Islam: Arab Supremacism Since 530AD

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
…

I can’t speak for lixy, but all the Muslims I’ve ever known are ‘his kind of Muslim’. …

His kind of Muslim is in favor of the methods used by Islamic terrorists including the bombing of markets. He is also in favor of rape of young girls, murder of homosexuals and a litany of other crimes.

I hope you are saying this in ignorance of lixy’s posting history.

I meant that in the context Schwarzfahrer used it, hence the ‘’. As in, they would not interpret the passage the way most people in this thread are interpreting it. And I think you understood what I meant, but I’m not sure if you meant that as an attack on Muslims or lixy specifically.[/quote]

It is an attack on lixy. I hope most Muslims are not like him or we are in for real trouble.

[rainjack]

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Not my job -

Being a full-time douche must be work enough.[/quote]

You would know that better than I would.

[pookie]

[quote]pat wrote:
Come on! We are not talking about something trivial as fucking Santa Claus and you know it. You have a question, “Does God exist?” The answer you give will have a profound effect on how you interact with the world. Like it or not, it is an important question.[/quote]

You’re starting to understand. To me, God is a fictional character just like Santa Claus is. He does have a bit more impact on society, because unlike Santa, a lot of adults believe in Him. In my mind, there is no real difference between God, Santa, Batman or Galactus. They are all fictional characters dreamt up by man.

So my atheism is a religion to the same extent as your disbelief in Santa is a religion.

You have a question, “Does Santa exist?” The answer you give will have a profound effect on how you interact with the world. Like it or not, it is an important question.

If the last paragraph is ridiculous to you, then you know how I feel when you try to ascribe thoughts, beliefs and feelings I simply don’t have to me.

Yeah my examples sucked. But religious faith is as verifiable. I could find out in the next few seconds. All I have to do is die. Once that happens we will know whether you or I are right.

Not really. To “know” something, you have to be conscious. If I’m right and that death brings only void, then you’ll never know because you simply won’t be anymore.

It’s also interesting that while all believers claim to believe in an afterlife that will be perfect and eternal, a damn lot of them sure are afraid to die.

So it is verifiable. But if I were to off myself. I couldn’t come back and let you know what I found. OR maybe I could, I could haunt you I suppose.

If it is verifiable, do so and report. If you can’t, stop wasting everyone’s time with word games and “what ifs.”

Also, congratulations on being the first skeptic I meet that believes in ghosts and hauntings.

Besides, the decision to be an atheist is an act of faith because it is equally unverifiable.

Again, atheism is the absence of faith that God does exist.

Is your asantaism an act of faith? You cannot verify that Santa does not exist. You could scour the North Pole, find nothing and still not have proof because he might simply be invisible to naughty boys.

If you ever decide to verify, look for Superman’s Fortress of Solitude while your at it.

Of course, you to could find out by offing yourself. the fact is in life you just have to trust that certain things you believe are true at least until the point of verification.

You see, this is where you fail the skeptic test. The default is to not believe until proof - or, at the very least, some amount of evidence - is provided.

Even you agree with that. There are about 3,000 faiths on the globe. You think that about 2,999 of those are wrong. Why? No evidence, no proof that they are right. I think the same as you do, except that I don’t make a special exception for your faith. No evidence, no belief.

Faith doesn’t stand for a belief in things that are not true. It’s basically taking a chance on something being true that you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Never mind going beyond the shadow of a doubt, you cannot prove it to any extent whatsoever.

Faith does stand for belief without evidence. Most of your believer colleagues have already admitted as much at the beginning of the thread.

You, as the ultimate skeptic, apparently believe you have a better reason than they do to believe, because you’ve deluded yourself into thinking you have evidence for your beliefs.

Other than having to kill yourself to get it, it is rock solid.

If you really think about it, there isn’t much that is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Let’s get right to the conclusion that we’re simply simulations running in a large virtual world on some computer and be done with it.

You cannot prove that this isn’t the case, but most people don’t live their lives as if it was the case.

Hold your roll there sparky. You are drawing some large conclusions about me. Doubt is the essential component of skepticism. Skeptics question everything. Hold the doubt? What the hell are you talking about? Stubbornness? That’s just a sign of stupidity. Being stubborn beyond convincing evidence.

The opposite. Letting go of the doubt with no evidence whatsoever.

You’ve deluded yourself that you will have your evidence after dying, and through some mental gymnastics, concluded that you had evidence now. You don’t, hence the doubt has no reason to be dismissed.

Membership has it’s privileges.

That’s all it is though, isn’t it? A club with privileges, if you pretend to believe in the stories they tell you.

I’ll stick with the Auto Club.

[Headhunter]

Bring back ‘The Jaws of Satan’ thread!

The problem I see in any religion is that of epistimeology. Since religion teaches people to accept truths that don’t go through a rational process, is it any wonder that a lot of people in the world act irrationally? If the goal is to believe or accept somebody’s sirah or other such pronouncements, no wonder people are nuts.

[rainjack]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is an attack on lixy. I hope most Muslims are not like him or we are in for real trouble.[/quote]

No - It would be better if they were all just like lixy. Then when the shit hit the fan, they would all tuck tail and run to Sweden where they would all start trolling BBing message boards to wage their jihad.

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Come on! We are not talking about something trivial as fucking Santa Claus and you know it. You have a question, “Does God exist?” The answer you give will have a profound effect on how you interact with the world. Like it or not, it is an important question.

You’re starting to understand. To me, God is a fictional character just like Santa Claus is. He does have a bit more impact on society, because unlike Santa, a lot of adults believe in Him. In my mind, there is no real difference between God, Santa, Batman or Galactus. They are all fictional characters dreamt up by man.

So my atheism is a religion to the same extent as your disbelief in Santa is a religion.
[/quote]
I never said atheism is a religion. The question of God’s existence is a religious question. A religion is something that takes the answer to that questions and organizes and set of core beliefs and values based on that answer. I would argue that Scientology, for instance, is a atheistic religion. Not believing and God is not in itself a religion, and neither is believing in God.
God and Santa may be the same in terms of both being fiction in your mind, but the question of God is a far more important one than Santa. The reason is that if you were to change you answer as to whether or not they exists, believing there is a God will have a far more profound effect on you life than believing in Santa would.

Not really. To “know” something, you have to be conscious. If I’m right and that death brings only void, then you’ll never know because you simply won’t be anymore.

It’s also interesting that while all believers claim to believe in an afterlife that will be perfect and eternal, a damn lot of them sure are afraid to die.

So it is verifiable. But if I were to off myself. I couldn’t come back and let you know what I found. OR maybe I could, I could haunt you I suppose.

If it is verifiable, do so and report. If you can’t, stop wasting everyone’s time with word games and “what ifs.”

Also, congratulations on being the first skeptic I meet that believes in ghosts and hauntings.

Besides, the decision to be an atheist is an act of faith because it is equally unverifiable.

Again, atheism is the absence of faith that God does exist.

I didn’t say I believed in ghosts or haunting, I was making a joke, sorry you missed it. But, why couldn’t a skeptic believe in ghosts? Because you don’t?

Atheism, is an act of faith. You believe, but cannot prove that God does not exist. You are putting your faith in your brilliant reasoning skills an making a decision on it. You keep attaching religious connotations to the word ‘faith’ where it can simply mean belief in something you cannot prove. You cannot prove atheism is correct. Atheism is a thing not the absence of a thing. A belief that God does not exist is still a belief and that�??s all it is.

Is your asantaism an act of faith? You cannot verify that Santa does not exist. You could scour the North Pole, find nothing and still not have proof because he might simply be invisible to naughty boys.

Technically, yes it is, by the strictest definition. However, if Santa were to suddenly come out of the shadows, it would have little impact on my life, save for the few bucks I’d save a Xmas time.
Any belief or disbelief with out a preponderance of evidence is an act of faith even if the matter is trivial. I don’t believe an gremlins and I don’t believe they’ll eat my car parts, but hey I could be wrong. Anything is possible, and I do mean anything. Just most things are not probable.

You see, this is where you fail the skeptic test. The default is to not believe until proof - or, at the very least, some amount of evidence - is provided.

A skeptic is a questioner is a person who doubts whether there is any real knowledge at all. I do fall into this category. But alas, I don’t have to justify myself to you. If you think I am other than that, I don’t give a shit. I am not going to get into a “No your not!” “Yes I am!” pissing contest. If it makes you happy you can call me a sheep.

Even you agree with that. There are about 3,000 faiths on the globe. You think that about 2,999 of those are wrong. Why? No evidence, no proof that they are right. I think the same as you do, except that I don’t make a special exception for your faith. No evidence, no belief.

Faith doesn’t stand for a belief in things that are not true. It’s basically taking a chance on something being true that you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Never mind going beyond the shadow of a doubt, you cannot prove it to any extent whatsoever.

Yes, I can. There are evidences both empirical and logically deductive, that suggests, but does not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of God. But I am not trying to convince you otherwise and I will not get into it. There is a thread for that and we have already been down that road a while back. Even David Hume, the famous philosopher guy, who floated back and forth between atheism and agnosticism acknowledge proofs existed, but he tried to reason them away. In the processes he introduced news ways of looking at cause and effect relationships, even though he whole ‘3rd element of causation’ theory fell on its face.

Don’t pretend to know what I think, I never said anybody’s faith is right or wrong, better or worse than anybody elses. You made a flying leap there and you are wrong.

Faith does stand for belief without evidence. Most of your believer colleagues have already admitted as much at the beginning of the thread.

They are fools then. There is evidence. Faith is just belief in something that cannot be proven. The evidence, intimate, suggests, but does not prove.

You, as the ultimate skeptic, apparently believe you have a better reason than they do to believe, because you’ve deluded yourself into thinking you have evidence for your beliefs.

No, me ask a skeptic gets irritated with people who don’t think through why they believe what they believe. I think it is an important exercise for anybody to go to.

Other than having to kill yourself to get it, it is rock solid.

If you really think about it, there isn’t much that is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Let’s get right to the conclusion that we’re simply simulations running in a large virtual world on some computer and be done with it.

Now THAT is a skeptics view.We start with ‘nothing exists’, and move on from there.

You cannot prove that this isn’t the case, but most people don’t live their lives as if it was the case.

You are correct. You cannot prove we aren’t some ones imagination, of a story in a book, the bad dream of an ameba, etc. That is why Descarte came up with “I think, therefore I am”. He came up with this by going through an exercise of purging out all the things he cannot prove exists. What he came with, that the mere fact of conceiving a thought is something and that something has to exist. However, he was wrong. His thinking, only proves that something exists, it does not stand to reason that it was him existing.
Kant believed that something exists, but we don’t have the capacity to know what it is. I like that better. Unfortunately they are both boring reads.

Membership has it’s privileges.

That’s all it is though, isn’t it? A club with privileges, if you pretend to believe in the stories they tell you.

I’ll stick with the Auto Club.

No that’s not all, if it were I could think of better way of spending my time. You should stick to your auto club at least they’ll tow your car.

[jp_dubya]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Can we please get back to the people fabricating Quranic verses?[/quote]

Fabricate a fabrication? That’s redundant, ins’t it?

[PRCalDude]

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
lixy wrote:
Can we please get back to the people fabricating Quranic verses?

Fabricate a fabrication? That’s redundant, ins’t it?[/quote]

Lixy keeps repeating this, kind of like his “fastest growing religion” lie. Ibn Ishaq, the author of the quote at the top of the thread, was quoting Surah 9:61 in part of the passage. But according to lixy, Ibn Ishaq’s use of 9:61 constitutes fabrication of 9:61.

[pookie]

[quote]pat wrote:
I never said atheism is a religion.[/quote]

You said it was a religious belief system. That’s pretty much the definition of religion.

God and Santa may be the same in terms of both being fiction in your mind, but the question of God is a far more important one than Santa. The reason is that if you were to change you answer as to whether or not they exists, believing there is a God will have a far more profound effect on you life than believing in Santa would.

If I ever change my mind, ok. But if I don’t, they’re simply both fictional characters with no more impact on my life, other than the numerous adults believers in one of them. Any impact on my life is from other’s belief in God, not from my own disbelief.

I didn’t say I believed in ghosts or haunting, I was making a joke, sorry you missed it. But, why couldn’t a skeptic believe in ghosts? Because you don’t?

As with all the rest of the supernatural: Lack of evidence. A true skeptic who believed in ghosts should be able to provide evidence for his belief. In fact, it would become verifiable and wouldn’t constitute a belief anymore, but simply accepting a fact.

Atheism, is an act of faith. You believe, but cannot prove that God does not exist.

I don’t have to. Lack of proof of his existence is more than enough.

You keep attaching religious connotations to the word ‘faith’ where it can simply mean belief in something you cannot prove.

Faith has actually more than one meaning, as any dictionary could tell you, and it’s because you keep getting them confused that your reasoning gets equally confused.

So while faith can have the religious meaning of “Belief without evidence” it also has the more prosaic connotation of “to trust.”

I have faith that the corner store has food on its shelve: Trust.

You have faith that a cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your savior: Religious faith.

See the difference? One is based on previous, oft-repeated experience and is entirely verifiable.

The other is based on really, really wishing it were so.

You cannot prove atheism is correct. Atheism is a thing not the absence of a thing. A belief that God does not exist is still a belief and that???s all it is.

What do you call an absence of belief then?

What word do you use to describe that concept?

If belief is a belief and lack of belief is also a belief, what do you call no belief at all?

Technically, yes it is, by the strictest definition. However, if Santa were to suddenly come out of the shadows, it would have little impact on my life, save for the few bucks I’d save a Xmas time.

Doesn’t matter. We’re not discussing degrees of impact from fictional characters; we’re trying to get you to understand how atheism is not a belief system.

Any belief or disbelief with out a preponderance of evidence is an act of faith even if the matter is trivial. I don’t believe an gremlins and I don’t believe they’ll eat my car parts, but hey I could be wrong. Anything is possible, and I do mean anything. Just most things are not probable.

How probable is God?

A skeptic is a questioner is a person who doubts whether there is any real knowledge at all. I do fall into this category. But alas, I don’t have to justify myself to you. If you think I am other than that, I don’t give a shit. I am not going to get into a “No your not!” “Yes I am!” pissing contest. If it makes you happy you can call me a sheep.

Ok. I’ll even let you keep the “Ultimate” qualifier too. That’s how nice of a guy I am.

Yes, I can. There are evidences both empirical and logically deductive, that suggests, but does not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of God.

Well then, why are we wasting time with your word games?

Hit me with that empirical evidence.

Hell, show me that deductive logic so I can come out of the dark too.

But I am not trying to convince you otherwise and I will not get into it.

Typical.

There is a thread for that and we have already been down that road a while back. Even David Hume, the famous philosopher guy, who floated back and forth between atheism and agnosticism acknowledge proofs existed, but he tried to reason them away.

Give me just one. The best one. What’s you best empirical/deductive proof that clinches it for you.

You mentioned “evidences” in the plural form, so there are in fact many. But just give me the top one.

In the processes he introduced news ways of looking at cause and effect relationships, even though he whole ‘3rd element of causation’ theory fell on its face.

Hope it didn’t hurt itself.

Don’t pretend to know what I think, I never said anybody’s faith is right or wrong, better or worse than anybody elses. You made a flying leap there and you are wrong.

You don’t have to articulate it. You say so simply by choosing to follow a particular faith. Obviously, you don’t choose to follow a faith you think is wrong, you pick the one you think is right (which tend to be, oddly enough, the same or generally very close to our parent’s faiths.)

You don’t have to say that you think Christianity is better than Islam. That you’re a Christian and not a Muslim tells us everything we need to know.

They are fools then. There is evidence. Faith is just belief in something that cannot be proven. The evidence, intimate, suggests, but does not prove.

Give me the most suggestive evidence.

Unfortunately they are both boring reads.

Ahem.

[new2training]

[quote]pookie wrote:

You have faith that a cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your savior: Religious faith.

[/quote]

Well, since you put it like that…

I hope God has a sense of humor

[Gkhan]

PRCalDude,

What’s the deal with Muslims and dogs?

Lixy demonizes our troops because of the Marine killing the puppy, but I have seen video of the Taliban gassing dogs, they also said that Saddam’s troops killed dogs with their bare hands before Gulf War I, and then they assassinated Pro-US Ayatollah Hakim in Iraq, al-qaeda sent out a message which was intercepted as saying “The dog is dead.”

I figured this was as good a place as any to ask.

[lixy]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy demonizes our troops because of the Marine killing the puppy, but I have seen video of the Taliban gassing dogs, [/quote]

Weren’t you supposed to show references of that? Not that I don’t think the Talibans wouldn’t do it or anything, but I’m interested in investigating that.

they also said that Saddam’s troops killed dogs with their bare hands before Gulf War I,

There’s even that cute little girl who witnessed Saddam’s troops taking premature babies out of incubators and squashing them on the ground, and who was nice enough to relate her traumatic experience in front of an outraged audience in Washington.

and then they assassinated Pro-US Ayatollah Hakim in Iraq, al-qaeda sent out a message which was intercepted as saying “The dog is dead.”

I know plenty of Americans who refer to Clinton exclusively as the bitch.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude,

What’s the deal with Muslims and dogs?

Lixy demonizes our troops because of the Marine killing the puppy, but I have seen video of the Taliban gassing dogs, they also said that Saddam’s troops killed dogs with their bare hands before Gulf War I, and then they assassinated Pro-US Ayatollah Hakim in Iraq, al-qaeda sent out a message which was intercepted as saying “The dog is dead.”

I figured this was as good a place as any to ask.[/quote]

The “Mutaween” - the religious police in Saudi Arabia - are currently cracking down on the ownership of dogs.

Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia)

They are considered “unclean” by Muslims:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/dogs.htm

The Sunnis also sometimes refer to the Shi’a as “rafidite dogs.”

[Schwarzfahrer]

[quote]lixy wrote:
There’s even that cute little girl who witnessed Saddam’s troops taking premature babies out of incubators and squashing them on the ground, and who was nice enough to relate her traumatic experience in front of an outraged audience in Washington.

and then they assassinated Pro-US Ayatollah Hakim in Iraq, al-qaeda sent out a message which was intercepted as saying “The dog is dead.”
I know plenty of Americans who refer to Clinton exclusively as the bitch.[/quote]

There was video footage of Saddam’s elite forces tearing apart a ham with bare hands and (!)teeth. They tried to make it look badass, but they looked beyond stupid, almost totally incompetent.

[lixy]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
There was video footage of Saddam’s elite forces tearing apart a ham with bare hands and (!)teeth. They tried to make it look badass, but they looked beyond stupid, almost totally incompetent.[/quote]

The elite of the most powerful Arab military is beyond pathetic? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you.

[dk44]

What does Islam have against dogs?

What the hell do they keep for pets? Oh wait, I remember, child brides.

[Tokoya]

[quote]dk44 wrote:
What does Islam have against dogs?

What the hell do they keep for pets? Oh wait, I remember, child brides.[/quote]

This child bride did not see the up side to islamists views on her role in their life. Do not judge, lest you become guilty of islamophobia.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d58_1204868913

[dk44]

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
dk44 wrote:
What does Islam have against dogs?

What the hell do they keep for pets? Oh wait, I remember, child brides.

This child bride did not see the up side to islamists views on her role in their life. Do not judge, lest you become guilty of islamophobia.

ItemFix - Social Video Factory

[/quote]

Yeah but can she fetch the newspaper in the morning?

In all seriousness that is fucked up, and makes me sick.

[Schwarzfahrer]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
There was video footage of Saddam’s elite forces tearing apart a ham with bare hands and (!)teeth. They tried to make it look badass, but they looked beyond stupid, almost totally incompetent.

The elite of the most powerful Arab military is beyond pathetic? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you.[/quote]

What is your problem this time?

I just wanted to explain you that Saddam’s elite was indeed deliberately displayed as cruel savages.
The video was made as a piece of propaganda for Iraqi TV.
I even managed to recall their name.

I’ll never forget the picture, man posing at the camera, with parts of freshly, bare handed killed ham hanging down their mouth, one guy’s face was particularly full of fur.

Fedayeen Saddam

Fedayeen Saddam

[pat]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I never said atheism is a religion.

You said it was a religious belief system. That’s pretty much the definition of religion.
[/quote]
My bad. It’s a belief not a system. My brain was working at half mast yesterday. Making a choice as to whether or not you believe God exists is a religious decision, but not a religion.

[quote]
I didn’t say I believed in ghosts or haunting, I was making a joke, sorry you missed it. But, why couldn’t a skeptic believe in ghosts? Because you don’t?

As with all the rest of the supernatural: Lack of evidence. A true skeptic who believed in ghosts should be able to provide evidence for his belief. In fact, it would become verifiable and wouldn’t constitute a belief anymore, but simply accepting a fact. [/quote]

I was assuming that anybody believing in ghosts, skeptic or otherwise, would bring forth evidence if they were attempting to argue for the existence of ghosts.

Atheism, is an act of faith. You believe, but cannot prove that God does not exist.

I don’t have to. Lack of proof of his existence is more than enough.

Given this statement, I would assume that even the slightest shred of evidence of God’s existence would cause you to rethink your stance?

You keep attaching religious connotations to the word ‘faith’ where it can simply mean belief in something you cannot prove.

Faith has actually more than one meaning, as any dictionary could tell you, and it’s because you keep getting them confused that your reasoning gets equally confused.

No shit. However, I was never confused. Belief with out absolute proof is faith. Believing in something you cannot be sure about. That is not the same as belief with no evidence. Evidence does not always lead one to absolute conclusions, but even in the justice system, it can be sufficient to come to a conclusion.
I never used the word “faith” in any other way but this. You were confusing this with religious faith and the connotations that brings.

You cannot prove atheism is correct. Atheism is a thing not the absence of a thing. A belief that God does not exist is still a belief and that???s all it is.

What do you call an absence of belief then?

The absence of something is nothing, nada, less than zero, /dev/null/, niente, etc. A disbelief is still a belief. To answer nothing would require absence of the whole concept.

How probable is God?

Probable and likely. He told me so.

A skeptic is a questioner is a person who doubts whether there is any real knowledge at all. I do fall into this category. But alas, I don’t have to justify myself to you. If you think I am other than that, I don’t give a shit. I am not going to get into a “No your not!” “Yes I am!” pissing contest. If it makes you happy you can call me a sheep.

Ok. I’ll even let you keep the “Ultimate” qualifier too. That’s how nice of a guy I am.

Yes, I can. There are evidences both empirical and logically deductive, that suggests, but does not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of God.

Well then, why are we wasting time with your word games?

Hit me with that empirical evidence.

Hell, show me that deductive logic so I can come out of the dark too.

But I am not trying to convince you otherwise and I will not get into it.

Typical.

There is a thread for that and we have already been down that road a while back. Even David Hume, the famous philosopher guy, who floated back and forth between atheism and agnosticism acknowledge proofs existed, but he tried to reason them away.

Give me just one. The best one. What’s you best empirical/deductive proof that clinches it for you.

No. I will not. I just simply don’t have the time and you don’t have the time to read it all. The problem is is that you are looking for me to make an argument you could blow all kinds of holes in. Coming back to reality this is a forum and for me to construct an argument that is bullet proof it will take pages as I would first have to establish common static definitions for certain words; so there would be no confusion as in our friend “faith”. Then I would have to establish precepts and define clearly each and every premise and how they follow unto one-another as it leads to the conclusion, et al, God, exists.

Unfortunately, I could not present and conclusive unshakable deductive argument, but I could make a damn good case. The presentation would be a dissertation, though , and that is the problem. I can tell you, however, how I would do it.

I would present from the cosmological argument. That would be my base, the reason for that is because is deals with cause and effect relationships. I would incorporate Descartes and his arguments for existence and Hume’s view of causality. I would also incorporate the EPR effect to show that simultaneous causality exists and that cause and effect relationships are not bound by the temporal aspect.

Of course, if I were to get into it, who knows where else it would take me or what other tools I would use, it would be fun and interesting, but I just don’t have the time.

If you are truly interested, look this stuff up. It’s not a big secret, it just takes time and will, you don’t need me.

You mentioned “evidences” in the plural form, so there are in fact many. But just give me the top one.

Hundreds, if not thousands.

In the processes he introduced news ways of looking at cause and effect relationships, even though he whole ‘3rd element of causation’ theory fell on its face.

Hope it didn’t hurt itself.

Don’t pretend to know what I think, I never said anybody’s faith is right or wrong, better or worse than anybody else’s. You made a flying leap there and you are wrong.

You don’t have to articulate it. You say so simply by choosing to follow a particular faith. Obviously, you don’t choose to follow a faith you think is wrong, you pick the one you think is right (which tend to be, oddly enough, the same or generally very close to our parent’s faiths.)

Well then you are ignorant of true religious belief. Any religion that concentrates on being better than others is just simply sad. There are many paths to God. What works for one, may not work for another. Religion is a way to communicate with God. What works for me, may not work for somebody else, and vice versa. Choosing a path is not oneupmanship, it is simply the choice that allows a person to communicate with God most effectively. It’s not a pissing contest. It’s sad you think it is so.

You don’t have to say that you think Christianity is better than Islam. That you’re a Christian and not a Muslim tells us everything we need to know.

Islam is in a bad way. It’s not a better or worse scenario, islam is in trouble. To much of it, to many of it’s leaders and believers are practitioners of hate, intolerance, violence and selfishness. At worst it is self destructing, at best it mired in terrible heresy. The true is likely in the middle some where. Aside from all the bullshit, it’s really sad what has happened to it.

At this current state, I think atheism is a better alternative to islam…That is how ban I believe it is. It is bordering on hopeless.