Johnny B;820005 wrote: Experience tells me that we've been here before , namely where you agree with me that disbelieving in a claim that lacks evidence is all-right , but at the same breath demand it's negation too to be proved with evidence,otherwise the negation itself must be disregarded or disbelieved. Now, if you pay attention, I'd like to thread the ground so hang on here . Case 1: A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief. B states that another Deity by the name Eingana rules the Universe. --> Another Belief. Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence doesn't per automatic make belief in Eingana's rule of the Universe more right/correct, it simply doesn't follow. An evidence for Einganas rule of the Universe is equally demandable. case 2: A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief. B states that Akea's rule of the universe lacks evidence. - -> A Disbelief. Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence is already the position of B. Now demanding an evidence for an evidence that Akea's rule of the Universe lacks evidence is simply wrong. B is the negation of A , and as long as there is no evidence for A , B remains necessarily true. I couldn’t have put it better myself!

Wadani;819654 wrote: ^ But theres no evidence disproving its claims either, so y not remain ambivalent about its divine status instead of rejecting it outright? This is what he means i believe. To him, there is a technical distinction between uncertainty and rejection. Thanks for the elaboration. Well, I would argue I’m entitled to non-ambivalent take simply because of the lack of evidence. Consider what happens at a court of law between a claimant with no evidence and a defendant with no affirmative defence. Denial suffices on the defendant’s part. Even scientific-wise lack of evidence justifies out-right rejection unless there is a credible explanation as to why the evidence is missing. Moreover, if we were to require for one to take ambivalent position on all things with no evidence offered on their part -- as we sure have to be consistent -- that would open epistemological Pandora's box. It would be ridiculously impractical.

N.O.R.F;819345 wrote: ^what I'm asking you is, if you're not convinced, why the rejection? I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think there is enough evidence for it being what it's claimed to be, and I don't accept it on that basis. I'm not sure what the technical distinction (if any) between this and rejection is. If you elaborate, then perhaps I could answer.

N.O.R.F;818940 wrote: Considering those signs have been confirmed scientifically later on (you're yet to state you believe otherwise), isn't that a good enough sign of it's divinity? I believe you missed when I said "people purport 'scientific miracles' in attempts to show its supernatural nature but unfortunately these more often than not turn-out to be just like the one I was just addressing, so I don't think they even come close to being adequate at doing that," referring to this: Garnaqsi;818780 wrote: I've similar problems with most alleged 'signs/scientific miracles'.

N.O.R.F;818805 wrote: ^Why not answer my question? My answer will probably bore you because I don't have a particular pet-peeve (moral or otherwise) with the Koran. I'm just not convinced by its divinity. I see no evidence for the claim that it's a divine work. People purport 'scientific miracles' in attempts to show its supernatural nature but unfortunately these more often than not turn-out to be just like the one I was just addressing, so I don't think they even come close to being adequate at doing that. Can some sort of independent verification system be used to confirm that it's indeed divine? If yes, then good, but how? If no, then there's probably no good reason for anyone to believe it.

'Absurd' means 'maangad'.

Mario B;818769 wrote: Lol, words! ...It's only words and words are all I have.. :mad: --- --- --- .

Mario B;818765 wrote: Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?[Quran 21:30] I'm baffled as to why people take the above verse as a miracle of sorts. The myth of the parted heavens and earth is all over the place. As a matter of fact, many cultures maintained it through-out history. Even in Hesiod's Theogony (one of the most popular creation narratives -- still taught at universities) the first stage of the creation of the present world was the separation of the heaven and earth. What makes yours a miracle? It seems to me what we have here is a glorified myth with no scientific content whatsoever.

Mario B;817954 wrote: This is a fancy way of saying I believe in zero gods, it's a statement designed to look like profundity but it besmich the one professing faith. Believing in 'zero gods' amounts to having faith in no more nor less than having 'zero money' amounts to having money.

Peacedoon;818627 wrote: Xaaji, Iam sufi who appreciats female beauty. Not wahabi: :eek: LOL! I can't stop laughing here!

Mario B - Help me here. You're arguing that Hitler feigned a belief in God so as to defend himself? That's almost as bad as GaroweGal's argument that 'it is immaterial and irrelevant that Hitler himself professed to be Roman Catholic as no believing person is capable of inflicting such inhumane and indescribable atrocities'. (By the way, I'm surprised Jacpher and Che -Guevara didn't throw tomatoes at you for providing a link to wikipedia, lol).

sharma-arke451;818133 wrote: if you fail to see then i am of help. for atheism to exist, there must be a religion; this is the hard truth. Waaba yaabaayey ducaa wiil dhali! What exactly would make that hard? It's a simple statement which might well be true. I don't know what you meant by 'one wonders, what you people are? ', though. It's at times like this you seem to be speaking in riddles.

nuune;818125 wrote: ^^ Malika hehe, they are all in hiding and ignoring once Sharmaake asked that question. I'm sure people are scratching their heads pondering on the drastic and inescapable conclusions of that profound question! I've asked what the presumed conclusions which I somehow fail to see are so many times, so I'm not going to bother any more.

GaroweGal;818103 wrote: I think it is immaterial and irrelevant that Hitler himself professed to be Roman Catholic as no believing person is capable of inflicting such inhumane and indescribable atrocities. LOL!

Somalia;748972 wrote: The Wire ( Greatest series ever made ) I've just seen my first episode of The Wire (season 1, episode 1).

N.O.R.F;818087 wrote: The other thread shows your biased from a 3rd party attempt at the basics. That's a profoundly useless answer. Be specific. As to whether I've read the Koran, yes I've. (Do you want me to say more?).

N.O.R.F;818015 wrote: Waa sidaan sheegey. Their existence is due to ignorance of the basics. Johnny thinks in habaaar lagu tukado because he doesn't know the Quran. Waa wax uu meel kale ka maqlay. His pride refuses him to go and read and understand. The Israelis use scare tactics to justify their own existence in the holy lands. But, because they use reason, logic and rationale, we shouldn't expect them to know anything about what they refuse to understand. They will continue spewing the same stuff in repetition to try and hide their lazy mindset. If that was meant to be an answer to my post below... Garnaqsi;817938 wrote: Your accusations are vague and general to the point that they verge on being pointless. Who exactly lacks the fundamentals? If you think, for example, that I've presented a particular misunderstanding of a principle in Islam, then do correct me. The way you have presented unsupported criticisms of this form in this thread and the other one would lead anyone logically literate to think that you are committing an 'ad hominem' fallacy, but do prove me wrong, please. ... then it failed. Try again.

Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar;817981 wrote: My theory of waxee diinta ugu daba harin online has to do everything this: In offline kama hadlaan diin, probably some of them 'act' like inay Muslimiin yihiin, oo dadka iskuma soo jeediyaan. And I bet markee tacsiyeynaayaana Eebbe ha u raxmado, Illaah ha u naxariisto marxuumka/marxuumata iyo wixii la mid ah ayee adeegsadaan iyagoo isqarinaayo. Haddii lagu salaamana 'salaamu caleykum,' wacäleykum salaam iyagoo lasoo boodaayo arkeysaa. Online is their refuge waxee real life ku sameyn karin. Yaa ogaado even meherkooda wadaado ayaa loo wacaa oo gacanta ayee wadaadka mehrinaayo qabsan doonaan, if they haven't done already iyagoo iska dhigaayo Muslimiin. And I bet none of their parents know diin naceybka ay online ku jilaayaan. What is even weirder is that some of them are hardcore qabyaaladists. Very weird. Dad diintooda ka baxay, qabyaaladdana ku dhex jiro. And here we have Sigmund Freud.

Mario B;817941 wrote: Ganaqsi, aren't you clever... and no, this isn't an ad hominem attack. Sarcasm detected.

N.O.R.F;817850 wrote: Gof aan fundamentalska fahansaneyn taa la ma weydiiyo. I do wish they were honest in their discussions. Is marooji iyo ka wareeg iyo wax lagu soo buuxiyey oo kuu repeat-gareenaayaan bay hayaan. Bal maxaa u diiday in at the very least diinta wax ka bartaan? Who rejects something they clearly didn't bother to understand? Your accusations are vague and general to the point that they verge on being pointless. Who exactly lacks the fundamentals? If you think, for example, that I've presented a particular misunderstanding of a principle in Islam, then do correct me. The way you have presented unsupported criticisms of this form in this thread and the other one would lead anyone logically literate to think that you are committing an 'ad hominem' fallacy, but do prove me wrong, please.

nuune;817776 wrote: Su'aashii Sharmaake wax ka jawaabeyna waa la la'yahey, xageed u wada cararteen, without religion maxaad tihiin aan kuugu soo celiyo su'aasha in plain Af Soomaali. I fail to see the conclusions which one can draw from that question. I even let him have it that no definition of atheism is possible without a definition of religion and he still couldn't get anywhere with it. If you believe you can, then by all means go on, Nuune.

sharma-arke451;817431 wrote: the question still stands,, no one can define '' atheism '' without religion. so i wonder, why the pretence. Okay, so you say any definition of atheism requires a definition of religion. Let's say that's true. What does your question entail in that respect? I don't know what you mean by 'why the pretense'. I don't mean to nag you; I honestly have no idea what it might be.

Malika;817415 wrote: ^He means - atheism feeds on religions - what will it be if it there werent religions? I've read it that way as well, but I was hoping that there was bit more to it than being rhetorical.

Peacedoon;817399 wrote: Ugandans and Burundis will be remembered for their courage in liberating mogadishu from evil terrorists. Well-said!

sharma-arke451;817401 wrote: the word in the bold sums your common accusation. btw, what will remain of atheism, if you factor out religion? no man can be in a state of vacuum. I don't understand your question. Could you make it clearer, please?