I think Ali will have to pay up

His life, his examples and his psychology
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

aceaxe2 wrote:Mo = Mohammad
I know what Mo is, but what is "Mohammed might as Ali claim to be"?
Is this a new song you are going to release? :roflmao:
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by sum »

Hello phildidge

Here is Ali Sina`s challenge -
$50,000 U.S. dollars

to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:

a narcissist a misogynist a rapist
a pedophile a lecher a torturer
a mass murderer a cult leader an assassin
a terrorist a madman a looter


It is clear that it is up to those who want to defend Muhammad to disprove the claims. The starting point is for the challenger to disprove the claims, as MBL keeps telling you. Do you agree that the starting point is for the challeger to put his case forward?

sum
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

Hi Sum

Thanks for the remind, but not needed, if Ali had stated I am claiming Mohammed was all the above, using the works some muslims believe to be true and are not authenticated that would be fine, he didn't he made a factual statement using myths, unless you believe the works to be true, then I guess you must believe he was talking to a God and God does exsist?
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

phildidge wrote:Muhammad bin Lyin

Dear me, what people believe is not proof, they are basing their beliefs on works that are hearsay,
Are they proven wrong?? Simple question. Let's test your integrity.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
phildidge wrote:Muhammad bin Lyin

Dear me, what people believe is not proof, they are basing their beliefs on works that are hearsay,
Are they proven wrong?? Simple question. Let's test your integrity.
Simple yes, they do not have evidence, now lets test your integrity, according to you, Allah must exsist and did talk to Mohammed and everything he did was commanded by Allah?
People can claim God exsist, does not mean that he does, they need to prove a god does or prove an event happened, your faith based belief is not evidence. Many claims are made, that is down to faith, if they believe.

When you understand what is the difference between fact and fiction, you have to prove a fact with evidence and that evidence has to be credible, otherwise any written work will be seen to be true, that is in the realms of Narnia, not real life
User avatar
HomerJay
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:24 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by HomerJay »

Phil,
There is lots to debate, as you have provided not one answer that backs your stance on Islam being evil, lots of rubbish or any evidence to show the hadiths are authentic, it is your opinion only that I do not have a case.
I'll give this one more try. It matters not at all whether the disputed hadiths are genuine, it doesn't even matter if Mohammed even existed, when someone's "stance on Islam being evil" is considered. If some skinhead white-supremacist is following Mein kampf and he his patterning his life after Hitler, it does not matter AT ALL whether it was Hitler or Francis Bacon who really wrote the book or whether the Nazis were all faked by the American Moon Landing and 9/11 hoaxers. The skinhead believes the doctrines. He acts on them. If they are not proven false then it is NO comfort to the rest of the world to think the book is inauthentic. The skinhead problem remains. Islam is ONLY these texts. That's it. If you can't prove they are inauthentic, then all we have is people who believe they ARE. Don't you understand that?

An example of what you need to do to make your $50K. Take the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. When that book came out, a great many people (even Henry Ford) believed that it was a legitimate document on the minutes of a bizarre Jewish meeting to take over the world. It was so over-the-top it would never make it as a James Bond screenplay, but it was taken as gospel. Many complained loudly it was a forgery and fiction, but they could not right away DISPROVE it. Only when a researcher found its source material (a French satire mocking Napoleonic politics) and placed pages side-by-side in a major newspaper was it finally dismissed as anti-semitic propaganda and discredited by all but the most fervent and ignorant (much of the Muslim world:). That is YOUR job. To prove that these horrible stories of a guy named Mohammed are forgeries or slander or pure fiction. Otherwise you are standing in a street telling people not to be alarmed as the bombs are falling, that the textual motivation for dropping them is "suspect".

All Islam is, and pretty much all any religion is, is their texts. Do like the London Times did with the Protocols and prove them wrong. The world will thank you, and Sina will gladly pay you $50 grand. And maybe I won't have to take my shoes off at the airport.

PS. I'm not going to discuss other religions anymore. No problem can ever be addressed if its introduction is met with a dismissive "don't bring it up, there are other problems in the world". Plenty of other sites for bashing other religions. Tell you what, when I see reports of gangs of C-4-packing nuns taking out school buses screaming "Isa Akbar", I'll devote more time to THAT problem.
(You say you attended Catholic schools? St. Andrews and Vancouver College myself. You must have spent most of Religion class doodling. The Christian Brothers of Ireland sure made it clear to US what sinful and fallible people Moses and Joshua and David were. Were you never taught God kept Moses from the promised land due to his sins?) But as I said, let's stick to Islam. Tomorrow you can put Christ and Zoroaster on trial. On the docket today is Mohammed.
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by yeezevee »

phildidge to Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
When you understand what is the difference between fact and fiction,
Phil. you are a high school dropout when it comes to logic., you may be old guy but your logic is at the level of these kids



who are Preaching Islam to adult fools..
aceaxe2
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:05 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by aceaxe2 »

Thank you , sum :) I have no idea that too much for Phildidge's brain to understand , I already made it simple . So I leave to give him time to think . But as usual he try to evade it .

Don't try to run phil ,

Phildidge wrote "...archeology, is very minimul, or out side sources, again very minimul " and " Is there any other evidence for his life, very little "
minimum = at least one
Phildidge found archeology and out side sources at least one

Phildidge wrote "...in regards to how they authenticate written documents and whether they are true accounts or not, if you had even an ounce of intelligence, you would see this is done through a combination of other factors, like outside sources and archeology..."
According to Phildidge , authentic or not need :
1 ) Verbal ( koran & hadiths )
2 ) archeology ( Phildidge found it )
3 ) out side sources ( Phildidge found it )
So mo live in the past , according to Phildidge is authentic
:tongueout:
If someone believe commit crime in the name of god is divine act , then he not far from becoming a terrorist
aceaxe2
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:05 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by aceaxe2 »

Ali Sina`s challenge - ...to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad...

Phil can you disprove it :*)
If someone believe commit crime in the name of god is divine act , then he not far from becoming a terrorist
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by sum »

Hello phildidge

You are trying to mix facts with faith. Muslim believe in the myths of the Koran and ahadith. To muslims, these are to be believed - faith. Ali is taking on the muslims at their own game. You want to base your response to Ali`s challenge based on facts when the muslim side of matters is based on faith. What is known about Muhammad is in the ahadith, Koran etc and the discussion can only be with what is available from these sources. It doesn`t matter if the info is fact or fiction as the discussion is based on this info. It is not important whether the discussion is at the level of a game or up to a high intellectual level as it can only be based on the available history as recorded by muslims.

The challenge is for the muslims, or anyone else, to refute what Ali says using the information that is available. It is clear - it is for the challengers to make the first move if they want to refute what Ali has claimed.

Do you agree that it up to those wishing to refute what Ali claims to make the first move?

sum
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

Homerjay

Of course it is important whether the hadiths are authentic, if people are believing in mythical stories, but as you say let us take this to one side, as people do believe.
You have helped my point, without seeing you have, you say the skinheads believe the doctrine and ideology, as well as islamic texts, but it is how the doctrine is taught and this is how people come to how they believe or understand a faith.
This is what happens in a faith, what and where the problem lies is with bad teaching an extremist form, which happens more so in islam than it does in the other main faiths, but it was just as bad 100 years ago, where many people were illiterate, like is the case with many muslims today and so take for granted what is taught and are easily influenced, so it really is the people that create the evil .

You are telling me on the one hand to disprove the allegations made against Mohammed, using works that also states he actually talked to God, so am I to believe he did talk to a diety, as you are asking me believe this is true, as you want and state i need to disprove these works, but this is not really the case you want me to believe he carried out attrocities, but was lying when he states he is talking to a diety and that does not make any sense. you are saying some parts are true and others are not true, how exactly? To me the hadiths are a work of propaganda on the part of later muslims, maybe he did carry out acts, that is not the point here, what is the point is you are asking me to believe these works are true, that is not how we look at history. What you fail to see, is that we have people that deny the extermination of the Jews, we have so much evidence that this claim is rubbish. The problem with Islam, just as in Christianity, is the evidence for them is all hearsay and you are asking me to prove hearsay wrong and in fact that hearsay is factual until proven wrong,

This explains it best:

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them. Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Mohammed give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.



So you are asking me to believe works that are written at the earliest copy of the quran, a hundred years later, that is not credible evidence, but you think I need to prove what Ali has stated using these works, I am, the works are not evidence for his life, no matter that it is possible the claims could of happened, the point is, there is no evidence that it did. As I say, we are having to rely on what other people have written, who were not alive, when Mohammed was, that again is hearsay and I am dismissing his evidence, as it is not credible, unless he can produce credible evidence it is like making a thesis on Jesus, lots of specualtion without any facts. Will you next say to me that if you claim Atlantis is real, as you have the works of Plato, I have to disprove you? I don't think I do, the problem you have and will always have is the evidence is what is required from you, faith is not proof.

The brothers from the De La Salle order did not teach us any such thing at St Joseph's College in London, the religious teachers were either Priests or Catholic Teachers. I put all on trial for one reason, as it is illogical the one we have here.
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

sum wrote:Hello phildidge

You are trying to mix facts with faith. Muslim believe in the myths of the Koran and ahadith. To muslims, these are to be believed - faith. Ali is taking on the muslims at their own game. You want to base your response to Ali`s challenge based on facts when the muslim side of matters is based on faith. What is known about Muhammad is in the ahadith, Koran etc and the discussion can only be with what is available from these sources. It doesn`t matter if the info is fact or fiction as the discussion is based on this info. It is not important whether the discussion is at the level of a game or up to a high intellectual level as it can only be based on the available history as recorded by muslims.

The challenge is for the muslims, or anyone else, to refute what Ali says using the information that is available. It is clear - it is for the challengers to make the first move if they want to refute what Ali has claimed.

Do you agree that it up to those wishing to refute what Ali claims to make the first move?

sum
Hi Sum

I understand what Ali is doing, though I think his approach is wrong and will get the wrong reaction, as i say I can show how weak what they believe is and that is just on the works, let alone contradictions. I understand as well how it will be debated, but as I said, Ali should have made this clear on the challenge, he didn't, even though I know he has meant it to be the way many are stating here, but he did not state it well, plus he actually believe the haiths are true, in his answer he states this.

If the challenge is in regards to muslims that believe them, then you are correct, it is up to them to refute them.
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

yeezevee wrote:
phildidge to Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
When you understand what is the difference between fact and fiction,
Phil. you are a high school dropout when it comes to logic., you may be old guy but your logic is at the level of these kids


who are Preaching Islam to adult fools..

Thank you for your opinion as usual yeezevee, but please show how my logic is wrong, if you wish to believe as muslims do via faith, then be my guest, it does not provide evidence.
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by sum »

Hello phildidge

I feel that you are making the challenge more complicated than the very simple challenge that it is. Ali has claimed X,Y and Z about Muhammad and then challenged people to disprove what he claimed. It really is that simple. The discussion can only be based on what muslims have recorded. It doesn`t matter whether the recordings are claimed to be facts, as muslims believe, or based on faith as others believe. It all is based on what is recorded and only within that sphere of detail.

sum
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

sum wrote:Hello phildidge

I feel that you are making the challenge more complicated than the very simple challenge that it is. Ali has claimed X,Y and Z about Muhammad and then challenged people to disprove what he claimed. It really is that simple. The discussion can only be based on what muslims have recorded. It doesn`t matter whether the recordings are claimed to be facts, as muslims believe, or based on faith as others believe. It all is based on what is recorded and only within that sphere of detail.

sum
Hi Sum

I understand what you are saying, but the challenge does not state that, you even posted it earlier. Not me making it complicated, just showing a flaw.
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

phildidge wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
phildidge wrote:Muhammad bin Lyin

Dear me, what people believe is not proof, they are basing their beliefs on works that are hearsay,
Are they proven wrong?? Simple question. Let's test your integrity.
Simple yes, they do not have evidence,
So you have proven that what they say is impossible?? You have proven it wrong??
phildidge wrote: now lets test your integrity, according to you, Allah must exist and did talk to Mohammed and everything he did was commanded by Allah?
I never said that Allah must exist, but I can't prove it wrong and have never attempted to do so. I only believe that Muhammad lied about his take on God. So there's my simple answer with full integrity.
phildidge wrote: People can claim God exsist, does not mean that he does,
Does it mean God doesn't exist?? Can you prove that?? See?? See why they call it belief??

phildidge wrote: they need to prove a god does or prove an event happened,
And if they can't prove it, does that mean it is impossible and therefore proven wrong?

phildidge wrote: your faith based belief is not evidence.
Does that mean it's proven wrong?
phildidge wrote: Many claims are made, that is down to faith, if they believe.

When you understand what is the difference between fact and fiction, you have to prove a fact with evidence
Only if I claim it a fact,.... correct?? Correct??? Now, can you prove it wrong?? Phil, you honestly should have taken a philosophy 101 course before embarking on this. This is not new stuff. Faith is correctly called "belief" because it's not proven nor disproven. Otherwise, they would call it fact or prove it to be fiction and the word "belief" would not even exist. But it does, and for proper reason, which I can't "believe" I have to explain to you like some sort of school child. Any atheist already knows what I'm talking about. The best one can do about the question of God, is to make God's existence as unlikely as possible. That's it. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.
phildidge wrote: and that evidence has to be credible, otherwise any written work will be seen to be true, that is in the realms of Narnia, not real life
Narnia can be proven to be fiction because we can find comments from the author that say so. So how do you prove, for example, that the existence of God is impossible rather than highly unlikely, in your mind?? And does highly unlikely constitute proof, or a probability??

Are you actually going to tell me that you have not only proven Ali Sina to be wrong, but that you have also proven the existence of God to be impossible and therefore proven the idea to be wrong?? I don't even think Ali argues from the point of view of the existence of God, and he would never be so stupid to say that he has either proven nor disproven the existence of God.

So I'll ask you again. Do you think you have made Ali's claims about Muhammad unlikely or have you proven them wrong? Personally, i don't think you have done either, but the factual point that you can't seem to understand, is that you could never do the latter. How many ways must this be explained to you?
Last edited by Muhammad bin Lyin on Tue May 03, 2011 11:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

phildidge wrote:
The challenge is for the muslims, or anyone else, to refute what Ali says using the information that is available. It is clear - it is for the challengers to make the first move if they want to refute what Ali has claimed.
Do you agree that it up to those wishing to refute what Ali claims to make the first move?

sum
Hi Sum

I understand what Ali is doing, though I think his approach is wrong and will get the wrong reaction,
\

That is merely an opinion. So what??
phildidge wrote: as i say I can show how weak what they believe is and that is just on the works, let alone contradictions. I understand as well how it will be debated, but as I said, Ali should have made this clear on the challenge,
What does "prove me wrong" mean to you? What does prove mean?
phildidge wrote: he didn't, even though I know he has meant it to be the way many are stating here,
So you're here merely to be a nonsensical, troll like pain in the arss on purpose. That's how disgruntled little teens behave before they grow up.
phildidge wrote: but he did not state it well,
What does "prove me wrong" mean to you?? Did he say "prove that I did not prove myself right"?? Well?? Well??
phildidge wrote: plus he actually believe the haiths are true, in his answer he states this.
I believe they basically are too. Prove them wrong. Does making them seem as unlikely as you can actually prove them wrong?? Is it because they were handed down via oral tradition a reason to say you have PROVEN them to be wrong?? Wrong or unlikely in your assumption??
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by crazymonkie_ »

phildidge wrote:Hi Crazy

Will leave the name as that, as you are clearly cuckoo.
You'd be the second or third Muslim on here who's shortened my nickname and thought they were sooooo clever for doing it. Doesn't work. I've been called much worse with my actual name, and my nick on here has a treasured and positive value to me which you can't even hope to change. Is that cuckoo enough for you?
When you don't understand an insult, it shows you are very ignorant, which makes it even funnier.
Actually, that's not the case when the word is one that I don't (and I'd imagine lots of others here) wouldn't understand. If you insult someone, use a term they'll know- otherwise it looks like you're just making stuff up. Yes, I did look up the word- thank you Wiktionary- and it's more of your Irish cussing. Again- those are the first words ANYONE learns in ANY foreign language. Which means it makes it look like you're a fraud. Which you are, and for several different reasons.
Notice the sentence: all the prohets in all the faiths are bad, clearly your claim of teaching english is rubbish, as to faiths, I mean the 3 main abrahamic,
That's not all the faiths, or all the prophets. Nice self-pwnage there, fake ex-Catholic non-atheist.
I have stated this a few times on here, Mohammed was bad if I go by the writings and so were all the rest, as an athiest religion to me is man made, the work of men to control people, so why would I like mohammed,
Jesus wasn't such a bad guy. He had some bad things to say about Samarians, but I don't think they're around anymore, and besides that... he cursed a fig tree for being out of season. Goofy, and probably the result of an attempt to translate an idiomatic saying or story from Aramaic to Greek, or Greek to Latin, or something. Muhammad was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse. Going by the writings. Which we are assuming for the sake of this argument to be true.

Sure all religion is man-made. So what? There are degrees of badness for each. Buddhism, Jainism (besides the weird proscriptions), not so much. Islam- by far- the worst. Why? Because of what Allah allegedly told Muhammad. Well, rather what Gabriel said Allah was saying. Awfully long game of "telephone" just by the "first" level.
when I give him the same time of days as other faiths none, what I don't do is say a faith is evil, especially when they are as bad as each other, many people believe through love, some also do through fear of death.
You give him better press. You're kinder. You've lately tempered your apologetics, but you still go after him far less... and on top of that, you started this thread! This thread is proof enough that you're biased towards Muhammad and Islam- trying so hard to flip the challenge, then talking about which ahadith considered authentic by Muslim scholars are "really" authentic... and so on. Not once did you come on here and say "Wow, Muhammad did some bad things, according to works that were written by Muslims. Maybe they thought he did these bad things, and if he did exist, he was an awful guy."

Now sure, we can debate till the sun turns red giant about whether or not Muhammad really existed historically, but that's not the issue. What's the issue is: Do the sources, written by Muslims, make Muhammad out to be all the bad things that Ali Sina's book says he is? The answer is clearly yes.
I don't insult Paul,
You do- by saying he was the corrupter of the "pure" Christian doctrine of the first generation followers of Jesus. You would never ever have said it even if you were an ex-Catholic. No ex-Catholic says it- believe me, I know, I've met a bunch.
just show it is his line of teaching that christians follow today,
I told you already, and as an ex-Catholic you would have known this- Paul's teachings were, according to ALL Christian denominations post-Nicene Council, the continuation of Jesus' message. Calling him a fraud and a corrupter of the pure Jesus-led church is not just an insult- it's heresy.
how is this insulting him,
You insult his character (he's a corrupter of the faith) and it's not an insult?!? What are you smoking? It must be incredible.
you presume to much and get it wrong everytime.
Nah, I've got this right.
I debate muslims also,
Hearsay- irrelevant and inconclusive.
but you chose what you wish to believe my little cherub, as judging by your powers of deduction I am not suprised you get everything wrong.
I actually quoted from that NT chapter you claimed showed your case. It showed the opposite. If you feel the need to ignore the evidence, everyone else here can take a look for themselves.
My approach is to show all the faiths are wrong,
.... which you now qualify as the "abrahamic" faiths (and what a misleading name that is!) Soooooooo I guess the 500 million Hindus of the world are not involved in religious practices? Could have fooled me.
this includes Islam,
Where have you accepted a bad aspect of Islam, anywhere? Remember your little debate with Cassie about 9:29? I do, and I'm really sure lots of others here do too. "Bound by time," "not meant for today", etc. Someone shows you a bad thing in Islam, all of a sudden it's context, context, context. Someone shows you a bad thing in Judaism or Christianity, THEN it's suddenly GOD'S IMMUTABLE AND PERFECT WORD!!!!1!11!!11! Gimme a break- "this includes Islam".
I show comparrisons between them, to show up the ridiculas claims made by some on here,
No you don't- you trash on Judaism (what you think it is) and Christianity (what you think it is) by looking at the Bible from the perspective of a dyed-in-the-wool Muslim. How do I know that? Every....single....one that's come through here, when they talk about Judaism or Christianity, try to "backwards engineer" Islam's for-all-time book into their books. Which is not how it works (read up on "The New Covenant", for instance).
if someone said to me they think the 3 main faiths have 3 evil gods, I would agree 100%, it does not mean though that people are taught this in faith, in Judasim, Christianty and Islam, they are taught their faith as one of peace and love, even though verses contradict this, which are used by extremists in all of these 3 faiths and they then carry out acts of evil. So when people claim it is one, I show easily how this is wrong.
Which extremists LATELY have used the bad verses in Jewish or Christian verses? Give me something in, o, past 15 years, lets say. Are they fringe, or mainstream? How quickly did their co-religionists condemn them, if they did?

Now do the same for Islam- and keep the same approach in mind, none of this stuff about this or that being political only.

And you still haven't answered Cassie's question: Where in the Quran does it say that 9:29 is bound by time?
So by calling Jesus, by his correct name, I am lying about being an ex catholic,
In any Catholic school, that is not his correct name. It is his correct name *historically*, but we're talking theology here, not archaeology.
even though it has been shown on here that I went to St Joseph's College, a catholic school on Beulah Hill and taught by the De la salle brothers, my head teacher was Brother Anthony if you are interested and a little known fact is Roddy Mcdowall attended this school, now how would I know that, or that there is a tradition of how the eagles heads turned on the villa at the school when a man commited suicide there or any other question you would like to ask, I even attended St Anthony's Primary school, would you like any more evidence, or would you like me to keep making you look really stupid and clearly show how bad you perceive people or even a faith for that matter? :roflmao:
I will await your apology, ha ha.
Apology- riiiiight. These are just empty claims. Moreover, they're claims that probably nobody on this forum can even bother to trace. It's worse than a lie- it's a huge pile of lies that keep getting higher and higher.
Opps looks like you missed a bit

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
So chastising is chasing out or excommunicating now? I'm sure the brothers you got taught by, when they would get talked to by their superiors about whatever failings they had, would be shocked.

James messed up here, and Paul shamed him into the right way of doing things. Where in the world did you get your idea that this amounted to a schism in the early Church?
Plese look up, The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied by historians to an Early Christian council that was held in Jerusalem and dated to around the year 50. Then you may learn something, as you know little of Christianity and its origins, based on the written works
*Shrug* It's a mythical council. The first historically attested councils didn't happen for centuries.
Of course mainstream Christianity will not admit, the same in islam, when scholars show how a faith is formed, man alive are you dim.
So why make reference to a mythical council for a historical case? It doesn't make sense- you're switching from myth to history like it's nothing.
A dead language you say, blimey, best you don't go Ireland mate, I was taught this as a child though have not spoken in years, but many still do in villages. So again you know very little.
You might be right, but I won't take your word for it. Any real Irish people around here?
Not homophobic, far from it,
Suuuuuuuure
was taking the mick,
It's MIC. "Mick" is a racial slur against the Irish. Of course you already knew that. :lol:
though it must have made a mark to explain how lovely she is, fair play and good luck to you, won't dish a woman just because she married a numpty, as I say, hope she can make you see sense.
Nice try backpedaling. You put out an anti-transgendered remark out there- it's where everyone can see it, and it's going to be around well after you've stopped posting here. I do not accept your apology or you good will.

I do claim to be a history teacher, as it is clear how bad people think history is or what they believe, so I have come to teach, if you don't like me saying that, then sorry I suggest you go have a little cry and hug with the misses.
So when I ask you to look up Jewish law, I must be a muslim, oh dear me, that is hilarious, go figure on that one.
That's not even close to what I said, so don't act like it is.
I am telling the truth,
Just like about being a history teacher who is not a real teacher.... about being an ex-Catholic with no clue about the religion.... about TOTALLY not being anti-transgendered or homophobic.... about being an atheist.... about attacking ALL religions (nononono, wait, you meant just the three that *really* count, right?!?)

Please. Your lies are so numerous that you can't even keep them straight.
it took some time for it to be picked up, as many were just wound up, including yourself, all your answers are "you must be a muslim" :roflmao:
Well, no. We're not wound up- we're just not willing to deal with liars. You ARE a Muslim- just admit it. You're not Irish, you're not ex-Catholic, you're not atheist, you never were any sort of teacher, you are a thief, and you're a homo/transphobe pretending to not be one.

So where's the response for this: "by the way- still waiting for a summary of the significance of Mother Mary and the Saints... be specific, and use your own words."

That's the last time I'll ask. If you don't reply, or I found out that you copy-pasted, I'll just know you don't have an answer and for sure are not ex-Catholic.
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

Mohammed BL

I never said you can prove god does not exsist, but if someone claimed he did, he would need to show evidence, the same with Ali's claim, he has claimed many facutal things in regards to mohammed, yet has failed to back them up with evidence, this is what you clearly do not understand, so here are the same reasons I gave to homerjay, with some more added.

You are telling me on the one hand to disprove the allegations made against Mohammed, using works that also states he actually talked to God, so am I to believe he did talk to a diety, as you are asking me believe this is true, as you want and state i need to disprove these works, but this is not really the case you want me to believe he carried out attrocities, but was lying when he states he is talking to a diety and that does not make any sense. you are saying some parts are true and others are not true, how exactly? To me the hadiths are a work of propaganda on the part of later muslims, maybe he did carry out acts, that is not the point here, what is the point is you are asking me to believe these works are true, that is not how we look at history. What you fail to see, is that we have people that deny the extermination of the Jews, we have so much evidence that this claim is rubbish. The problem with Islam, just as in Christianity, is the evidence for them is all hearsay and you are asking me to prove hearsay wrong and in fact that hearsay is factual until proven wrong,

This explains it best:

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them. Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Mohammed give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.



So you are asking me to believe works that are written at the earliest copy of the quran, a hundred years later, that is not credible evidence, but you think I need to prove what Ali has stated using these works, I am, the works are not evidence for his life, no matter that it is possible the claims could of happened, the point is, there is no evidence that it did. As I say, we are having to rely on what other people have written, who were not alive, when Mohammed was, that again is hearsay and I am dismissing his evidence, as it is not credible, unless he can produce credible evidence it is like making a thesis on Jesus, lots of specualtion without any facts. Will you next say to me that if you claim Atlantis is real, as you have the works of Plato, I have to disprove you? I don't think I do, the problem you have and will always have is the evidence is what is required from you, faith is not proof.

One major flaw that Ali has done is not provide evidence that Mohammed even exsisted, even though I think there is enough evidence, he has not done so.
As you can see, you embarrass yourselef when you unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Mohammed, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay.
All of these writings about Mohammed could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Muslim believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Mohammed but what people did not write about him at the time. Think about it, when wars occur, news spreads fats and they are normally documented, as people do travel far and wide with trade and Mecca was the centre of trade, yet we hear next to nothing, why?
The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical Mohammed, he or she must accept this based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact that all of the claims come from hearsay, and we have a foundation made of sand, and a castle of information built of cards.
phildidge
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: I think Ali will have to pay up

Post by phildidge »

crazymonkie_ wrote:
phildidge wrote:Hi Crazy

Will leave the name as that, as you are clearly cuckoo.
You'd be the second or third Muslim on here who's shortened my nickname and thought they were sooooo clever for doing it. Doesn't work. I've been called much worse with my actual name, and my nick on here has a treasured and positive value to me which you can't even hope to change. Is that cuckoo enough for you?
When you don't understand an insult, it shows you are very ignorant, which makes it even funnier.
Actually, that's not the case when the word is one that I don't (and I'd imagine lots of others here) wouldn't understand. If you insult someone, use a term they'll know- otherwise it looks like you're just making stuff up. Yes, I did look up the word- thank you Wiktionary- and it's more of your Irish cussing. Again- those are the first words ANYONE learns in ANY foreign language. Which means it makes it look like you're a fraud. Which you are, and for several different reasons.
Notice the sentence: all the prohets in all the faiths are bad, clearly your claim of teaching english is rubbish, as to faiths, I mean the 3 main abrahamic,
That's not all the faiths, or all the prophets. Nice self-pwnage there, fake ex-Catholic non-atheist.
I have stated this a few times on here, Mohammed was bad if I go by the writings and so were all the rest, as an athiest religion to me is man made, the work of men to control people, so why would I like mohammed,
Jesus wasn't such a bad guy. He had some bad things to say about Samarians, but I don't think they're around anymore, and besides that... he cursed a fig tree for being out of season. Goofy, and probably the result of an attempt to translate an idiomatic saying or story from Aramaic to Greek, or Greek to Latin, or something. Muhammad was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse. Going by the writings. Which we are assuming for the sake of this argument to be true.

Sure all religion is man-made. So what? There are degrees of badness for each. Buddhism, Jainism (besides the weird proscriptions), not so much. Islam- by far- the worst. Why? Because of what Allah allegedly told Muhammad. Well, rather what Gabriel said Allah was saying. Awfully long game of "telephone" just by the "first" level.
when I give him the same time of days as other faiths none, what I don't do is say a faith is evil, especially when they are as bad as each other, many people believe through love, some also do through fear of death.
You give him better press. You're kinder. You've lately tempered your apologetics, but you still go after him far less... and on top of that, you started this thread! This thread is proof enough that you're biased towards Muhammad and Islam- trying so hard to flip the challenge, then talking about which ahadith considered authentic by Muslim scholars are "really" authentic... and so on. Not once did you come on here and say "Wow, Muhammad did some bad things, according to works that were written by Muslims. Maybe they thought he did these bad things, and if he did exist, he was an awful guy."

Now sure, we can debate till the sun turns red giant about whether or not Muhammad really existed historically, but that's not the issue. What's the issue is: Do the sources, written by Muslims, make Muhammad out to be all the bad things that Ali Sina's book says he is? The answer is clearly yes.
I don't insult Paul,
You do- by saying he was the corrupter of the "pure" Christian doctrine of the first generation followers of Jesus. You would never ever have said it even if you were an ex-Catholic. No ex-Catholic says it- believe me, I know, I've met a bunch.
just show it is his line of teaching that christians follow today,
I told you already, and as an ex-Catholic you would have known this- Paul's teachings were, according to ALL Christian denominations post-Nicene Council, the continuation of Jesus' message. Calling him a fraud and a corrupter of the pure Jesus-led church is not just an insult- it's heresy.
how is this insulting him,
You insult his character (he's a corrupter of the faith) and it's not an insult?!? What are you smoking? It must be incredible.
you presume to much and get it wrong everytime.
Nah, I've got this right.
I debate muslims also,
Hearsay- irrelevant and inconclusive.
but you chose what you wish to believe my little cherub, as judging by your powers of deduction I am not suprised you get everything wrong.
I actually quoted from that NT chapter you claimed showed your case. It showed the opposite. If you feel the need to ignore the evidence, everyone else here can take a look for themselves.
My approach is to show all the faiths are wrong,
.... which you now qualify as the "abrahamic" faiths (and what a misleading name that is!) Soooooooo I guess the 500 million Hindus of the world are not involved in religious practices? Could have fooled me.
this includes Islam,
Where have you accepted a bad aspect of Islam, anywhere? Remember your little debate with Cassie about 9:29? I do, and I'm really sure lots of others here do too. "Bound by time," "not meant for today", etc. Someone shows you a bad thing in Islam, all of a sudden it's context, context, context. Someone shows you a bad thing in Judaism or Christianity, THEN it's suddenly GOD'S IMMUTABLE AND PERFECT WORD!!!!1!11!!11! Gimme a break- "this includes Islam".
I show comparrisons between them, to show up the ridiculas claims made by some on here,
No you don't- you trash on Judaism (what you think it is) and Christianity (what you think it is) by looking at the Bible from the perspective of a dyed-in-the-wool Muslim. How do I know that? Every....single....one that's come through here, when they talk about Judaism or Christianity, try to "backwards engineer" Islam's for-all-time book into their books. Which is not how it works (read up on "The New Covenant", for instance).
if someone said to me they think the 3 main faiths have 3 evil gods, I would agree 100%, it does not mean though that people are taught this in faith, in Judasim, Christianty and Islam, they are taught their faith as one of peace and love, even though verses contradict this, which are used by extremists in all of these 3 faiths and they then carry out acts of evil. So when people claim it is one, I show easily how this is wrong.
Which extremists LATELY have used the bad verses in Jewish or Christian verses? Give me something in, o, past 15 years, lets say. Are they fringe, or mainstream? How quickly did their co-religionists condemn them, if they did?

Now do the same for Islam- and keep the same approach in mind, none of this stuff about this or that being political only.

And you still haven't answered Cassie's question: Where in the Quran does it say that 9:29 is bound by time?
So by calling Jesus, by his correct name, I am lying about being an ex catholic,
In any Catholic school, that is not his correct name. It is his correct name *historically*, but we're talking theology here, not archaeology.
even though it has been shown on here that I went to St Joseph's College, a catholic school on Beulah Hill and taught by the De la salle brothers, my head teacher was Brother Anthony if you are interested and a little known fact is Roddy Mcdowall attended this school, now how would I know that, or that there is a tradition of how the eagles heads turned on the villa at the school when a man commited suicide there or any other question you would like to ask, I even attended St Anthony's Primary school, would you like any more evidence, or would you like me to keep making you look really stupid and clearly show how bad you perceive people or even a faith for that matter? :roflmao:
I will await your apology, ha ha.
Apology- riiiiight. These are just empty claims. Moreover, they're claims that probably nobody on this forum can even bother to trace. It's worse than a lie- it's a huge pile of lies that keep getting higher and higher.
Opps looks like you missed a bit

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
So chastising is chasing out or excommunicating now? I'm sure the brothers you got taught by, when they would get talked to by their superiors about whatever failings they had, would be shocked.

James messed up here, and Paul shamed him into the right way of doing things. Where in the world did you get your idea that this amounted to a schism in the early Church?
Plese look up, The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied by historians to an Early Christian council that was held in Jerusalem and dated to around the year 50. Then you may learn something, as you know little of Christianity and its origins, based on the written works
*Shrug* It's a mythical council. The first historically attested councils didn't happen for centuries.
Of course mainstream Christianity will not admit, the same in islam, when scholars show how a faith is formed, man alive are you dim.
So why make reference to a mythical council for a historical case? It doesn't make sense- you're switching from myth to history like it's nothing.
A dead language you say, blimey, best you don't go Ireland mate, I was taught this as a child though have not spoken in years, but many still do in villages. So again you know very little.
You might be right, but I won't take your word for it. Any real Irish people around here?
Not homophobic, far from it,
Suuuuuuuure
was taking the mick,
It's MIC. "Mick" is a racial slur against the Irish. Of course you already knew that. :lol:
though it must have made a mark to explain how lovely she is, fair play and good luck to you, won't dish a woman just because she married a numpty, as I say, hope she can make you see sense.
Nice try backpedaling. You put out an anti-transgendered remark out there- it's where everyone can see it, and it's going to be around well after you've stopped posting here. I do not accept your apology or you good will.

I do claim to be a history teacher, as it is clear how bad people think history is or what they believe, so I have come to teach, if you don't like me saying that, then sorry I suggest you go have a little cry and hug with the misses.
So when I ask you to look up Jewish law, I must be a muslim, oh dear me, that is hilarious, go figure on that one.
That's not even close to what I said, so don't act like it is.
I am telling the truth,
Just like about being a history teacher who is not a real teacher.... about being an ex-Catholic with no clue about the religion.... about TOTALLY not being anti-transgendered or homophobic.... about being an atheist.... about attacking ALL religions (nononono, wait, you meant just the three that *really* count, right?!?)

Please. Your lies are so numerous that you can't even keep them straight.
it took some time for it to be picked up, as many were just wound up, including yourself, all your answers are "you must be a muslim" :roflmao:
Well, no. We're not wound up- we're just not willing to deal with liars. You ARE a Muslim- just admit it. You're not Irish, you're not ex-Catholic, you're not atheist, you never were any sort of teacher, you are a thief, and you're a homo/transphobe pretending to not be one.

So where's the response for this: "by the way- still waiting for a summary of the significance of Mother Mary and the Saints... be specific, and use your own words."

That's the last time I'll ask. If you don't reply, or I found out that you copy-pasted, I'll just know you don't have an answer and for sure are not ex-Catholic.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
You are delusional and quite off the charts mate, what a load of utter garbage I have ever read and you say you are an English teacher, dear me, what is the world coming to.
As to Mary, she is revered and prayed to as the Mother of god and holds significance to Catholics she is believed to have ascended into heaven, even though there is no written evidence. As to saints which one?
If you were once a catholic, then you will know this prayer, that I used to say.
Angel of God, my guardian dear, to whom Gods love, commits me hear, ever this day, be at my side, to light and guard,rule and guide Amen. Would you also like the act of contrition, muppet? i have also been baptised and confirmed, which I guess all muslims know this. :roflmao:
Mate go and enjoy your wife, you know jack all, would not mind a good debate, but you have not the first clue about anything, you clearly are very paranoid though, to think I am a muslim, which is cluless, after the evidence I gave earlier, plus the fact I think the Gods in the main faiths are quite evil, clearly shows you are more likly a member of the EDL, who's best skills are shown on a saturday having a punch up with the opposing supporters.
Want a turnip!
Post Reply