TotalF1 Jens

Prophet Muhammad Controversy

239 posts in this topic


All religions are is a cult, sheep led by masters, people believing what someone tells them to believe or else, yada, yada, yada.....................................................

Oh yeah according to religion the world is only a few thousand years old, fossils be damned :lol: The great dino die-off 65 million years ago..........couldn't have happened, God haddn't created the universe yet...... :lol: come to church and pray, oh yeah make sure you give till it hurts..................

I stand by my earlier post^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a good day Jay. Morning Bruce, and I tend to agree. Like I said, I know I'm right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have a good day Jay. Morning Bruce, and I tend to agree. Like I said, I know I'm right.

Good afternoon Russ, ya know people say that it was Gods will that I survived cancer, well it was good doctors and scientests that saved me................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you truly support freedom of speech and expression, there is no distinction to be made.
I also support universal demilitarization. Particularly I support outlawing nuclear weapons. It doesn't mean I believe it can or should happen tomorrow. It doesn't mean I oppose my own country's nuclear programme. Utopian considerations are great as a guideline, a sort of shining beacon to aim for, but they probably will not be achieved ever, certainly not in our own lifetimes.
(implying that one was a form of free speech worthy of protection while the other was not....)

Not exactly. I'd say news journalism, because of its far more immediate impact will always have its limits.

You're either in favor of free speech or you're not, there is no middle ground.
As I said I may support all free speech in principle, yet I am more inclined to actively support free speech of a certain kind, and if and when that is achieved we can turn our attention to what I would call less worthy causes (I know you will disagree there).
You would have people censor themselves so as to not offend, whereas I would urge people to broaden their perspective so as to not take offence.

Unofortunately the former takes a mere instant, whereas the latter takes a long time. I would say that while the latter is in progress in a country (as I would say it is in India), the former may be necessary since not censoring would not really help in the larger goal.

Also, I would be more inclined to support this particular publication if I did believe that it was an expression of the freedom of expression, right now I am very unconvinced about that.

Ash - I will not question you beliefs, but I would like to point out many factual inaccuracies in your criticism of science. If you do decide to criticize something, you are duty bound to make an attempt to understand what you are criticizing to be taken seriously, and I am afraid you have not done so in your remarks about the Big Bang theory, the origin of life etc.

Even if we say for the sake of argument that your belief in god is not empirically assessable, so in a way out of bounds for scientific criticism at least in your world view.

I just saw that Jay has taken up the criticism anyway, so I will leave it at that.

OCD

:lol::D

Personally, I felt no need to answer Ash at any length simply because I'm quite comfortable with my stance and do not feel any need to defend it or explain it to anyone.
I used to have that stance, but the more I read about post-modernism, the anti-science trends in many parts of the world etc., the more I feel inclined to take up the argument where required.
Speaking of which, I'm off to work!!!

If you're defending a murder suspect or something interesting of that morbid nature do tell us. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good afternoon Russ, ya know people say that it was Gods will that I survived cancer, well it was good doctors and scientests that saved me................

I'll agree with you 100% on that. My g/f is a theatre (O.R?) sister and she and her workmates save people on a daily basis, and she doesn't have much time for God either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll agree with you 100% on that. My g/f is a theatre (O.R?) sister and she and her workmates save people on a daily basis, and she doesn't have much time for God either.

Well I will say that all Nurses are angels, I feel that they are as, if not more important than the doctors when you are on the mend :thbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I will say that all Nurses are angels, I feel that they are as, if not more important than the doctors when you are on the mend :thbup:

Especially the ones with Scottish accents! (Well, one in particular! :naughty: ) I must say though, the doctors really know how to party! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Especially the ones with Scottish accents! (Well, one in particular! :naughty: ) I must say though, the doctors really know how to party! :D

It's good to know you are in good hands :naughty: alas most of my nurses(in the hospital) were Fillapina and they knew their stuff...........

It's good to get this topic on a more lightend note :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed. I intend to be in very good hands later on this evening, as a matter of fact. :naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's good to get this topic on a more lightend note :lol:

Not imo it isn't...

I would find myself the lowest of all species to believe that I, and everything else, have evolved from rocks or 'rock soup' over billions of years. Some scientists say that the earth is just over 7 thousand years old while some say that it is millions and millions of years old (obviously to support their evolutionery beliefs).

We claim to be intelligent and then we come about the mysterious Big Bang theory, a fairy tale for adults. Where the entire universe was created by a single atom (leave alone where this atom came from ...) exploding. How can we believe that life evolved from 'nothing'.

I tell you that it takes greater faith believing in evolution than it does believing in God.

The Bible says in the book of Proverbs: 'Only a fool believes in his heart that there is no God'.

Evolutionists can't account for alot of thing's (missing links etc.) eg.:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not imo it isn't...

I don't know why jay, cav and monza all minced their words. Of course you're entitled to any belief system you choose but the reasons you give are ridiculous and ignorant. Your knowledge of science is appalling. I can only hope somewhere you have better reasons for your theistic beliefs than the ones above. I won't repeat the replies from jay about science but will only say that you really should investigate the alternative worldview that science offers. I fail to see how in good conscience you can continue to avoid doing so.

No mincing involved, Murray. It is easy to poke holes in Ash's thinking, but I simply don't wish to, nor do I have any need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the first publishers did was certainly rong. The reprinting in france just confirmed that their 'set' was set upon isulting islam. The Islamic peeps responce to all these was even more saddenin. I mean, we've seen depicting logos of our lord Jesus Christ the Son God. Christians don't go arround commitin senseless acts like that. A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND ANY OTHER RELIGION IS THAT WE BELEIVE IN LOVE. IT IS THE MAIN THEME OF CHRISTIANITY. JUST 2 COMMANDMENTS TO FOLLOW, LOVE GOD AND YOUR NEIGBHOURS. THATS IT. From some the logos i've seen on tv and personal interactions, Islam is 'Its either u r with us or u r 'dead' '.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The backlash was something any reasonably intelligent individual would have been able to see coming a mile off. But I still defend the right of the paper to publish the caricature.

Incidentally, how many of those outraged people have actually seen the image that caused all the fuss? A small percentage I'll wager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About where we came from, I beleive God created us. According to the bible, we have a limited Knowledge. Just like baboons are smarter than dogs, we happen to be the smartest living thing on earth. These are simple facts, But our Knowledge is still capped. Science just only helps us understand a little better, but we will neva ever ever fully understand it. If u aint content -_- its your problem. DON'T ALLOW TOO MUCH KNOWLEDGE TO AFFECT YOUR JUGDEMENT PLAESE

The backlash was something any reasonably intelligent individual would have been able to see coming a mile off. But I still defend the right of the paper to publish the caricature.

Incidentally, how many of those outraged people have actually seen the image that caused all the fuss? A small percentage I'll wager.

I havent seen it. but i know that what u dont know can neva hurt you.

The papers had the right to publish anything they wanted, i just felt they could have printed it some other time, when tensions are not as high. Basic sense again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy, thank you, and I still thirst for knowledge. Not knowledge as power, but simply because I'm curious. How does that work? What happens if I do this? And so on and so forth.

It's taken me a lifetime to get to where I am now, and I like the place I find myself in, just as you do. They are just different places, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No mincing involved, Murray. It is easy to poke holes in Ash's thinking, but I simply don't wish to, nor do I have any need to.

I prefer to take it upon myself to educate those in (sometimes dire) need of it.

what the first publishers did was certainly rong. The reprinting in france just confirmed that their 'set' was set upon isulting islam. The Islamic peeps responce to all these was even more saddenin. I mean, we've seen depicting logos of our lord Jesus Christ the Son God. Christians don't go arround commitin senseless acts like that. A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND ANY OTHER RELIGION IS THAT WE BELEIVE IN LOVE. IT IS THE MAIN THEME OF CHRISTIANITY. JUST 2 COMMANDMENTS TO FOLLOW, LOVE GOD AND YOUR NEIGBHOURS. THATS IT. From some the logos i've seen on tv and personal interactions, Islam is 'Its either u r with us or u r 'dead' '.

I c ur theology is as good as ur splling. Most muslims are perfectly friendly, tolerant people who "believe in" love too.

Incidentally, how many of those outraged people have actually seen the image that caused all the fuss? A small percentage I'll wager.

Very few because very few muslim countries have published them! Ignorance is bliss as we shall soon see:

About where we came from, I beleive God created us. According to the bible, we have a limited Knowledge. Just like baboons are smarter than dogs, we happen to be the smartest living thing on earth. These are simple facts, But our Knowledge is still capped. Science just only helps us understand a little better, but we will neva ever ever fully understand it. If u aint content -_- its your problem. DON'T ALLOW TOO MUCH KNOWLEDGE TO AFFECT YOUR JUGDEMENT PLAESE

A classic religious argument! Scientists' and atheists' problems stem from their insistence on actually thinking about things and their pernicious habit of acquiring "too much knowledge". I suspect that was Galileo's problem too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A classic religious argument! Scientists' and atheists' problems stem from their insistence on actually thinking about things and their pernicious habit of acquiring "too much knowledge". I suspect that was Galileo's problem too?

Very true. I do dislike the head in the sand approach of many of the world's religious organisations. They have to reinvent themselves to take on board new discoveries without losing face. (Or suppress such discoveries or thoughts) A difficult task, but one at which they have become adept. I don't have any knowledge of atheists burning or stoning folk for their beliefs, or laying seige to cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true. I do dislike the head in the sand approach of many of the world's religious organisations. They have to reinvent themselves to take on board new discoveries without losing face. (Or suppress such discoveries or thoughts) A difficult task, but one at which they have become adept. I don't have any knowledge of atheists burning or stoning folk for their beliefs, or laying seige to cities.

Indeed, indeed.............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing no one responded to my post on page 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Started reading this topic, got to the part where people where preaching the rights and wrongs of religion and saying why one is right and the other is wrong and I just scrolled right across - I'm not a fan of in your face preaching. If you want it, go to a church.

I'm not one for judging someone elses beliefs, it's a free world and people can do what they want, who am I to say they are wrong and I am right when I dont even know.

As for the cartoons... It's a joke their reaction. They will stand in our very streets preaching hate againt the country they live and how muslums should unite against the west and when we try to stop it they say their freedom of speach is being abused, yet when westeners crack a joke using their freedom of speach it suddenly becomes unacceptable.

Very two faced!

Anyway, to be fair I know all muslums are not like this, most are normal every day hard working people but the general reaction has been sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and the comedy comment from this thread has to be this little piece of comedy genius:

Rest assured I have already informed the Almighty of your blasphemy.

haha brilliant.

Edited by Moose11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you skipped our discussions on religion, but isn't that at the heart of this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say you skipped our discussions on religion, but isn't that at the heart of this thread?

The threads name is 'Prophet Muhammad Controversy' and about the cartoon drawing. I wanted to chirp in with my throughs on that. When it came to a discussion of what was right and wrong with people saying whats right and wrong and some people trying to preach I switched off. Firstly because I like a good debate and didn't want to get dragged in, and secondly nobody knows for sure whats right or wrong in religion and people have been fighting about it for centuries so it was never going to go anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Jay, Cavallino, and everybody else that matters:

I deliberately stirred this argument .... for one simple reason ...reason ....reason. I know the following is quite long but it seems that quite a few here loves reading. I would have put the following in my own words but felt it more appropriate to 'copy & paste'.

Here goes .... Enjoy!!!

And by the way, I tolerate many world views, idiologies, theoligies, religions (and I believe Evolutionism is one of them) but it is extremely hard for me to respect any one of them except One.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists

Author: Robert Congelliere

In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?

I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?

Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.

Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now