Debate: Athiest's VS Christians VS Muslim

[john316]

Now we've got Christians, Muslims & Athiests, in this discussion

 

[truemuslim]

^ yep... im the only muslim and ur the only christians we the only ones ACTUALLY debating tho...lol

 

[john316]

THE TRINITY. God is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.

 

[truemuslim]

THE TRINITY. God is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.

k im confused u saying that jesus is god the son of god and the holy spirit? just makin sure so i can continue

 

[john316]

The Word is about knowing God. So the Word is God. The Word became flesh as Jesus incarnate.(John 1:14). If you knew the Word you knew Jesus and thus knew God(John 14:7). God is a Spirit(John 4:24). And his Spirit reveals who He is in the Word(Matthew 16:17). Father, Word, and Spirit-these three are one.(1 John 5:7)

 

[truemuslim]

^ ok... BUT why would god be so low that he would have to come to earth in a human form? God is greatest isnt he? this makes him seem like he is equal with his own creation, doesn't it?

 

[john316]

He is still exalted. We believe He humbled himself because the sin is such a great abomination in his sight. His hatred for sin was so great that He who knew knew no sin became sin for us. His wrath was justifiable and too much for us to bear which is why He tasted His own holy wrath. All it takes is repentance to wards God and faith toward Jesus Christ.


In any case i belive in the Islamic account of Adam he repented for 40 days or did some kind of restitution and God forgave him.(Correct me if I'm wrong). Granted if that be the case. It wouldnt make sense to me because Adam's sin brought sin, suffering and death to the whole of mankind. So even Adam's repentance wasnt good enough cause his sin was so great.

 

[ranma1/2]

^ i want more muslims... fine...


athiests why do u believe no god exists?

just a quick question to make things happen

well the basic general answer is there is no evidence for any gods existence.
(except the gfsm of course)

of course a standard non contradictory def of "god" would help too.

 

[Trumble]

athiests why do u believe no god exists?

There are other reasons, but for me I think the principle one is the 'Problem of Evil' or, more specifically, the total failure of theists to posit even a half-credible solution (I find the idea of some sort of 'test' to be utterly ludicrous). I believe that if there were a totally benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God, he would have made a considerably better job of homo sapiens, i.e. in creating a species considerably less unpleasant. And that's quite apart from natural disasters... why do millions suffer because of those?

There is just too much pain and suffering in the world for there to be a God. At the risk of 'promotion' there is only one religion that exists specifically to present a solution to that problem, not just make excuses for it - mine.

 

[Gator]

athiests why do u believe no god exists?

Because most of the theories of existence involving a god don't reasonably explain, IMHO, my experience of the world and how my brain processes it.

These would include ran & t's points.

 

[Skavau]

athiests why do u believe no god exists?

For a general lack of evidence and reason to believe in a God, incoherent definitions of God and meaningless definitions of God.

 

[Trumble]

For a general lack of evidence and reason to believe in a God, incoherent definitions of God and meaningless definitions of God.

Would you not accept that, according to our theist friends' conception of God, coherent and meaningful definitions may not be possible? Everything we use in formulating such concepts, thought, reason, language, are limited by our own nature while God would be totally unlimited. In other words, God is just too big for our limited concepts to apply to?

I don't believe in God, of course, but as a Buddhist I don't have a problem with that as exactly the same applies to many Buddhist 'concepts'. They can never be definitively 'defined' or captured in reason or language, they have to be directly experienced. Until they are, you need faith to some degree. I often speculate that the actual religious experience (as opposed to merely reading or listening) of Buddhists and muslims or Christians is much the same, it is just interpreted differently according to different sets of equally limited concepts, ideas and language.

 

[Heera Singh]

For a general lack of evidence and reason to believe in a God, incoherent definitions of God and meaningless definitions of God.

so... you believe in only things which you have 'vision' or 'scientific' proof? so, to say, invisible things you don't believe (correct me if i'm wrong)..

i'll refer to an example i read once:

To see God is a very far off thing, even some of HIS creations are not visible. For example, there is chilly before you, but u can't see its bitterness. Surgar or some other sweet thing is near you, you cannot see its sweetness. There are many things which when seen outwardly look different but it has its hidden nature and merits..

Yes, your organs can only feel its taste and tell it, but they cannot see its inner nature. Example, there is milke before you, have you ever seen ghee (melted butter) in it? Even if you put your hand in the milk pot, u cannot bring out ghee and see it.

Even on testing it with your tongue, you cannot find the taste of ghee. But if a man who has boiled the milk and then at proper temperature has put a little bit of curd in it to fermentate and transform it into a whole lot of curd, then knows the method of churning it to bring out butter from it and then heating the butter at a proper temperature clears its way to form ghee; so, therefore, ghee is in the milk, so a person would be ignorant to say it cannot be seent, caught or touched and that there is no ghee. Only by going through this process a person will realize there is 'ghee' in milk, and until they have done this for themselves they do not know for sure.

Another example is given that fire is hidden in the wood, but has somebody seen it? never. It does not mean that 'we are unable to see the fire in the wood, so we don't accepts its latent existence'. If you wish to see the fire in the wood, then just take two pieces of dry bamboo sticks and rub them and the fire will be ignited.

Fire is present in the wood, but not visible; ghee is present in the milk, but cannot be seen; so God is omnipresent in the low and the high, in the rich and the poor, but we can not see as we have not got such eyes that can see fire in the wood and ghee in the milk.

Just as you will have to do some sort of labour to see ghee in milk or fire in the wood, you will have to do your own labour to see the Lord. These eyes only see so much, because they're 'foggy'. The stain on our souls and minds keep our vision secluded only to the materialistic. To see the Lord, we have to do labour to wash those sins off our soul and mind. How do we wash those sins? Sing the Lord's Praises.... Meditate on the formless lord... Serve the lord .. live a riteous and truthful life... and so on and so on..

You stated "incoherent definitions of God and meaningless definitions of God". You are somewhat correct in that statement. God cannot be defined. We can spend years and years and lifetimes and lifetimes trying to define the Greatness and the Glory of God... but we'll still never come to a finish. There is but One God, who created everything, and is everything; how can we define that? we cannot.. that does not mean that we shouldn't praise such a Glorious Creator.

"Priceless, O Priceless beyond expression! Speak of Him continually, and remain absorbed in His Love. The Vedas and the Puraanas speak. The scholars speak and lecture. Brahma speaks, Indra speaks (Hindu Goddesses). The Gopis and Krishna speak (Hindu Goddesses). Shiva speaks, the Siddhas speak. The many created Buddhas speak. The demons speak, the demi-gods speak. The spiritual warriors, the heavenly beings, the silent sages, the humble and serviceful speak. Many speak and try to describe Him. Many have spoken of Him over and over again, and have then arisen and departed. If He were to create as many again as there already are, even then, they could not describe Him. He is as Great as He wishes to be. O Nanak, the True Lord knows. If anyone presumes to describe God, he shall be known as the greatest fool of fools! ||26||"

Written By Guru Nanak Dev Jee.

Bless!

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don't believe in the specific Gods religions name because it seems much more fitting to the facts that these people created these gods to suit them rather than the other way around. Religions look a lot like you'd expect them to look if they were made up to comfort and control people.

You can often trace god ideas through previous societies and see their secular origins. Noah was not the first to have a giant-boat-and-flood story. Jesus was not the first to purpotedly rise from the dead and ascend to heaven. The similarities between Jesus and Osiris and Mithras are actually pretty startling if you start to look into it, right down to number of days they did such and such etc.

These gods are given very human traits. They also always seem to communicate with us through "prophets" and "holy texts" which fits the need for a church to have official ideology, control and leadership, but also which a real all powerful god would not need. Rarely do common believers (rather than prophets, shamans or high priests) directly carry on interactive conversations with the Gods they believe in.

Religions look a lot like you'd expect them to look if they were made up to comfort and control people, so I find that idea fairly credible, especially when I find a complete lack of evidence to the contrary. If a God wanted to be known certainly he/she/it would be, yet there are no signs of that. Why can't these Gods split moons, part rivers, make donkeys and snakes speak human languages, and make it rain frogs like they purportedly used to.

I am more open to the idea of a generalized God-force, tao, chi, or other unknown and yet undetectable power in the universe. But that is so vague as to hardly be discussable.

 

[truemuslim]

okey since no muslim seem to be here debating...ME IS HERE!!!!

FIRST: to athiests..and agnostics: You don't need to see something to believe it...you cant see air and you believe it you cant see the core of the earth or the sun yet you believe it...why cant you believe something has created all of the things we see and use today? Where do you think u came frum? ur mum..then what about her? where she came frum? her mum and soooo and soo on...BUT what about the first person on earth? who is that?? where did they come from? how did this all begin? these are all the question alot of people never anser or ask! WHY??
answer please?

and please NO goofy answers!!!!


and now to the christians:::: jesus died on the cross like u say...so why couldnt he save himself from the pain and suffering? yes u say he came back then but why would he do that? and why would god be one of his own creations??

AGAIN NO GOOFY ANSWERS PLEASE!!




continue debating..

 

[root]

okey since no muslim seem to be here debating...ME IS HERE!!!!

FIRST: to athiests..and agnostics: You don't need to see something to believe it...you cant see air

Is this a joke.

and you believe it you cant see the core of the earth

Correct, the core might well be cotton wool. However, the presence of magnetic fields & sonar don't actually support that idea. Funny though it supports perfectly the current accepted theory of what our core is made of and how big it is.

or the sun yet you believe it

I seen the sun today, I also seen the hundreds of other suns near us tonight!!!

...why cant you believe something has created all of the things we see and use today? Where do you think u came frum? ur mum..then what about her? where she came frum? her mum and soooo and soo on...BUT what about the first person on earth? who is that?? where did they come from? how did this all begin? these are all the question alot of people never anser or ask! WHY??
answer please?

The evidence simply does not agree with creation views.

 

[truemuslim]

k...Just answer this...

Where do you think u came frum? ur mum..then what about her? where she came frum? her mum and soooo and soo on...BUT what about the first person on earth? who is that?? where did they come from? how did this all begin? these are all the question alot of people never anser or ask! WHY??

 

[Heera Singh]

To Pygoscelis: I have a very good piece of writing that I think you would find quite interesting. I'm not able to create a new thread since I don't have 50+ posts and I can't PM... So once mods approve the thread I've created I"ll put it up for you;

In fact, I think everybody should have a read of it. Its called "Universal Religion", and it would benefit ALL.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Muslims, especially you true :sunny:
Why do you think a perfect, self sufficient God created the creation?
Why do you think he wants to be worshipped?

 

[Skavau]

so... you believe in only things which you have 'vision' or 'scientific' proof? so, to say, invisible things you don't believe (correct me if i'm wrong)..

No.

There is no 'proof' in science. It makes no attempt to prove anything. It has no set path. It only seeks to understand the world around us through the use of evidence.

To see God is a very far off thing, even some of HIS creations are not visible. For example, there is chilly before you, but u can't see its bitterness. Surgar or some other sweet thing is near you, you cannot see its sweetness. There are many things which when seen outwardly look different but it has its hidden nature and merits..

Your example is flawed in two areas. We detect things not just through seeing things. Moreover, even if bitterness and sweetness were fundamentally undetectable - it does not validate the position of God's existence.

Just as you will have to do some sort of labour to see ghee in milk or fire in the wood, you will have to do your own labour to see the Lord.

See, you already presume God in your own world view. This is utterly meaningless to me. 'Lord' (or more broadly God) is just what is alleged to exist according to Theists. It is not my claim, it is the claim of theists. Under my world view it is nothing more than a concept, and an incoherent one.

These eyes only see so much, because they're 'foggy'. The stain on our souls and minds keep our vision secluded only to the materialistic. To see the Lord, we have to do labour to wash those sins off our soul and mind. How do we wash those sins? Sing the Lord's Praises.... Meditate on the formless lord... Serve the lord .. live a riteous and truthful life... and so on and so on..

This is religious rhetoric. It is in blunt terms, completely and utterly meaningless to me.

You stated "incoherent definitions of God and meaningless definitions of God". You are somewhat correct in that statement. God cannot be defined. We can spend years and years and lifetimes and lifetimes trying to define the Greatness and the Glory of God... but we'll still never come to a finish. There is but One God, who created everything, and is everything; how can we define that? we cannot.. that does not mean that we shouldn't praise such a Glorious Creator.

You have yet to demonstrate this 'Glorious Creator'. You also misunderstood what I mean by incoherency and meaningless in the definitions of God.