one of the biggest problems with religion.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lynx
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 129
  • Views Views 60K
Skye said:
And as I have stated and demonstrated what you view as a condescension is no more than the reality of you as others view it!
Huh?

Another baffling sentence. Are you saying I am projecting?

spare me the semantics, there is really nothing civil about being an 'anti-theist' if we switch the terms around to anti-homo or anti-Semitic, would you still hold your grounds? the real conundrum is why you object so much to folks being overtly anti-atheist and rendering it as 'condescension'
Anti-theism is not comparable to being anti-homosexual or anti-semitic. I am not against people believing in a God, I am against the idea that a god ought to exist.

And I don't contend every 'anti-atheist' is condescending. Just you.

And I see nothing to defend, from where I am standing it is a just end, from where you are standing it is an intangible place born of the minds of men!
Yet you still defend it.

What people know of you is from what you write!
Touche.

another concocted hyperbole, your spiritual end has no bearing on your materialistic existence and your interactions with others who don't share your views. I don't know one person on this forum or anywhere else, that goes into a place to buy groceries or anything else with the concept of us vs. them. Oh, Those people are going to hell. No one knows where they are going themselves (at least from the islamic end of things), so I don't see how anyone can stand judge and executioner. Give me a break oh self-professed anti-theist!
I am not talking about anyone on this forum. I am talking about the preachments of ****ation and hellfire in general.

I have no idea what you guys say about it in real life.

children don't go to hell, so I have no idea what you are talking about!
Indeed you don't, as you misread it completely.

Religious schools have a historical track record of manipulating children into believing in hellfire and setting up their mind for a "us and them" mentality into adulthood. If you keep referencing eternal ****ation throughout a child's educational life - it affects them in adulthood.

Then why bring it up and repeatedly?
I don't.

I didn't start this thread. I'm merely chatting in it.

your opinion has no bearing on the reality of things.
Huh? You've quoted my "There is no comparison" out of complete context. I said it to state your claim of my hypocrisy on my defense of homosexuals as redundant.

Basic moral code of conduct is agreed upon!
Where? What do you mean 'basic moral code of conduct'? Are you talking about concepts such as empathy?

Human rights are the dignity that God conferred upon them, not in a piece of paper concocted by men some 200 years ago to be amended by lobbying from some group with dissolute vision and skewed sense of what it moral, it is a done deal and it is certainly not subject to the opinion of folks who think it is ok for two men to copulate like donkeys on the streets!
So then constitutions aren't absolute then.

Thanks

There is a definition for a cult, go look it up before you engage in a topic!
I am aware of the specific criterias for something to be considered a cult.

Again, I have no idea what that means or how it relates to this topic!
Simple.

If anything is possible (which it is if an omniscient and omnipotent God exists) then nothing necessarily has to be the way it is. You earlier stated that hell was necessary. This is not true if God can make anything happen.

I was agree with you that people who act in ruthless self-interest at the expense of others ought to be responded to in kind.
 
Now, I can look at a formula such as this T = ( P * R ) / M and find it of profound relevance to someone with a dilated cardiomyopathy, you can look at it and shrug your shoulders. Does that mean that the formula is subjective with no truth in it or does it mean that you simply didn't make an effort to see relevance?

False analogy. I can pinpoint the exact line in a textbook to explain why the formula is objectively true in correspondence with reality. Can you do the same with the Quran :hmm:

Do you think that someone who has spent his life being good and died at 32 to a drunk driver should be equated with the drunk driver who goofed off all his life and got off scotch free? I use this example of an event that actually took place to two friends of mine. Hell has always existed for justice, not for incongruity!

The problem with Hell that I am raising is that people are sent to Hell for not believing in Islam (or whatever religion is proposing some sort of Hell).


As for your quotes, don't you see the problem in saying 'I warned you but I gave you no reason why this warning should be true'. And no, formulas aren't as valid as Islam unless you can put Islam into a formula that everyone with the ability to read the it is going to agree. :)
 
Now, I can look at a formula such as this T = ( P * R ) / M and find it of profound relevance to someone with a dilated cardiomyopathy, you can look at it and shrug your shoulders. Does that mean that the formula is subjective with no truth in it or does it mean that you simply didn't make an effort to see relevance?

False analogy. I can pinpoint the exact line in a textbook to explain why the formula is objectively true in correspondence with reality. Can you do the same with the Quran :hmm:

Do you think that someone who has spent his life being good and died at 32 to a drunk driver should be equated with the drunk driver who goofed off all his life and got off scotch free? I use this example of an event that actually took place to two friends of mine. Hell has always existed for justice, not for incongruity!

The problem with Hell that I am raising is that people are sent to Hell for not believing in Islam (or whatever religion is proposing some sort of Hell).


As for your quotes, don't you see the problem in saying 'I warned you but I gave you no reason why this warning should be true'. And no, formulas aren't as valid as Islam unless you can put Islam into a formula that everyone with the ability to read the it is going to agree. :)
 
Huh?

Another baffling sentence. Are you saying I am projecting?
Indeed..


Anti-theism is not comparable to being anti-homosexual or anti-semitic. I am not against people believing in a God, I am against the idea that a god ought to exist.
Sure it is very comparable.. Semantics don't get to save the day!
And I don't contend every 'anti-atheist' is condescending. Just you.

That is because the rest can't be bothered with you, it doesn't mean that they don't feel the same way!
I am not talking about anyone on this forum. I am talking about the preachments of ****ation and hellfire in general.
and you have failed to demonstrate how hell is harmful to others or is immoral in the here and now!

I have no idea what you guys say about it in real life.
Then why do you go on about 'morality' concocted in your head?
Indeed you don't, as you misread it completely.

Religious schools have a historical track record of manipulating children into believing in hellfire and setting up their mind for a "us and them" mentality into adulthood. If you keep referencing eternal ****ation throughout a child's educational life - it affects them in adulthood.
I don't like generalities anymore than I like concocted hyperbole..
Atheists have sent millions to ****ation more than all the religions combined in the here and now, if you want something to ***** about, how about you start there?
I don't.

I didn't start this thread. I'm merely chatting in it.
ditto


Huh? You've quoted my "There is no comparison" out of complete context. I said it to state your claim of my hypocrisy on my defense of homosexuals as redundant.
I try to group glib in as few paragraphs as possible!


Where? What do you mean 'basic moral code of conduct'? Are you talking about concepts such as empathy?
I don't know what empathy is to an atheist, it is completely subjective!
you think empathy if letting people copulate like donkeys on the streets while being an anti-theist.. In my book that doesn't count as empathy!

So then constitutions aren't absolute then.

Thanks
I said the basic moral code.. which part of basic was difficult for you to understand?

I am aware of the specific criterias for something to be considered a cult.
great try to incorporate that knowledge into your replies so we are not wasting each other' time


Simple.

If anything is possible (which it is if an omniscient and omnipotent God exists) then nothing necessarily has to be the way it is. You earlier stated that hell was necessary. This is not true if God can make anything happen.
and your point being?


I was agree with you that people who act in ruthless self-interest at the expense of others ought to be responded to in kind.

Indeed!
 
False analogy. I can pinpoint the exact line in a textbook to explain why the formula is objectively true in correspondence with reality. Can you do the same with the Quran :hmm:

I can indeed, the question is do I want to?

Here is a formula from the Quran taught in universities:

[SIZE=-1]Surah Nisa chapter 4 verses 11 and 12:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Allah (swt) (thus) directs you as regards your childrens (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. [Al-Quran 4:11-12][/SIZE]


IslamicISLAMIC INHERITANCE

MATHEMATICS

A major Arab mathematician named Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi wrote an influential textbook in about 820 called Hisab al-jabr w’al-muqabala (Calculation by Restoration and Reduction) that is known today as the Algebra. This book was the starting point for Arab work in algebra, and it is credited for giving the subject its name. Al-Khwarizmi was probably born in Soviet Central Asia but he did most of his work in algebra in Baghdad, where he was an astronomer and head of the library at the House of Wisdom.
Al-Kwarizmi was a Muslim and the second half of his book Algebra contains problems about the Islamic law of inheritance. According to the law, when a woman dies her husband receives one-quarter of her estate, and the rest is divided among her children so that a son receives twice as much as a daughter. If the woman chooses to leave money to a stranger, the stranger cannot receive more than one-third of the estate without the approval of the heirs. If only some of the heirs approve, the approving heirs must pay the stranger out of their own shares the amount that exceeds one-third of the estate. Whether approved by all heirs or not, the stranger’s share must be paid before the rest is shared out among the heirs.
Here is an example problem from Al-Kwarizmi’s Algebra:
A woman dies leaving a husband, a son, and three daughters. She also leaves a bequest consisting of 1/8 + 1/7 of her estate to a stranger. She leaves $224,000. Calculate the shares of her estate that go to each of her beneficiaries.
Solution: The stranger receives 1/8 + 1/7 = 15/56 of the estate, leaving 41/56 to be shared out among the family.
The husband receives one-quarter of what remains, or 1/4 of 41/56 = 41/224.
The son and the three daughters receive their shares in the ratio 2:1:1:1 so the son’s share is two fifths of the estate after the stranger and husband have been given their bequests and each daughter’s share is one fifth. (2+1+1+1=5).
If the total estate is $224,000, the shares received by each beneficiary will be:
Stranger: 15/56 of $224,000 = $60,000.
Husband: 41/224 of $224,000 = $41,000.
Son: 2/5 of ($224,000 - 101,000) = $49,200.
Each daughter: 1/5 of ($224,000 - 101,000) = $24,600.
TOTAL = $224,000.

YOUR PROJECT:

1. Solve the following Islamic law inheritance problem.
A woman’s estate totals $72,000. She dies leaving a husband, two sons and two daughters. In her will, she leaves a bequest of 1/9 + 1/6 of her estate to a stranger. Calculate how much of her estate each of her beneficiaries will receive.
2. Write out all of your calculations.
3. Check to make sure your beneficiary sums equal the total estate.
References: Islamic Inheritance Mathematics

Gullberg, Jan. (1997). Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Joseph, George Gheverghese. (1991). The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics. London: Penguin Books.
Nelson, D., Joseph, G. and Williams, J. (1993). Multicultural Mathematics: Teaching Mathematics from a Global Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

San Joaquin Delta College Basic Mathematics Program Communications Skills Division 5151 Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA 95207 Tel. (209) 954-5252 Division Chairperson: Mary Ann Cox Division Secretary: Joann Hymes

[SIZE=-1]taught in:[/SIZE]
http://www.deltacollege.edu/dept/basicmath/Islamic.htm

if you are looking for a true formula then, there you go, however, the Quran isn't merely a book of formulas,

it is a book of signs that covers all facets of man's life, politics, economics, social structure, beliefs, inheritance, spirituality, poetry, psychology, numerology and the after life. Based on that book the greatest empires in the world have implemented the most laws!

How is that for objectivity in true correspondence with reality?
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]




The problem with Hell that I am raising is that people are sent to Hell for not believing in Islam (or whatever religion is proposing some sort of Hell).
That isn't the only reason to be sent to hell, although it is reason enough, I have already quoted from the Quran that if a person truly didn't know about Islam then they wouldn't be held accountable!

As for your quotes, don't you see the problem in saying 'I warned you but I gave you no reason why this warning should be true'. And no, formulas aren't as valid as Islam unless you can put Islam into a formula that everyone with the ability to read the it is going to agree. :)

see first paragraph!

all the best
 
Gossamer said:
Well I am not. I don't ever mean to be condescending to anyone, or insulting.

Sure it is very comparable.. Semantics don't get to save the day!
It isn't semantics. I don't care what you believe. I will defend people's right to believe anything. I just don't like the idea of the traditional monotheistic God existing.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people just aren't interested in updating their analysis of others based on new information. I am telling you that I do not wish to tell people what to believe and you are effectively denying that.

That is because the rest can't be bothered with you, it doesn't mean that they don't feel the same way!
Condescension noted.

and you have failed to demonstrate how hell is harmful to others or is immoral in the here and now!
I have given you my analysis. You can either accept it or reject it.

Then why do you go on about 'morality' concocted in your head?
Huh?

I don't like generalities anymore than I like concocted hyperbole..
Atheists have sent millions to ****ation more than all the religions combined in the here and now, if you want something to ***** about, how about you start there?
I am not quite sure what this means.

Are you contending that the virulous celebrity atheists have convinced people there is no God and therefore, doomed them to hell?

I don't know what empathy is to an atheist, it is completely subjective!
you think empathy if letting people copulate like donkeys on the streets while being an anti-theist.. In my book that doesn't count as empathy!
Huh?

Empathy has a very specific meaning.

I said the basic moral code.. which part of basic was difficult for you to understand?
The part where you said:

Gossamar said:
Sure there are, see any constitutions, you'd see that though its laws aren't very refined, they are universally agreed upon!

Now you are backtracking. Incidentally, I am not entirely sure that you could by your own framework argue that a 'basic moral code' agreed upon by everyone exists.

and your point being?
My point is that hell isn't necessary as you claimed it was.
 
Well I am not. I don't ever mean to be condescending to anyone, or insulting.

aha
It isn't semantics. I don't care what you believe. I will defend people's right to believe anything. I just don't like the idea of the traditional monotheistic God existing.

I believe what you wrote initially, I think I'd have better respect for you if you'd merely stick to your gun than run off at the first possibility of coming across as politically incorrect, which you obviously were and are.. I don't know why atheists like to dance around the facts of the matter? They are as hateful and condescending as just about everyone else!

This is exactly what I mean when I say people just aren't interested in updating their analysis of others based on new information. I am telling you that I do not wish to tell people what to believe and you are effectively denying that.
What did you mean in your initial post about 'new information' let's not work with distillate. Did you have a purpose for sticking it in there?


Are you contending that the virulous celebrity atheists have convinced people there is no God and therefore, doomed them to hell?
No, I am contending that such folks as Mao Xedong, Enver Hoxha, pol pot, lenin, Sung I1 have sent millions to an early grave!
Huh?

Empathy has a very specific meaning.


The part where you said:
and what is that meaning? does the meaning evolve as you get caught in an anti-theist moment?



Now you are backtracking. Incidentally, I am not entirely sure that you could by your own framework argue that a 'basic moral code' agreed upon by everyone exists.
You've heard of commandments, the majority of them stand true in every constitution that discusses the rights of man!

My point is that hell isn't necessary as you claimed it was.
Ok, your point is noted and binned!

all the best
 
Gossamar said:
I believe what you wrote initially, I think I'd have better respect for you if you'd merely stick to your gun than run off at the first possibility of coming across as politically incorrect, which you obviously were and are.. I don't know why atheists like to dance around the facts of the matter? They are as hateful and condescending as just about everyone else!
First of all, I don't care if I come across as politically correct. I reject the insinuation that my anti-theism is remotely comparable to anti-semitism specifically. They are not the same thing.

Anti-homosexuality can be either contempt of homosexual activity or homosexuality or the desire to eradicate homosexual activity. Anti-theism could be compared with the former and not the latter.

Secondly, I am aware there exists hateful atheists. I am not one of them.

What did you mean in your initial post about 'new information' let's not work with distillate. Did you have a purpose for sticking it in there?
Yes I did.

Some people thrive on the understanding that their position has been self-declared infallible and unchangeable. That is why they are impervious to change.

No, I am contending that such folks as Mao Xedong, Enver Hoxha, pol pot, lenin, Sung I1 have sent millions to an early grave!
Oh

Yes they have.

and what is that meaning? does the meaning evolve as you get caught in an anti-theist moment?
huh?

Anti-theism has nothing to do with empathy. It is the capacity to share the feelings of others. To understand the suffering others are going through and feel guilt, or compassion for them based on that.

You've heard of commandments, the majority of them stand true in every constitution that discusses the rights of man!
Yes, but now you say that constitutions aren't absolute.
 
Skye:

You brought up a formula to show that Islam is objectively true but people are too lazy to understand it. I said you cannot equate Islam with a formula because Islam isn't as demonstrably true as you are claiming it to be. What I asked for is if you could create a formula showing that Islam is true. No one can do that so my problem with Hell is that God has not given any good reason for people to rationally convert to Islam yet he will send people to Hell regardless. I would understand if He sent people to Hell for murdering or raping or etc. But it seems ridiculous to send people to hell for their beliefs. Even if there was proof that Islam is true...thjat would just mean only an idiot would disagree with Islam and the problem still stands: why send an idiot to hell if he just didn't get it? But anyway, I am referring to someone who knows what Islam is about, and IS REMAINED UNCONVINCED.
 
First of all, I don't care if I come across as politically correct. I reject the insinuation that my anti-theism is remotely comparable to anti-semitism specifically. They are not the same thing.

Anti-homosexuality can be either contempt of homosexual activity or homosexuality or the desire to eradicate homosexual activity. Anti-theism could be compared with the former and not the latter.

Your definitions of 'anti-' is faulty, and your views on what others intend with their 'anti' are equally so, no one has any delusions that opposing anything will bring about an eradication. You don't get to modify the terms to suit your fancy!

Secondly, I am aware there exists hateful atheists. I am not one of them.

Ok



Some people thrive on the understanding that their position has been self-declared infallible and unchangeable. That is why they are impervious to change.
My position is very fallible (I am only human, and not the most knowledgeable) God's doctrine however isn't and isn't subject to your criticisms as you are equally fallible for you are equally human! The law isn't there to satisfy everyone, but we can take comfort in knowing it is dispensed by the most just!
Oh

Yes they have.
indeed and they were also all atheists, so draw your own conclusions, if you are desiring of that route!


Anti-theism has nothing to do with empathy. It is the capacity to share the feelings of others. To understand the suffering others are going through and feel guilt, or compassion for them based on that.
I believe that to be a subjective find.. how do you measure emotions? and if you possess them, then surely others do too.. or is that only mod amongst atheists?
Yes, but now you say that constitutions aren't absolute.
Man-made constitutions aren't.. God mandated constitution is. As new situations arise we have ijtihad from scholars which is rooted in the fundamental principles ..


all the best
 
Skye:

You brought up a formula to show that Islam is objectively true but people are too lazy to understand it. I said you cannot equate Islam with a formula because Islam isn't as demonstrably true as you are claiming it to be. What I asked for is if you could create a formula showing that Islam is true. No one can do that so my problem with Hell is that God has not given any good reason for people to rationally convert to Islam yet he will send people to Hell regardless. I would understand if He sent people to Hell for murdering or raping or etc. But it seems ridiculous to send people to hell for their beliefs. Even if there was proof that Islam is true...thjat would just mean only an idiot would disagree with Islam and the problem still stands: why send an idiot to hell if he just didn't get it? But anyway, I am referring to someone who knows what Islam is about, and IS REMAINED UNCONVINCED.

you wrote and let me quote you:

False analogy. I can pinpoint the exact line in a textbook to explain why the formula is objectively true in correspondence with reality. Can you do the same with the Quran :hmm:

and that is exactly what I have given you, can I do that with the Quran bring a formula which objectively corresponds to reality, and I have, in fact, that can be done with anything else not just laws of inheritance but all afore mentioned, but you already have a frame of mind and you modulate your needs as they are met and you are still unhappy.

Anything about what you convince yourself to be true or untrue is a personal endeavor, but it doesn't invalidate hell, or reasons to why some folks end there..


all the best
 
This is a response to Skavau.

Most of what you've been saying in this thread is largely for trying to prove that Hell is immoral, right?
And by talking about objectively analysing whether the punisment fits the crime you also bring up the objective morality issue.

But what is your "objective" moral code really based upon?
Atheism in fact has no standard whereas the Qur'an with the Sunna has given people clear guidelines which we are all to follow and the morality found in these two doesn't change. That is not the case though with your morality.

Your morality is either based on social pressure or as some atheists like to argue "objective morality comes from evolution".

When we get our morality solely from society we first face a problem of its changing nature. Just as society changes the morality derived from it changes with it. And that is exactly the case with you. I've noticed you're quite supportive of homosexualism in several of your statements but may I argue that had you lived some 50 years ago you would most likely be against it.
You also said you respond to what you find dangerous. But in fact basing your morality on society is rather dangerous as social pressure itself is very dangerous. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the 1940-s social agreement in Nazi germany upon killing the Jews. People there also found it to be morally okay but was it really? Of course not... but we can only say it to be objectively morally wrong when we base our claim on God. All other than that makes it subjective as whatever human minds produce themselves in the field of morality is utterly subjective.

Just like with society the problem with claiming that morality just developed from evolution is that evolution according evolutionists is an everlasting process thus it cannot be an objective basis of morality.

So those two (morality from evolution and from social pressure) of course cannot be valid sources of morality. Why?
Mostly because both of their changing nature and objective morality cannot be something that changes.


And that leaves us with the only source of objective morality that transcends the human subjectivity and that is God.

If you believe there to be any other sources of morality apart from these three (2 false and 1 true), please do bring them up in your next reply... :)
 
If these atheists are basing moral subjectivity on evelution thats their opinion. But if they had morals they would show some respect(morality) and say thank you to Skye for all the time she has taken to educate them on her and or others beliefs:hmm:

Where is their morals?

So I will do it for them

Thank you Skye, for being a devout believer and taking the time out of your life to try to inform and or educate these people about Islam and your own beliefs.:D

And a heartfelt thank you from me as well. You have been instrumental in helping me gain knowledge and educating me in what a Muslim believes.

God be with you.
 
If these atheists are basing moral subjectivity on evelution thats their opinion. But if they had morals they would show some respect(morality) and say thank you to Skye for all the time she has taken to educate them on her and or others beliefs:hmm:

Where is their morals?

So I will do it for them

Thank you Skye, for being a devout believer and taking the time out of your life to try to inform and or educate these people about Islam and your own beliefs.:D

And a heartfelt thank you from me as well. You have been instrumental in helping me gain knowledge and educating me in what a Muslim believes.

God be with you.

Greetings,

Thank you..
I don't think many people share your sentiment when it comes to me, and I am not sure I am a devout believer.. what it important is how Allah swt views me and I don't think I am a good person at all, I have much to learn...


peace
 
Greetings,

Thank you..
I don't think many people share your sentiment when it comes to me, and I am not sure I am a devout believer.. what it important is how Allah swt views me and I don't think I am a good person at all, I have much to learn...


peace

Well let me assure you Skye, you have shown me by all the research you do and well written and thought out reply's, that you do know what you are taliking about:D I am sure i could say that your fellow brothers and sisters have gained a great deal of knowledge from you and will continue to do so everyday. And that they do appreciate all that you do. I know I do. And those whom may not be believers at all can benifit a great deal from your knowledge of Islam.

God bless.
 
Hello All.

I propose that one of the greatest problems in Islam is the concept of Hell. It appears that non Muslims all go to Hell for their disbelief and/or shirk. So the problem I see is that it is not evident that Islam is 'true'. I mean one can look at a well written essay or some scientific principle like 'smoking is bad for your health' and clearly see why the arguments/evidence presented entails the conclusion. But with Islam you can't really do that. You can't read the Quran and construct an argument detailing what set of inferences will lead to the proof that islam is true.

I know that Islam and all religions are religions so to believe in a religion is to have faith. By this line of thought some would say faith is the most important thing and one should not even expect any sort of evidence. I do find this respectable but my problem is: if there is no real evidence for the truth of Islam, and if it is a matter of faith and personal choice, then for what reason would an atheist or disbeliever go to hell? Because they didn't make the personal choice to believe in Islam? Do people go to Hell if they like vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream?

it wouldn't be called 'belief' if we didn't apply it to the matters of the unseen, would it now :peace: that the whole point of belief you are using it to rely on believing unseen things.

Allah has specified what qualifies for heaven and hell. he tells us that some Muslims may also enter hell and the only thing that will save them from abiding eternally in hell will be their belief of tawheed. he's given the criteria of hell and heaven, so you cant blame anyone but yourselves for rejecting it. why dont you question why people get paradise as paradise is the opposite of Hell: reward. people get rewarded for abiding by the law, and likewise, people get punished for going against.

it makes sense to punish people for being "godless" as the whole purpose of our creation is to worship god so what do you think the fate of someone will be if they go against this. likewise, the whole purpose of going to school is to learn so what will happen if we get bad grades? we are going to have trouble getting to the uni's we want and getting a good job. cause and effect.


and what about the people/muslims who do sincerely work and who have sincerely earned paradise. isnt is unfair to them that they enter heaven after working so hard for it, and yet someone who doesnt work for paradise gets in, free ticket. does that make sense to you?
 
Last edited:
skavau - you're a smart and sincere guy. i look forward to reading more from you and getting some insight into your beliefs.

it's time for me to go to work while everyone else i work with gets off for the holiday.. to make it worse, it is 3:55am! but ill try to respond to you later. i look forward to talking to you and seeing what you have to say. :)
 
...
This does nothign to solve the problem. Maybe you can summarize what part of his talk makes Hell any less unjust? or perhaps you can point me to the specific part of the videos where I can find the answer. It seems from part 1 and part 2 he is just reiterating my OP.

The crux of his video was just because you think something is just or unjust does not make it so (he covers this with Slobodan milosevic example). For critics to sit back and say ''oh it's so unjust that xyz burns in hell just because they chose not to believe in Allah'' is therefore a flawed statement. You are expecting God's judgement to exactly parallel human judgement. You are basing God's decision on the mind-set of a human being which means you are ignoring the qualities of God completely. Then you wonder why does this not make any sense.
 
Last edited:
Greetings Lynx,

Thanks for your reply. :)
Uthman: The 'miracle of the quran' seems entirely subjective. I don't think one can say the stylstic merits of the Quran are 'objective'. I have read much of the Quran (if not all of it) and although it is a pleasant read, I do not see anything divine about it. The problem with the Quran's challenge to produce a chapter like one of the chapters of the quran is that you would be hardpressed to find an unbiased judge and even if you did, there would be a matter of ad populum fallacy.
Also, your whether muhammad was a madman/liar/ argument can be used for any religious figure.
Before I consider responding to your points, I would like to know with what frame of mind you are approaching this discussion. It is clear that you have a view about this already which is fine and to be expected. But are you open to the possibility that this view may change? Are you willing to objectively consider what I have to say about this topic with an open mind? If so, I will be happy to respond to your points. :)

For my part, I can say with absolute certainty that I am willing to consider everything you say with an open mind and if that means having to concede some points along the way, then so be it.

Regards
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top