Introduction to Islam

Status
Not open for further replies.

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
so after that long winded exchange, you now have conceded that you are of the view that Koran is a work fiction and the author is Muhammed

thats perfectly acceptable, but now examining its contents becomes moot
No it doesn't - because some people believe these contents and carry out atrocities based on this content.

Therefore the content must be examined and shown for its falsehoods.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,707
No it doesn't - because some people believe these contents and carry out atrocities based on this content.

Therefore the content must be examined and shown for its falsehoods.
yeah but you still have to convince them first that the book was authored by Muhammed, and sure you may believe that, but you haven't convinced me of that
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
yeah but you still have to convince them first that the book was authored by Muhammed, and sure you may believe that, but you haven't convinced me of that
I actually don't care which man authored the quran; just that it causes a lot of strife and death today.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,707
I actually don't care which man authored the quran; just that it causes a lot of strife and death today.
in your opinion, the US government is currently involved in seven wars with over 800 military bases scattered over the world

edit: as for not caring about the author, it is actually extremely relevant, because there are only so many options, and each of these options can be eliminated with evidence, leaving only one left which could best be described as the truth
 
Last edited:

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
in your opinion, the US government is currently involved in seven wars with over 800 military bases scattered over the world

edit: as for not caring about the author, it is actually extremely relevant, because there are only so many options, and each of these options can be eliminated with evidence, leaving only one left which could best be described as the truth
I didn't express any opinion about the US government? And why are you bringing this up?

As for the author thing, well, I can say for certain that it wasn't a fictitious religious deity, and was almost certainly a man, seeing as women had basically zero rights or authority back then.

As to which man, it is actually irrelevant because the whole relevancy is that it was a human male, not a god.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,707
I didn't express any opinion about the US government? And why are you bringing this up?



you are of the view people believing in a book are causing strife and death, I just showed you people who don't believe in the book are doing the same thing, so whats your point?

As for the author thing, well, I can say for certain that it wasn't a fictitious religious deity, and was almost certainly a man, seeing as women had basically zero rights or authority back then.

As to which man, it is actually irrelevant because the whole relevancy is that it was a human male, not a god.
the man or author is relevant though, FrankCastle is of the view it is Muhammed, the same Muhammed muslims consider to be the final prophet as sent by the creator- whether this creator is a god is something else.

FrankCastle has also acknowledged Muhammed existed, as in he was a real person.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
you are of the view people believing in a book are causing strife and death, I just showed you people who don't believe in the book are doing the same thing, so whats your point?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Plus you are going off topic.

the man or author is relevant though, FrankCastle is of the view it is Muhammed, the same Muhammed muslims consider to be the final prophet as sent by the creator- whether this creator is a god is something else.

FrankCastle has also acknowledged Muhammed existed, as in he was a real person.
Whomever authored the book was a not a prophet, seeing as it writes about a fictitious deity.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,707
Two wrongs don't make a right. Plus you are going off topic.
you are the one talking about death and strife, if you want to look at death and strife with blinkers on, thats your perogative

and the original point I made which you responded to had to do with the existence of a creator, given that that is no longer the point of discussion, we have already gone off topic.

Whomever authored the book was a not a prophet, seeing as it writes about a fictitious deity.
but the claim is that Muhammed wrote the book, whether he was a prophet or not is irrelevant, the point is that muslims believe he is a prophet.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
you are the one talking about death and strife, if you want to look at death and strife with blinkers on, thats your perogative

and the original point I made which you responded to had to do with the existence of a creator, given that that is no longer the point of discussion, we have already gone off topic.
If you have issues with the USA, take it up in another thread.

This is on topic discussion about a religion.


but the claim is that Muhammed wrote the book, whether he was a prophet or not is irrelevant, the point is that muslims believe he is a prophet.
The point is relevant, because then he wrote about a fictitious god.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,707
If you have issues with the USA, take it up in another thread.

This is on topic discussion about a religion.
yes religion, not death and strife

The point is relevant, because then he wrote about a fictitious god.
I rather speak to the person who made the claim, which is FrankCastle. Since you do not care who wrote the book, theres not much to discuss.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
yes religion, not death and strife
If the religion causes strife and death, then the topic is relevant.

I rather speak to the person who made the claim, which is FrankCastle. Since you do not care who wrote the book, theres not much to discuss.
You forget that this particular angle of discussion occurred to you saying the contents of the book should not be examined. I maintain that it should, regardless of which human authored it.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,707
If the religion causes strife and death, then the topic is relevant.
reference

You forget that this particular angle of discussion occurred to you saying the contents of the book should not be examined. I maintain that it should, regardless of which human authored it.
if you are of the view the book is fiction, then you can think whatever you want to think about it dont expect me to engage on it- in the same way your views on Game of Thrones would be immaterial to me

but the problem here is this, there is an inconsistency in FrankCastle thinking Muhammed authored the Koran and since you do not have an interest in who wrote the Koran, theres no point discussing this with you
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
reference
Reference what?


if you are of the view the book is fiction, then you can think whatever you want to think about it dont expect me to engage on it- in the same way your views on Game of Thrones would be immaterial to me

but the problem here is this, there is an inconsistency in FrankCastle thinking Muhammed authored the Koran and since you do not have an interest in who wrote the Koran, theres no point discussing this with you
Then stop engaging.
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
5,998
Post Iraq invasion by the allied forces it was the friction between the sunni and shia that stalled the recovery, you know, the "peaceful ones".
 

FrankCastle

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
7,135
edit: as for not caring about the author, it is actually extremely relevant, because there are only so many options, and each of these options can be eliminated with evidence, leaving only one left which could best be described as the truth
What is the evidence that Muhammad was receiving revelations from god/angel except to say that he was. The simplest explanation is that he was making it up as he went along - just as we know today that people make up all sorts of extraordinary claims with zero evidence.


the man or author is relevant though, FrankCastle is of the view it is Muhammed, the same Muhammed muslims consider to be the final prophet as sent by the creator- whether this creator is a god is something else.

FrankCastle has also acknowledged Muhammed existed, as in he was a real person.
According to muslims/koran - the creator is a god.

but the problem here is this, there is an inconsistency in FrankCastle thinking Muhammed authored the Koran and since you do not have an interest in who wrote the Koran, there's no point discussing this with you
What inconsistency?
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,707
The simplest explanation is that he was making it up as he went along - just as we know today that people make up all sorts of extraordinary claims with zero evidence.
this is what it boils down to, according to you, he made it up, in other words he lied- presented fiction as non-fiction
another way to look at it, he was deceived by the devil, like satanic versus
he could be crazy, and through random chance wrote the book
or he indeed he actually received revelation

those are the four options at this point, if you can come up with more, I'm willing to consider it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top