for believing that god wants me to kill you. If you accept the doctrine that belief without rational justification is permissible and one should act on those beliefs, you are equally justifying the terrorist who chooses to believe god wants him to kill people as you are the Jew who chooses to believe god wants him to help his fellow men.

That is what atheism stands against, to the extent it stands against anything.

Very informative, and now I understand atheism at its core. Obviously I can read an neutral article on Wikipedia but nothing works like a one on one explanation.
So basically the only way an atheist will become to accept that their is a power that tends to the reality we live in is to experience a presence of deity by some means of sensory perception(seeing, hearing, or feeling a deity). I see that as counter-intuitive as there could be a possibility that no organism is able to scan or process an deity physically with out the creation of such machines to process such information; Maybe a machine out there could look at the deity in visual form and possibly process the infinite knowledge and wisdom in some manner that physical beings could understand, yet the "lack of proof" made all of humanity not invest in such devices because there is no proof.

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse? ( Begin Rehtorical questions) Why try if it isn't already there? Why obtain water if it only exists in a seemingly unobtainable situation? (End rhetorical questions)

The typical flippant response to this is the flying spaghetti monster religion. There is a lack of proof that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

[Xenland]

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse?

On the contrary, an atheist applies the scientific method to his entire world-view. That includes religion, and since he cannot replicate a burning bush, or other deific manifestations, he declares the theory "there is a god" to be unprovable.

I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste) don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?

With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?


References:
Proof doesn't equal truth
http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

[myrkul]

Well, that link doesn't give me many examples to work with, but it does advance this argument

i just posted that link for anyone to read, but you could give me some examples of someting that is outdated/backward in islam , such as a particular law in shariah etc..

The main problem most non-Muslims have with Islam is it's placement of women in the society. Women, in my understanding, have a strange "gilded cage" place in Islamic society. If I am incorrect, I welcome truer information.

http://youtu.be/tkUPvGZqP10 ,  Women in Islam: Oppressed or Liberated? (Yvonne Ridley) , for more info i am sure you can google, but if you have specific questions i will answer and reply , example:- women cant drive in saudi arabia, it has nothing to do with religion, its to do with culture/dictatorship etc..

If you could give me a few quotes on "the proper place of women" in Islam, like you have on Mohammed being the final prophet, I'd be appreciative. I don't really feel like sitting through a two-hour long lecture.

Unfortunately, I'm no scholar in Shariah law, so I don't have any specific information. All I have is the government policies of the countries who have claimed to follow Shariah. And, I gotta say, those don't look good. Of course, government policies don't have a great track record of following the ideals they claim...

[myrkul]

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse?

On the contrary, an atheist applies the scientific method to his entire world-view. That includes religion, and since he cannot replicate a burning bush, or other deific manifestations, he declares the theory "there is a god" to be unprovable.

I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste) don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?

With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?


References:
Proof doesn't equal truth
http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

The possibility exists that Deity is not yet observable, with modern technology, and yet, does exist, or has already been observed, and been mistaken for something else (quantum mechanics, etc). That's why I did not say I am an Atheist.

My religious beliefs are... complex.

[Brunic]

I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste) don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?

With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?


References:
Proof doesn't equal truth
http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

I'm an atheist, and I'll speak for myself only. I don't need other atheist to tell me their "rules" of atheism, I don't care.

My own belief is that you should believe what you want, I don't care. Do your own thing, but never try to impose your own belief unto myself, never ever. I think, when you wake up in the morning, you need some faith in something. You need dreams or beliefs to be able to be productive and create something wonderful. Before, people used to convince themselves in believing in all the same crap. Every religion started as a cult with a fucked up prophet who had "visions". Today, with the wave of atheism, I think faith is becoming more personal and private than before. Instead of listening to your neighbor to know which crap to believe, you make your own crap to believe in.

As an atheist, I build my own vision of life, my own vision of the world by using different elements of our knowledge and mixing it with my own creativity. In a way, life is simply a bad trip on oxygen. So, in my opinion, worldview is established by using respect and discussion between individual minds, and this worldview can be changed anytime. We need to have different worldview, the more the better. Humanity lose its soul the day where everybody is under the same banner, the same worldview, the same truth.

Faith is a powerful tool, it is what build this world. Everything has been built on what humans believe. And like any tool, it gets better with any new version. Sticking your faith to one of the basic organized religion is like sticking to use Windows 1.0. Challenge it! Change it! Try Linux! Try Mac OS! Try what you hate! It's the only way to evolve your faith and your own mind. Because, in a way....monotheism evolved from polytheism, Christians evolve from Jews and Muslim evolved from Christians. Atheism is simply a peer-2-peer and decentralized faith.

But like I said, as an atheist, this is my own crap in which I believe, and I only share it. I don't really care in your faith, because it's yours, not mine.

[myrkul]

I think this one, right here is probably the best of the bunch:

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good."
 [Noble Quran 4:19]

I assume you added the emphasis. It's a great quote. Which raises the question, if a footing of "kindness and equity" is to be desired, why do so many Islamic nations oppress their women?

[Xenland]

My mind = Blown

[Xenland]

My mind = Blown

?

Reffering to brunic and myrkulS reponeses

[check_status]

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it (i.e., the bible) into a LIE. (RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8 )
"How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8 )

Funny you should quote that without knowing what is really being said.  

"איכה תאמרו חכמים אנחנו ותורת יהוה אתנו אכן הנה לשׁקר עשׂה עט שׁקר ספרים׃"
"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood."
(Darby Bible, Jeremiah 8:8 )
I guess you don't understand the ironic humor of Israelites in the Bible. The tomes you quote are from "pens of the translators" (scribes) who are supposed wise men.
Jeremiah was a prophet (not a bullfrog, incase you were wondering), who made many future predictions having to do with the end times. In that 8th chapter, notice how it begins: "At that time". It is a future date. When is that date? When they begin to uncover the bones of the kings of Judah. Sounds like an archeological expedition in Israel to me.

In 1913, Raymond Weill found eight elaborate tombs at the south of the City of David, which archaeologists have subsequently interpreted as strong candidates for the burial locations of the former kings of the city;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David's_Tomb

When is the copyright of those Bibles you quoted from?

The New International Version project was started after a meeting in 1965. The New Testament was released in 1973 and the full Bible in 1978

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

The RSV was published in the following stages:

    New Testament (first edition), 1946 (originally copyrighted to the International Council of Religious Education)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version

The Darby translation was published before the bones of the kings of Judah were uncovered. Therefore, according to Jeremiah, it is not made into falsehoods, so it should be OK to use for english quoting of Bible verses.

Edit: Added the above paragraph for clarity.

Darby published a translation of the New Testament in 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884. After his death, some of his students produced an Old Testament translation based on Darby's French and German translations (see below). The complete Darby Bible, including Darby's 3rd edition New Testament and his students' Old Testament, was first published in 1890.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Bible

That means we live in the time which Jeremiah was talking about. Jeremiah was warning us about the falsehoods that would be put into Gods Law by translators (scribes) not the writers of the original text of the Bible.

But that doesnt mean I wont use your bible/torah against you in an argument.

Your helping me prove my point by doing so. Thanks.

[JoelKatz]

So basically the only way an atheist will become to accept that their is a power that tends to the reality we live in is to experience a presence of deity by some means of sensory perception(seeing, hearing, or feeling a deity).

The only way a rational person should come to accept anything is to discover evidence that justifies accepting it. Broadly speaking, the only source of information we have about the world is sensory.

I see that as counter-intuitive as there could be a possibility that no organism is able to scan or process an deity physically with out the creation of such machines to process such information;

Say we constructed a machine that processed that information. By what means would we acquire the results that machine had gathered? If not by our senses, then how? So any mechanism you can imagine, ultimately, would reduce to sensory evidence. Senses are the only way the mind gathers information about the outside world.

You look through a microscope with your eyes. You hear a metal detector with your ears. Fundamentally, there is no difference between building a machine to gather data and moving something out of the way to see what's behind it.

Maybe a machine out there could look at the deity in visual form and possibly process the infinite knowledge and wisdom in some manner that physical beings could understand, yet the "lack of proof" made all of humanity not invest in such devices because there is no proof.

I don't understand what you're saying. The point is, whatever proof you're imagining here doesn't yet exist.

So im confused... not to be offensive but isn't the idea of an atheist just really laziness with an excuse? ( Begin Rehtorical questions) Why try if it isn't already there? Why obtain water if it only exists in a seemingly unobtainable situation? (End rhetorical questions)

I totally don't understand what this has to do with what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that rational people should reject faith and should only believe things and act on them in the presence of evidence. Otherwise, you are equally justifying being a good person because you think god wants you to and being a suicide bomber because you think god wants you to.

Plus, how is "you have to evidence to justify believing something" lazier than "you can believe whatever you want without having to justify it"? Faith is the lazy way to avoid having to actually understand the world.

[myrkul]

That means we live in the time which Jeremiah was talking about. Jeremiah was warning us about the falsehoods that would be put into Gods Law by translators (scribes) not the writers of the original text of the Bible.

Indeed....

Google Translate

"How smart we say and law of the Lord with us here lie did indeed lie pen books:"

[JoelKatz]

I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste)

Basically, you've just said that science is limited to gathering information through all of the means we have of gathering information. That doesn't sound like a limit to me.

don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?

Our perceptions are, by definition, how we perceive them. There's nothing to prove.

An "erroneous perception" is an oxymoron. Say, hypothetically, I could actually have an erroneous perception. In that case, the erroneous perception would be accurately reporting to me the true fact that I'm actually having that particular erroneous perception. Hence it wouldn't be erroneous at all. An "erroneous perception" is a self-contradiction.

With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?

A "false perception" is impossible. If I had a false perception, it would be the actual truth that I was having a false perception. The false perception would accurately report this fact to me. The accuracy of perception is axiomatic and definitional.

A mountain appears small when you are far away from it. But this is not a perceptual error, it is a perceptual fact. If a mountain appeared the same size no matter how far you were from it, then it would be in error, hiding from me the actual fact that mountains appear small when you are far away from them. Our perceptions are just as much a part of reality as everything else and how our perceptions work and what they mean are just as much subjects of study and analysis as everything else.

But let's assume you're right. Let's assume our senses are somehow fundamentally broken. Let's assume all of our reasoning is wrong. Let's assume everything we sense is somehow unreal and erroneous. What would that change? Would that mean anyone was perfectly justified in believing anything they want and acting on it? Would that make all actions, eating food or eating poison, equally good and valid?

[nimda]

That means we live in the time which Jeremiah was talking about. Jeremiah was warning us about the falsehoods that would be put into Gods Law by translators (scribes) not the writers of the original text of the Bible.

Indeed....

Google Translate

"How smart we say and law of the Lord with us here lie did indeed lie pen books:"

ROFL!
Reminds me of:

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense

[Xenland]

I'm glad you mentioned science - science is limited to our limited observational perceptions (eyes, ears, touch, taste)

Basically, you've just said that science is limited to gathering information through all of the means we have of gathering information. That doesn't sound like a limit to me.

don't we have to prove that our perceptions are exactly how we perceive them before we can prove science and all its decades of accumulative knowledge is truth?

Our perceptions are, by definition, how we perceive them. There's nothing to prove.

An "erroneous perception" is an oxymoron. Say, hypothetically, I could actually have an erroneous perception. In that case, the erroneous perception would be accurately reporting to me the true fact that I'm actually having that particular erroneous perception. Hence it wouldn't be erroneous at all. An "erroneous perception" is a self-contradiction.

With this in mind, how can any worldview be established if you can't prove that your perception/experience/accumulative knowledge is real/truth/unbreakable axioms to begin with?

A "false perception" is impossible. If I had a false perception, it would be the actual truth that I was having a false perception. The false perception would accurately report this fact to me. The accuracy of perception is axiomatic and definitional.

A mountain appears small when you are far away from it. But this is not a perceptual error, it is a perceptual fact. If a mountain appeared the same size no matter how far you were from it, then it would be in error, hiding from me the actual fact that mountains appear small when you are far away from them. Our perceptions are just as much a part of reality as everything else and how our perceptions work and what they mean are just as much subjects of study and analysis as everything else.

But let's assume you're right. Let's assume our senses are somehow fundamentally broken. Let's assume all of our reasoning is wrong. Let's assume everything we sense is somehow unreal and erroneous. What would that change? Would that mean anyone was perfectly justified in believing anything they want and acting on it? Would that make all actions, eating food or eating poison, equally good and valid?

If our perception was wrong then we would have to (with trial and error) integrate with machines that can accurately translate true perception to our brains, and then at that point atheists, religious, spiritual people will have to start over with a true reality to perceive. I realise that our perception is usually 100% consistent with our waking reality but that doesn’t mean we are able to observe everything accurately(For example see every spectrum of light/sound, quantum world, other worlds that can possibly contain higher consciousness).

I'm not trying to prove faith is correct, I guess I'm just trying to point out that any way of life is flawed until we can prove that our perception is actually 100% consistent with math and science. For what its worth I am a solphist with technoshaminisic beliefs, In other words I can't prove I exist as a identity(Xenland) but I can prove that experience exists' through pain and psychoactive(Food, water, chemicals, everything is a psychoactive to me).


and I could be an exception but growing up as a Christian in a Christian home with Christian (big) family, I can see how some people are prone to say "God makes it that way" and just not care about why it happens, and others like my self are prone to say "But why did god make it that way?" -- There all types of different people, i don't think the bible or religion keeps anyone under a persons finger, from my experience some people just don't want to learn why things work the way they do, some would rather leave it to god to deal with(Aka the quantum world to react with your intentions) and some like my self would rather leave it to god to deal with and learn why god deals with it that way(aka Ask why the quantum world reacts with our intentions).


I probably sound like a nut, but to me religion and science are the same they just haven't reached a human singularity of conclusions just yet.

[Brunic]

My mind = Blown

I'm happy to see that I can be....mind-blowing

But my faith use the first rule of Fight Club, so I'll stop talking about it 

[JoelKatz]

If our perception was wrong then we would have to (with trial and error) integrate with machines that can accurately translate true perception to our brains, and then at that point atheists, religious, spiritual people will have to start over with a true reality to perceive.

If you mean "wrong" in the sense that we may draw erroneous conclusions from them, then I agree that they are "wrong" in this sense. We *do* integrate with trial and error. We *do* use machines to augment our perception. Nobody needs to start over because this is what we've all been doing all along.

Nobody, except perhaps an infant, assumes that because something looks small it must be small. We have all learned from trial and error that things can look small for a large number of reasons and are all fully open to the possibilities that we can draw the wrong conclusions from our perceptions.

I realise that our perception is usually 100% consistent with our waking reality but that doesn’t mean we are able to observe everything accurately(For example see every spectrum of light/sound, quantum world, other worlds that can possibly contain higher consciousness).

It is a fact that we cannot see outside the visible spectrum. Thus not seeing outside the visible spectrum is an accurate reporting of this physical limitation. If we saw outside our limited spectrum, that would be an error hiding from us the fact that our vision is limited in the spectrum it can see. And yes, we all know we have a limited spectrum. We've figured that out through a process of reason. Could there be other limits and errors, sure. Do we try to figure them out, yes. Of course.

I'm not trying to prove faith is correct, I guess I'm just trying to point out that any way of life is flawed until we can prove that our perception is actually 100% consistent with math and science. For what its worth I am a solphist with technoshaminisic beliefs, In other words I can't prove I exist as a identity(Xenland) but I can prove that experience exists' through pain and psychoactive(Food, water, chemicals, everything is a psychoactive to me).

Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.

I probably sound like a nut, but to me religion and science are the same they just haven't reached a human singularity of conclusions just yet.

You stand with the suicide bombers and against reason. That's your choice, but I will condemn you for it as harshly as I can.

[Xenland]

Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.

Is it? what if we are assuming we are walking forward yet we are walking left. Would this kind of inconsistency be relevant? Imagine complex math formulas being formed around our inconsistent perception? Would explain why we can't find a "Formula for everything" because our perception(could be) inconsistent.

You stand with the suicide bombers and against reason. That's your choice, but I will condemn you for it as harshly as I can.

I'm sorry you feel that way but my beliefs and my actions are two separate things. Why do you condemn me instead of showing compassion for an open minded brother?

[nimda]

Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.

Is it? what if we are assuming we are walking forward yet we are walking left.

That would not matter in the slightest. At all. In any way. Since everyone perceives the same direction, and there is no evidence to the contrary, it simply would not matter if it was "wrong" in the eyes of an undetectable deity. Again with the FSM.

What if you are assuming that there is no flying spaghetti monster, but there is? What if your senses telling you that there is no FSM are wrong? What if he changes the results of science with his invisible noodly appendage?

Answer: nothing. What if...? nothing. It doesn't change how we live.

What if there is a deity urging me to become a suicide bomber? I'm assuming there isn't, but what if there is?

[Xenland]

Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.

Is it? what if we are assuming we are walking forward yet we are walking left.

That would not matter in the slightest. At all. In any way. Since everyone perceives the same direction, and there is no evidence to the contrary, it simply would not matter if it was "wrong" in the eyes of an undetectable deity. Again with the FSM.

What if you are assuming that there is no flying spaghetti monster, but there is? What if your senses telling you that there is no FSM are wrong? What if he changes the results of science with his invisible noodly appendage?

Answer: nothing. What if...? nothing. It doesn't change how we live.

What if there is a deity urging me to become a suicide bomber? I'm assuming there isn't, but what if there is?

its just an idea or a suggestion if you will, i dont believe that we walk forward and we are really going left. Im simply concluding that with out the search of a higher power or conciousness , we will limit our selfs to a dull view of what could be maybe proven to be a wonderful and beautiful system of reailty we live in. But i guess i am getting a little too philosophical for an mind that runs on purely observation. I guess with my belif that we a brain in a vat(an infinite beings brain that is) there is no proving tome otherwise not to search or believe their is something bigger and more inteligent then me. In my persepctive with out the search for a more intelligent conciouness is just egotistical and self indulging that you as a human wouldnt consider a higher power or inteligent then the working universe or even bigger(or perhaps smaller). If reality is infinite everything is possible with out a doubt with out contradiction.

[Xenland]

Too put it simply

[JoelKatz]

Our perception is 100% consistent with reality because reality is all there is. The idea of an "inconsistency" with reality is meaningless.

Is it? what if we are assuming we are walking forward yet we are walking left.

If we are in fact making that mistake, then our perceptions would be accurately reporting that mistake. It wouldn't be inconsistent or incorrect.

Would this kind of inconsistency be relevant? Imagine complex math formulas being formed around our inconsistent perception? Would explain why we can't find a "Formula for everything" because our perception(could be) inconsistent.

But then those formulas would be correct because the inconsistency they were based on was a fact of reality. Your calling it an "inconsistency" is just a senseless label. It is actually just a fact, like any other fact.

You stand with the suicide bombers and against reason. That's your choice, but I will condemn you for it as harshly as I can.

I'm sorry you feel that way but my beliefs and my actions are two separate things. Why do you condemn me instead of showing compassion for an open minded brother?

Because you are open minded about things that have been clearly explained to you as pure evil. I condemn those who are "fair" to what they know, or should know, is evil. You get no points in my book for willful blindness.

Faith is what motivated suicide bombers. There is nothing good about it at all -- it's just an excuse to believe, and act on, whatever you want to believe and act on. It's like flipping a coin to decide whether to kill someone. There is no rational way to decide what to have faith in. If you can look this evil in the eye and say "Ahh, I'll stay neutral", then you deserve all the condemnation I can heap on you and then some.

Sorry, I'm just a very judgmental person. On the bright side, at least you think about these things. Most people don't even bother.

[JoelKatz]

xenland doesnt believe in good or evil , for him there is no such things as good or evil 

If so, then he deserves as much condemnation as honest men can heap upon him. I believe that giving people what they deserve is a virtue -- justice. So I will do my part.

[Taz]

xenland doesnt believe in good or evil , for him there is no such things as good or evil 

If so, then he deserves as much condemnation as honest men can heap upon him. I believe that giving people what they deserve is a virtue -- justice. So I will do my part.

lol so what you're saying is: people that don't believe what you do should be condemned?

[JoelKatz]

lol so what you're saying is: people that don't believe what you do should be condemned?

No, I'm saying that people who believe what he believes should be condemned. And I not only said it but I presented a reasoned justification of it. There's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement among people. However, there is no room for "it's a virtue to believe that god wants you to do things, with no rational justification at all, and then to go do those things", because that justifies any imaginable evil.

[Taz]

lol so what you're saying is: people that don't believe what you do should be condemned?

No, I'm saying that people who believe what he believes should be condemned. And I not only said it but I presented a reasoned justification of it. There's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement among people. However, there is no room for "it's a virtue to believe that god wants you to do things, with no rational justification at all, and then to go do those things", because that justifies any imaginable evil.

Yes you did, should have read further back before posting. My bad.

[Xenland]

My conclusion is believing in only what you see is just as bad as believing in things you don't see or can't prove, There should be a balance.

And if you want to bring good or evil into this good luck that a whole another debate in it self. For an atheist that only believes in what he sees there is no such thing as good or bad -- its just what is there. lol Just because suicide bombers had a religious belief doesn't mean that all religious people are evil, just as if all those suicide bombers would have yelled "In the name of NO GOD I KILL YOU ALL" then blow up the place... would be equally as bad. Faith has nothing to do with actions, your actions have to do with actions.

True reality in your perspective says "We are just what science proves to be", with this kind of thinking in mind, I suicide bombers would even have a better excuse to kill people.... "WE ARE JUST ATOMS HERE IS THE PROOF!!!" -- BOOOM.

I'm asking you joelkatz whats the difference between faith and action or no-faith and action? Because the way i see it-- people are going to blow stuff up based on intentions of something not the belief of something. My intentions are to make everyone a happy person, those suicide bombers intentions (might have been) were to get to a better place(because their current situation doesn't allow for such enjoyment so its just more enjoyable to go die somewhere) yes maybe some suicide bombers "truly believe" they are pleasing their god. Or maybe some people are using a gods words to get other less educated people from their country to get them to blow shit up-- We really don't know the real situation, you say joelkatz that you only believe in only your perceptual experience...

Do you know any suicide bombers that surely believe in a faith that asks them to blow them selves up and they actually did it or is all your information on faith and suicide bombers based on what you read or hear about in the news or a friend? In my perspective, if you've never actually experienced the whole thing go down you are basing your "Scientific reality" on the faith of another person accuracy of reporting accurate news and concluding that those with faith are comparable to suicide bombers, if you've never experienced it your self then you are believing with your faith that what you are reading about suicide bombers are all true and accurate.

All im saying is if you push a mouse into a corner of a maze that has a piece of cheeese on a mouse trap-- its going to eat it regardless of its beliefs, it was forced into that situation to eat and die or eat and starve and die.. We must remember situations are more pressing on a persons intentions then anything.

[nimda]

My conclusion is believing in only what you see is just as bad as believing in things you don't see or can't prove, There should be a balance.

We already disagree by the first sentence. You can't prove that God doesn't want me to kill your family. I can't prove that Jesus never came back to life. Take a logic class and learn about "burden of proof"

[Xenland]

My conclusion is believing in only what you see is just as bad as believing in things you don't see or can't prove, There should be a balance.

We already disagree by the first sentence. You can't prove that God doesn't want me to kill your family. I can't prove that Jesus never came back to life. Take a logic class and learn about "burden of proof"

If you tunnel vision any sentence you can make it sound illogical... I said Believing in only what you see is just as bad....

Maybe we should go to school together I'll take a logic class and you take a "how to listen" class.


I'm pointing out that burden of proof you know oh so much about.... I'm asking to proove what your eyes see then tell me about proof of all other reality. We don't know crap about how our brains work or how to reconstruct a biological eye(yet) but until this -- every theism(including atheism) or any belief or thought of true experience is just speculation and should be taken as of.

[Xenland]

is being an atheist a religion?

My favorite youtube channel of all time:

http://www.youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector

If atheism is a "religion",...

then Not Collecting Stamps is a "hobby".

If atheism is a "religion", ...

then Not Playing Football is a "sport".

If atheism is a "religion", ...

then 'OFF' is a "TV channel".

If atheism is a "religion", ...

then "Abstinence" is a "sex position".

Collecting stamps is only just a hobby? (Could be for profit)

Playing foot ball is "just a sport" (could be a hobby or for excersize)

"On" is a TV channel? (could be static playing)

"having Sex" is a sex position?



Sounds like fallacies

[check_status]

Faith is belief without evidence or proof. Belief is the acceptance of what you understand. Belief is not necessarily truth.
Scientists have faith that dark matter exists. Galaxies are held in place by mass they can't see. The so called mass holding galaxies in place is not necessarily dark matter.

[Taz]

I was at a funeral and part of the sermon was about jesus. There was a line along the lines of:
"What has risen from the grave can never die again"
when I heard it, I started thinking about zombies and then on to zombie jesus.
I nearly exploded from holding in the laughter, I had to cover my face and step outside.
I only hope the old biddies thought I was crying, though the chances are slim.

[myrkul]

I was at a funeral and part of the sermon was about jesus. There was a line along the lines of:
"What has risen from the grave can never die again"
when I heard it, I started thinking about zombies and then on to zombie jesus.
I nearly exploded from holding in the laughter, I had to cover my face and step outside.
I only hope the old biddies thought I was crying, though the chances are slim.

Yeah, Zombie Jesus is always good for a laugh... Unfortunately, at times.

[Xenland]

Faith is belief without evidence or proof. Belief is the acceptance of what you understand. Belief is not necessarily truth.
Scientists have faith that dark matter exists. Galaxies are held in place by mass they can't see. The so called mass holding galaxies in place is not necessarily dark matter.

with that in mind then I think I just realised I am arguing something else.

[nimda]

Faith is belief without evidence or proof. Belief is the acceptance of what you understand. Belief is not necessarily truth.
Scientists have faith that dark matter exists. Galaxies are held in place by mass they can't see. The so called mass holding galaxies in place is not necessarily dark matter.

Interestingly, however, we have a large amount of evidence suggesting the existence of dark matter. We can't see it, but it fits in with the theories and has perceivable effects on the universe. Think "magnet in a box:" you can't see the magnet inside, but you can certainly see that iron filings are attracted to the box. The magnetic field it creates leads you to assume that there is a magnet inside the box. This is wildly different than most religious beliefs.

[myrkul]

Faith is belief without evidence or proof. Belief is the acceptance of what you understand. Belief is not necessarily truth.
Scientists have faith that dark matter exists. Galaxies are held in place by mass they can't see. The so called mass holding galaxies in place is not necessarily dark matter.

Interestingly, however, we have a large amount of evidence suggesting the existence of dark matter. We can't see it, but it fits in with the theories and has perceivable effects on the universe. Think "magnet in a box:" you can't see the magnet inside, but you can certainly see that iron filings are attracted to the box. The magnetic field it creates leads you to assume that there is a magnet inside the box. This is wildly different than most religious beliefs.

But maybe.... just maybe... "dark matter" is just God's will that the universe has the shape it does.

[nimda]

And maybe there is no magnet in a box; God just attracts iron filings to the box in the exact manner that a magnet would. For practical purposes, it's better to "believe" that there's a magnet there though, especially when it behaves like a magnet in every way that you test it.

[JoelKatz]

And if you want to bring good or evil into this good luck that a whole another debate in it self. For an atheist that only believes in what he sees there is no such thing as good or bad -- its just what is there. lol

Are you even reading what I'm writing? Seriously.

Just because suicide bombers had a religious belief doesn't mean that all religious people are evil,

Yes, it does, and I explained why. You can either address my argument or not, but please don't pretend to address it when you haven't. There is no rational way to decide what to believe in without evidence. If you endorse believing only some things without evidence, that's not even coherent.

just as if all those suicide bombers would have yelled "In the name of NO GOD I KILL YOU ALL" then blow up the place... would be equally as bad.

So the fact that you can come up with something just as evil as faith means ... what? Nothing at all.

Faith has nothing to do with actions, your actions have to do with actions.

No, that is simply not true. The people who hijacked airliners filled with people and flew them into buildings did so because of their faith. The faith was a cause of their actions and led directly to them. If you support their faith, you either have to endorse hyprocrisy (you shouldn't do what you believe is right) or you have to support their actions.

True reality in your perspective says "We are just what science proves to be", with this kind of thinking in mind, I suicide bombers would even have a better excuse to kill people.... "WE ARE JUST ATOMS HERE IS THE PROOF!!!" -- BOOOM.

Look, I can make any argument, call it X. You can respond, "Some crazy person can say 'X therefore I will kill you all'". But that misses the point. While any view can be distorted to support suicide bombing, some views actually in fact endorse suicide bombing. Suicide bombing is the logical consequence of some beliefs, such as the belief that if you think (without any rational evidence) that god wants you to do something, you should do it. We should condemn the latter, not the former.

I'm asking you joelkatz whats the difference between faith and action or no-faith and action?

The difference is that one is an evil attributable to faith. Faith is the evil that caused the former. If we got rid of faith, would other evils still cause evil actions? Of course. This argument is kind of like "why put murderers in jail, child molesters will still abuse children".

Do you know any suicide bombers that surely believe in a faith that asks them to blow them selves up and they actually did it or is all your information on faith and suicide bombers based on what you read or hear about in the news or a friend? In my perspective, if you've never actually experienced the whole thing go down you are basing your "Scientific reality" on the faith of another person accuracy of reporting accurate news and concluding that those with faith are comparable to suicide bombers, if you've never experienced it your self then you are believing with your faith that what you are reading about suicide bombers are all true and accurate.

I don't think I will ever fix your crazy misconceptions. When you read or hear something, you are reading it with your own eyes and hearing it with your own ears. You are actually experiencing things. There aren't different types of experience -- it's all sensation and it's all (in principle) equally direct and equally indirect.

[Xenland]

Well I can agree to disagree, but i think we can all agree we high-jacked this thread.

[nimda]

Religion was mentioned on the internet. What did you expect?

[Xenland]

Religion was mentioned on the internet. What did you expect?

Yeah its alot eaiser to discuss with out the restricted perception of text this is a weird form of discussion if you ask me haha

[RodeoX]

Why would you think it's fake? It's just a guy on the street who doesn't know anything about his religion. I would not be surprised if 25% of Christians got this answer wrong.Ii mean he's not asking a priest or a history professor.

look at this: http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/260-most-american-christians-do-not-believe-that-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exis

[finkleshnorts]

Been following this thread, but just now got around to watching the first video.

I don't think it's a staged video. However, I don't know any Christian (Catholic or otherwise) who thinks of Mohammed has a prophet.

This guy is Islam's Ray Comfort. It's disheartening to see somebody be this easily and wilfully manipulated. I have little tolerance for these kinds of underhanded evangelistic tactics. Semantic tricks and appeals to pathos.

Disclosure: Raised Church of Christ, now atheist. Surprised to see so many atheists here. I know like 2 IRL

[RodeoX]

Disclosure: Raised Church of Christ, now atheist. Surprised to see so many atheists here. I know like 2 IRL

You may know more than you think. Since we are not looking for converts it may just not come up in conversation.

[amencon]

Xenland you seem to fall for the surprisingly commonly held fallacy that if we don't know something %100 then all possibilities are equally likely.

I don't see how we could ever know anything %100.  Anything, ever.

The best we can ever do is pick the most likely answer based on evidence.  The realization that this answer may change based on further evidence makes it a stronger "conclusion" rather than a weaker one.  %100 belief in something almost certainly wrong is much "worse" than high % belief in something most likely to be right.

Some things are so overwhelmingly likely it is no longer productive to continue questioning it, these are what we call "truths" or "facts".  When I say I know the sun will rise tomorrow (or even better that it actually exists at all), technically what a I mean is that the probability that the sun won't rise tomorrow (or doesn't exist) is so remote that it would be absurd to acknowledge it as a possibility and introduce it to an argument or conversation.

I think most atheists don't really believe they know for certain that god(s) doesn't exist, since that is something that can't be known, just that based on all evidence we do have, it's not a worthy possibility for consideration.  One thing I find insulting about religious people is their claim to KNOW something that CAN'T be known, how freaking arrogant is that.

A lot of the draw of religion lies in the comfort people take in living in a Black and White world when it's really all Grays.  People don't want to admit to themselves they don't know anything for certain so they choose to believe they know instead.

Sorry for the bit of ramble, all things being equal why wouldn't you believe in what appears to be most likely after accepting that we can't know anything for absolute certain.  What reasoning or logic leads you to believe in things so bizarre and improbable?  Why choose to give fanciful ridiculous beliefs equal footing with beliefs at least partially backed by and consistent with observations?  Thanks.

[JoelKatz]

The best we can ever do is pick the most likely answer based on evidence.

We can actually do a bit better than that. Rather than picking the most likely answer, we can simply accept that we have a variety of possible answers with varying likelihoods. While we may have to pick one course of action, we never have to pick one explanation. We can pick the single likely best course of action without accepting that the explanation that justifies that action is necessarily correct.

The realization that this answer may change based on further evidence makes it a stronger "conclusion" rather than a weaker one.  %100 belief in something almost certainly wrong is much "worse" than high % belief in something most likely to be right.

Right. And, ideally, we always keep our conclusions tied to the facts that justified accepting them and the extent to which we accepted them. That way, if we discover new information or discover our old information was in error, we can correct our beliefs appropriately.

Sorry for the bit of ramble, all things being equal why wouldn't you believe in what appears to be most likely after accepting that we can't know anything for absolute certain.

You needn't do that. You can believe everything true to the extent the evidence justifies that belief. You can even believe that conflicting possibilities each have significant chances of being true.

That reasoning or logic leads you to believe in things so bizarre and improbable?  Why choose to give fanciful ridiculous beliefs equal footing with beliefs at least partially backed by and consistent with observations?  Thanks.

Well that's the question, isn't it? "Nobody can perfectly prove anything so I can believe and do whatever I want" isn't rational.

[amencon]

The best we can ever do is pick the most likely answer based on evidence.

We can actually do a bit better than that. Rather than picking the most likely answer, we can simply accept that we have a variety of possible answers with varying likelihoods. While we may have to pick one course of action, we never have to pick one explanation. We can pick the single likely best course of action without accepting that the explanation that justifies that action is necessarily correct.

The realization that this answer may change based on further evidence makes it a stronger "conclusion" rather than a weaker one.  %100 belief in something almost certainly wrong is much "worse" than high % belief in something most likely to be right.

Right. And, ideally, we always keep our conclusions tied to the facts that justified accepting them and the extent to which we accepted them. That way, if we discover new information or discover our old information was in error, we can correct our beliefs appropriately.

Sorry for the bit of ramble, all things being equal why wouldn't you believe in what appears to be most likely after accepting that we can't know anything for absolute certain.

You needn't do that. You can believe everything true to the extent the evidence justifies that belief. You can even believe that conflicting possibilities each have significant chances of being true.

That reasoning or logic leads you to believe in things so bizarre and improbable?  Why choose to give fanciful ridiculous beliefs equal footing with beliefs at least partially backed by and consistent with observations?  Thanks.

Well that's the question, isn't it? "Nobody can perfectly prove anything so I can believe and do whatever I want" isn't rational.

Good points, reading back over it not sure why I formed my position on the premise of only having a singular belief when in fact it would be more accurate to look at it reversed where I actually believe everything to varying degrees.

[nimda]

come on Christians  , dont let the atheists take over the thread, do you think the videos are fake/ambush/manipulative ?

http://youtu.be/tI3BQJ-E9jA , i want christian opinion of this video

You've been answered. They weren't "real Christians." That's the answer. Cut away all the atheist talk and that's your consistent answer.

[JoelKatz]

You've been answered. They weren't "real Christians." That's the answer. Cut away all the atheist talk and that's your consistent answer.

Also, the guy was tricked by dishonest manipulation. If such videos don't exist where Muslims are converted to Christians, one could just as well conclude that Christians aren't as willing to use deception to gain converts as Muslims are. (Though it doesn't matter. That guy will probably be a Jew next month and a Scientologist three months later.)

[rjk]

come on Christians  , dont let the atheists take over the thread, do you think the videos are fake/ambush/manipulative ?

http://youtu.be/tI3BQJ-E9jA , i want christian opinion of this video

You've been answered. They weren't "real Christians." That's the answer. Cut away all the atheist talk and that's your consistent answer.

you only looked at 1 or 2 video , I actually want to discuss/talk with Christians and look at many other videos , but thanks  for your participation

You will find very few Christians here, and those that are don't want to discuss religion with a hardcore muslim. No offense intended.

[finkleshnorts]

Disclosure: Raised Church of Christ, now atheist. Surprised to see so many atheists here. I know like 2 IRL

You may know more than you think. Since we are not looking for converts it may just not come up in conversation.

I hope so!

[removed]

[nimda]

Disclosure: Raised Church of Christ, now atheist. Surprised to see so many atheists here. I know like 2 IRL

You may know more than you think. Since we are not looking for converts it may just not come up in conversation.

I hope so!

But, I live in a very strange and homogeneous town that only exists because of the die-hard christians who flock here. If you ever lived in central Arkansas, you probably know exactly which town I am talking about

Lol
Did you know that nearly half of all Americans don't "believe" in evolution? (I quote "believe" because it's not a belief; it's a scientific theory [don't get me started on how the word "theory"] which can be disproven)

[RodeoX]

Remember when the world was flat because we all "believed" it? 

By the way, this is not a Muslim thing. I think he is copying this from a Christian show I have seen on TV. It's by some washed-up child actor who goes around "converting" people on the street. He asks a dimwit some leading questions that prove you are really a Christian. 

[RodeoX]

Remember when the world was flat because we all "believed" it? 

By the way, this is not a Muslim thing. I think he is copying this from a Christian show I have seen on TV. It's by some washed-up child actor who goes around "converting" people on the street. He asks a dimwit some leading questions that prove you are really a Christian. 

i'd like to see that, if you could post some links please, thanks

Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6F-8tzjAu8

The actor is Kirk Cameron

[RodeoX]

ah interesting, i remember watching it long time ago, she was already a christian but not practicing christian , don't think there was any 'converting'

what would be interesting is if she was a muslim , how would she respond ?

watching all the other videos by kirk

yeah, that one was not really a conversion. I think I did see one where he "converted" a Muslim. To me all of them are about the conversion of a minor actor into a fringe element con-man.
Look at his partner Ray Comfort. Funny stuff watching him struggle with reason. Like his assertion that bananas could only have been made by a creator to fit so perfectly into your hand. Funny thing is he's right. Modern bananas were created to fit in your hand by people.

[nimda]

Hey, the water inside that pothole is the same shape as the pothole! Therefore, the pothole was created by the FSM for the water!

[rjk]

Hey, the water inside that pothole is the same shape as the pothole! Therefore, the pothole was created by the FSM for the water!

All hail FSM, creator of potholes to fit the shape of water!

[nimda]

Hey, the water inside that pothole is the same shape as the pothole! Therefore, the pothole was created by the FSM for the water!

All hail FSM, creator of potholes to fit the shape of water!

It's undeniable proof!

[deepceleron]

Anyone that says they or someone they know has talked to god, or brings me a book that they or someone else wrote that purports to be a message from a deity in the sky is indistinguishable from a genuine kook or fraud artist. I went to church, but an unfortunate DNA lottery gifted me with intelligence and analytical thought, and I quickly dismissed religion before reaching puberty as just a long series of fairy tales made for dough-minded individuals like in the first poster's video. Religious people comparing fine points of religions like this generally can't see beyond the preposterousness of the whole thing. Religion's highest virtue and value is of course "Faith" or "Belief" in something inherently illogical.

Believe in whatever you want though and we can still be friends, unless your religion involves interrupting my dinner, blowing me up, or abridging my freedom or the freedom for other individuals to believe what they want or live a verdant equitable life. If so, then we have a problem. That's my version of atheism, but of course I don't care if it's yours.

[JoelKatz]

what do atheists think of this ?

http://youtu.be/f-0aYkRlW6k

I think you owe me two and a half hours. It's unfortunate that Tzortzis couldn't hear me calling him an idiot every few minutes. Here are a few observations:

1) A believer in an eternal God denies that anything with an infinite past can exist. Wtf?

2) A believer in an uncaused God argues that nothing can arise without a cause. Wtf?

3) A believer in a God that causes the universe argues that there can only be one God because of Occam's Razor. But the argument works precisely the same with zero Gods.

4) He completely mis-states what a cause is, as if every event has a single cause that makes that event inevitable. This is inconsistent with modern science.

5) He doesn't seem to know what an agnostic is, thinking they are "on the fence".

6) His argument that the "remarkableness" of the Koran suggests it is miraculous is absurd. No matter how many times he says it's "logical", that doesn't make it so. The biggest flaw is that it is impossible to prove that a miracle occurred in the past. To be a miracle, it must be a violation of the normal rules of cause and effect. But to infer anything about the past based solely by looking at the present, we must assume the normal rules of cause and effect hold.

7) His comparison of the Koran to China and reporting is silly. If we had as many inconsistent reports about China as we do about Holy books, we'd legitimately start to wonder if China really exists. One of the reasons I believe China exists is because I don't have equally competent reports saying it's in North America, saying it's in Europe, saying it's mythical, saying it's underwater, and so on.

He loves to list a couple of possibilities including the one he believes and a few silly straw men and then disprove the straw men. He does this too many times for me to list them all. (For example, the Koran must have been written by a human, Mohammed, or God. Why not intelligent aliens? If you think that sounds absurd to you, that God wrote it sounds *much* more absurd to me. This is a form of special pleading.)

9) His arguments are permeated with the error that you can discard incredibly unlikely possibilities. You cannot do so. For example, if I flip 100 coins, whatever outcome I get is incredibly unlikely. If you discard unlikely possibilities, you conclude there is no way I can flip 100 coins. This is obviously incorrect. In fact, incredibly unlikely events happen all the time.

10) His argument that Mohammed can't be deluded because he said some things that people recognize are important is comically absurd. And, again, he ignores much more likely examples that that Mohammed was sent by God, for example, that Mohammed had his mind engineered by intelligent aliens. (I consider God at least as unlikely and absurd as you consider intelligent aliens.)

11) And, of course, every religion can make precisely these same arguments. Any argument that equally supports multiple inconsistent conclusions, cannot be valid.

12) He thinks his arguments are correct unless someone can come up with better arguments for different answers to the same questions. This is silly. "I think Abraham Lincoln had bread for lunch on his 12th birthday because I saw it in a vision. You must accept this unless you can come up with a better argument showing what Abraham Lincoln had for lunch on his 12th birthday."

13) Tzortzis was blatantly dishonest in complaining that Buckner failed to rebut his arguments in his opening. Tozrtzis went first, so he got to make his argument first. This means that when Buckner speaks, he either has to rebut Tzortzis before ever making his own argument (and thus be on defense the whole debate) or largely ignore Tozortzis' arguments (until rebuttal time) and make his own opening (which is what he's supposed to do, it's *his* opening). For Tzortzis to complain that his arguments weren't rebutted *before* *rebuttal* *even* *started* is dishonest and scummy. And as an experienced debater, he had to know what he was doing. (Buckner pointed this out, but it's hard to point out that your opponent is being a rude jerk and should know better.)

14) Other evils don't justify an evil. If religion starts wars, that's an evil of religion, period. It makes no difference what other evils start other wars. A rapist doesn't defend himself by pointing out that there are murderers out here.

15) Tzortzis doesn't seem to understand how you show an argument is inconsistent. When Buckner presents an argument, "You believe X, that leads to Y, which leads to Z, which is false", he responds, "You can't make that argument because you don't believe X". Wtf? (For example, that the problem of evil is a problem for atheists. No, no problem for atheists at all.)

16) Tzortzis is a very good debater and very adept at making the weaker argument appear the stronger. Buckner's refusal to be dishonest (and inability to achieve what he needs to achieve honestly) hurts him a lot. It's a skill he just doesn't have, but in fairness, it's very hard to debate someone who argues the way Tzortzis does. (Look how poorly he pointed out Tzortzis' cheating in 13 above.)

Tzortzis won the debate. Buckner needs to learn how to counter that style of debating better. (It's very, very hard.)

[finkleshnorts]

what do atheists think of this ?

http://youtu.be/f-0aYkRlW6k

I think you owe me two and a half hours.

Interest free! 

[Gabi]

Remember when the world was flat because we all "believed" it? 

To be honest, we almost never believed the world was flat. During the classical era greeks even managed to more or less measure the circumference of the earth. And even during middle age almost always we believed the world is round (just look at the Divine Comedy, the world there is depicted as a sphere)

[JoelKatz]

To be honest, we almost never believed the world was flat. During the classical era greeks even managed to more or less measure the circumference of the earth. And even during middle age almost always we believed the world is round (just look at the Divine Comedy, the world there is depicted as a sphere)

It is also important not to equate a claim with the proposition claimed.

When someone says, "Your wife is cheating on you", a rational person responds, "why do you say that?" not "that's interesting, you've just stated a logical proposition that might or might not be true". We understand "Your wife is cheating on you" to be a *claim*, not a statement of a logical proposition. The person saying it means, roughly, "I have evidence and/or argument that justifies a belief that your wife is cheating on you".

If I *claim* the Earth is flat, I am saying that based on the evidence and knowledge I have, the conclusion regarding the shape of the Earth that I can best justify is that the Earth is flat. This can be correct even if the Earth is not flat and incorrect even if it is. The correctness of a claim is different from the correctness of the proposition vouched for. (It does implicitly claim the evidence is sufficient to justify the conclusion to a reasonable level of confidence though, and one could argue that this implicit claim was erroneous.)

[Gabi]

Nice but how is that related to what i said? rodeox said that we believed the earth is flat but actually only for brief periods of time that was true. For the majority of time we believed it was round.

[deepceleron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines

[JoelKatz]

Nice but how is that related to what i said? rodeox said that we believed the earth is flat but actually only for brief periods of time that was true. For the majority of time we believed it was round.

I'm saying that when we say "we believed the Earth was flat", it sounds like we had a belief that was erroneous. But if you rephrase it as "we believed that the best conclusion we could draw from the evidence that was available to us was that the Earth was flat", it's no longer clear that the belief was erroneous. In fact, that was the best conclusion we could draw from the evidence.

[RodeoX]

Remember when the world was flat because we all "believed" it? 

To be honest, we almost never believed the world was flat. During the classical era greeks even managed to more or less measure the circumference of the earth. And even during middle age almost always we believed the world is round (just look at the Divine Comedy, the world there is depicted as a sphere)

True. I just used that example because people can relate to it. It's my understanding that even the Egyptians understood the Earth to be a sphere, and calculated it's approximate size. Still, there is a flat Earth society and apparently some think it's a flat disc today. 
The point is that whatever you or I think may have no relationship to the objective truth. These days it seems like the press and others want to weight all opinions equally. So FOX news says the sky is red, PBS says it's blue, and the big three networks have a special investigation into how purple the sky is.

[deepceleron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=todimjXi4IM

Just as likely. Is it fake?

This is what a presidential candidate believes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wuuXMaJ4_w&feature=relmfu

[Taz]

Anyone that says they or someone they know has talked to god, or brings me a book that they or someone else wrote that purports to be a message from a deity in the sky is indistinguishable from a genuine kook or fraud artist. I went to church, but an unfortunate DNA lottery gifted me with intelligence and analytical thought, and I quickly dismissed religion before reaching puberty as just a long series of fairy tales made for dough-minded individuals like in the first poster's video. Religious people comparing fine points of religions like this generally can't see beyond the preposterousness of the whole thing. Religion's highest virtue and value is of course "Faith" or "Belief" in something inherently illogical.

Believe in whatever you want though and we can still be friends, unless your religion involves interrupting my dinner, blowing me up, or abridging my freedom or the freedom for other individuals to believe what they want or live a verdant equitable life. If so, then we have a problem. That's my version of atheism, but of course I don't care if it's yours.

Agree with this very much except for the
atheist = genius, believer = moron part.

It takes a lot of brain power to do some of the mental gymnastics performed by many believers facing a problem.
On the other side, just because you (not you specifically, deepceleron) figured something out all by your wittle self, it doesn't make you Einstein.

People that are raised atheist and think they are smarter than other are especially unlikable.

[bombshelterzero]

Religion is full of shit. anyway you like it at. End of discussion.

[Taz]

The part you quoted is fine, but the rest of the article is unfortunately just intentional misunderstanding of words, in an attempt to show that atheists (I think he meant scientists) actually believe in the supernatural.

[BinaryMage]

Nice but how is that related to what i said? rodeox said that we believed the earth is flat but actually only for brief periods of time that was true. For the majority of time we believed it was round.

I'm saying that when we say "we believed the Earth was flat", it sounds like we had a belief that was erroneous. But if you rephrase it as "we believed that the best conclusion we could draw from the evidence that was available to us was that the Earth was flat", it's no longer clear that the belief was erroneous. In fact, that was the best conclusion we could draw from the evidence.

The fact that we held that belief does not necessarily mean it was the best conclusion we could have drawn from the available evidence.

Anyone that says they or someone they know has talked to god, or brings me a book that they or someone else wrote that purports to be a message from a deity in the sky is indistinguishable from a genuine kook or fraud artist. I went to church, but an unfortunate DNA lottery gifted me with intelligence and analytical thought, and I quickly dismissed religion before reaching puberty as just a long series of fairy tales made for dough-minded individuals like in the first poster's video. Religious people comparing fine points of religions like this generally can't see beyond the preposterousness of the whole thing. Religion's highest virtue and value is of course "Faith" or "Belief" in something inherently illogical.

Believe in whatever you want though and we can still be friends, unless your religion involves interrupting my dinner, blowing me up, or abridging my freedom or the freedom for other individuals to believe what they want or live a verdant equitable life. If so, then we have a problem. That's my version of atheism, but of course I don't care if it's yours.

I think a key difference exists between charlatans and religious adherents: the latter believe in the realism of whatever they choose to convey, while the former do not. Dismissing someone as unintelligent simply because they do not believe in the same reality you do seems a bit short-sighted.

(For reference, I'm an agnostic - I really couldn't care less, what you believe in is your business.)