The gods have let me down.

[sum]

This thread is being diverted from the central theme. I think that Equestrian and Methinx should open a new thread to continue their discussion.

I still would like to know why god did not make his existance abundantly clear so that everyone could believe. Any ideas, Equestrian and Methinx?

sum

[CuteCoot]

I still would like to know why god did not make his existance abundantly clear so that everyone could believe.

Pantheists believe that God is the world and is therefore always abundantly clear.
Panpsychists believe that God is the consciousness in the world and since we are conscious ourselves we are constantly experiencing God.

I get the impression that you think God is like some dazzling celebrity who can perform amazing miracles, rather like Jesus and Buddha and Mohammad are made out to be. Because there's no one in the world like that today, you figure there's no god. Is that right?

I'd be interested to know just what kind of experience you think you'd need to have so that God's existence would be "proved". I gather you'd want something more than spoon bending. Would even raising someone from the dead count? After all, there have been stories of people being removed from morgues or from their coffins or even unburied because they were not "really" dead, only mistakenly thought to be so.

So just what do you think it would take?

[Sten]

3) It does not follow from a lack of evidence for God that God does not exist. The lack of evidence for X is not evidence for not X.

Welcome to the church of the ghost hands, brother. Can I assume by this statement that you are now a full believer in the ghost hands that pull objects towards earth?

[Methinx]

Your concern to save bandwith is duly noted and, I'm sure, much appreciated by all members here at FFI. However, the response you offered does not address my argument. Veritably, it does not even relate to the small passage you left intact.

It seems to me that what you're offering here is an argument against the existence of God. While I think your argument is reasonable and one the theist should address, it really doesn't pertain to my argument. If I were to be technical about it, I could simply respond by saying that your rebuttal is nothing more than a red herring and call it a day. But I won't. You seem like a nice chap and far more level-headed than your fanatical cohort, Fathom.

The exchange between me and my incompetent opponent ultimately boiled down to justification concerning "the burden of proof." Fathom resolutely believes that he is well within his epistemic rights to assume that there is no God without the need to justify it. His epistemology regarding "the burden of proof" relies entirely on one assumption:

A negative cannot be proven

From this assumption he concludes that only the theist bears the burden of proof while the atheist enjoys the benefit of assumption. The reasoning is that if a negative cannot be proven, then the atheist is rationally justified to assume that there is no God. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the theist who makes the positive statement.


Throughout the course of this debate I have shown, quite extensively, that:

1) If it is true that a negative cannot be proven, then the atheist cannot assume that there is no God because the assumption "there is no God" exceeds what the atheist himself says he can prove. For example, if a negative cannot be proven, then we are forbidden to accept the following line of reasoning:

There is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist.

So the atheist must either concede that he also bears the burden of proof, or that the assumption "there is no God" is not rationally sustainable and evidently false. Certainly, the atheist can eschew logic and reason and hold to the assumption "there is no God" on a blind leap of faith. But then that would defeat the salient accusation atheists use against theists.

2) The claim that a negative cannot be proven is flat out false. To espouse the proposition "one cannot prove a negative" is to deny reality. I've provided example after example where negatives are clearly proven, and I've even provided the method we use to prove negative statements. Yet my fervent opponent has willfully caged himself within his narrow dogma and ignored it all.

Fathom, with arrogance on full display, evoked the negative proof fallacy because he thought that it allowed him to rest on a negative assumption. When I had shown that it actually defeated the assumption "God does not exist," he entered into his typical fit of confounded madness where he recycles the same objection over and over thinking that repetition prevails over reason. I also found it hilarious how he channeled your posts to bolster his ego. It doesn't matter to Fathom that his arguments were soundly defeated, what matters is that he gets the rhetorics trophy.

3) It does not follow from a lack of evidence for God that God does not exist. The lack of evidence for X is not evidence for not X.

4) Science is not the only informer truth. Unfortunately, scientism seems to be a cultural mainstream view, yet it is such an ill-informed approach to knowledge. It's a false orthodoxy that permeates Western society. This lie is simply an example of mass indoctrination perpetrated by Western academia, media and entertainment.

We employ the scientific method when assessing the validity of propositions concerning the physical reality. The sources we use to determine the propositional truth values of the physical world are restricted to evidence from observations and logical inferrence. Information derived strictly from observations or physical experiments is called empirical evidence. Evidence, in this narrow sense, is limited to knowledge drawn from what we physically observe.

We use philosophy when assessing the validity of propositions concerning the nature of reality or the metaphysical. The sources we use to determine the propositional truth values of the metaphysical encompass evidence from science, reason, and experience. Evidence, in its broadest sense, means positive epistemic considerations. (that which is rationally justified)

Consider the following arguments:

P1 The coastal taipan is closely related to the Papuan taipan.
P2 The Papuan taipan thrives on rats and bandicoots.
C Therefore, it probably follows that the coastal taipan thrives on rats and bandicoots.

This is an inductive argument. An inductive argument is one in which it is improbable for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. So the conclusion in this argument probably follows.


P1 The taipan is a member of the elapid family of snakes.
P2 All members of the elapid family are venomous.
C Therefore, it necessarily follows that the taipan is venomous.

This is a deductive argument. A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. So the conclusion in this argument follows out of logical necessity.

Both the inductive and deductive argument, if cogent and sound respectively, constitute evidence. So P1 and P2 in both arguments, if true, constitute evidence for C. (that which is rationally justified)

The impudent claim that I haven't addressed, and has been too oft repeated, is that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Those who claim this are either ignorant of the evidence or refuse to acknowledge the evidence. Ignorance and denial is no justification for any claim. Those who actually believe that there is no evidence for God should step out of their cozy little ideological box and broaden their knowledge. To say that there is no evidence for the existence of God is to admit ignorance in some of the richest literature on the topic to date. From both sides of the argument.

Thank you for your opinion; to be frank I find it somewhat 'non sequitur'.

As far as I am concerned, the default position for any claim is that it is false until evidence is presented to the contrary.
That goes for the claims of existence for gods, unicorns, leprechauns, etc..
The only rational stance is to assume that they're all fictional until you are given a reason to assume otherwise.

I don't choose my beliefs. They come naturally as I become convinced of their content.

All the best.
.

[Methinx]

This thread is being diverted from the central theme. I think that Equestrian and Methinx should open a new thread to continue their discussion.

I still would like to know why god did not make his existance abundantly clear so that everyone could believe. Any ideas, Equestrian and Methinx?

sum

I agree with you, sum.

I do apologise for the digression. I am out of this thread.

I agree with you; If God does not let us know He exists, we cannot be said to have any meaningful "choice" in terms of rejecting any Divine Offer.
Since most instances of free willed choice involve having solid information and beliefs about the existence of the choice...it is irrational to posit our choice is made freer by withholding information concerning the choice.

All the best.

[The Fog Horn]

Sum....he did make his presence felt. I've already told you that. This is what he looked like at the very start of monotheism....forget the NT...that's Chinese Whispers for you...

http://tinyurl.com/62muwb8

and

http://tinyurl.com/62rqf5u

and

http://tinyurl.com/63zd5yy

These images match the descriptions in the OT. I'll give you one guess what Yahweh was and if you get it right I'll send you a free lava lamp as a winning prize.

[sum]

Hello The Fog Horn

Very witty!

I give in. What does Yahweh look like? Is it a volcano?

sum

[The Fog Horn]

Sum!!!!! You have won all the competitions!!! You win a lava lamp, a box of fireworks, a toaster and a trip to Saudi!!! You are the only person on here who has been able to state the bloody obvious. I suspected you were the open and searching type.

Yes, it's Yahweh, it looks like a volcano and that is because Yahweh was a volcano.

[sum]

Hello The Fog Horn

Your quote -
Sum!!!!! You have won all the competitions!!! You win a lava lamp, a box of fireworks, a toaster and a trip to Saudi!!!

I knew that there would be a sting in the tail! I think that the Saudis might put me in the toaster and tell me that hell will be much worse if I did not become a muslim, have my foreskin chopped off and believe that Muhammad was the prophet of Islam despite there being no record of him being circumcised.

sum

[The Fog Horn]

Oh thank the volcano! There's someone with a sense of humour on here

I'll let you in on a little secret that should in fact be a well known fact.....the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh in Midian, which was in Saudi. The reason why it's still a secret is because no Christian wants anyone to know, no Jew wants anyone to know, the Saudi government doesn't want anyone to know, the muslims in Saudi know but don't have the ability to get the world to know and atheists generally don't believe there was such a thing as a Hebrew let alone a Mount Sinai or even a migration of people. They think the Jewish people just landed from outer space. That leaves atheists who are open to the possibilty there might be some truth in the Bible, but you won't hear them agreeing with me about my theory because the atheists who spend a lot of their time on forums like this do it because they think they're right and someone coming along with an unchartered theory that they didn't think of before is not going to be popular.

You, I feel, are a rare anomaly. You just want to know the truth.

He led you through the vast and dreadful desert, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. He brought you water out of hard rock. Deuteronomy 8:15

They did not ask, 'Where is the LORD, who brought us up out of Egypt and led us through the barren wilderness, through a land of deserts and rifts, a land of drought and darkness, a land where no one travels and no one lives?' Jeremiah 2:6

I cared for you in the desert, in the land of burning heat. Hosea 13:5

but the most revealing verese are there and I'll explain why later...

You will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent. Pslam 91:13

An oracle concerning the animals of the Negev: Through a land of hardship and distress, of lions and lionesses, of adders and darting snakes, the envoys carry their riches on donkeys' backs, their treasures on the humps of camels, to that unprofitable nation. Isaiah 30.6

and a massive number of other lion verses....

http://www.openbible.info/topics/lions

Lions seem to feature a lot. This tells us that lions must have been a significant presense in early Judiasm. This helps us determine where early Judaism was.

http://snarla.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/arabian-lions/

There is only one way to analyse religion and that is to get back to its origins. Anything after that is Chinese Whispers or outright lies.

I will make a seperate post of this to ensure more people see it.

[Equestrian]

Thank you for your opinion; to be frank I find it somewhat 'non sequitur'.

As far as I am concerned, the default position for any claim is that it is false until evidence is presented to the contrary.
That goes for the claims of existence for gods, unicorns, leprechauns, etc..
The only rational stance is to assume that they're all fictional until you are given a reason to assume otherwise.

I don't choose my beliefs. They come naturally as I become convinced of their content.

All the best.

Once again, you're just rehashing the same argument I've previously refuted. You are committing the fallacy of Argument from ignorance: a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

I've addressed your contention here at great length. In fact, it was the first point of contention I had addressed in my initial post:

...we have no evidence that there is silver ore on the the planet Pluto, but it does not follow from the lack of evidence that there is no silver ore on Pluto.

Propostion 1: There is silver ore on Pluto (P)
Propostion 2: There is no silver ore on Pluto (not-P)

We have not yet adequately surveyed Pluto to find out whether P or not-P is true. Therefore, both propositions lack evidence no matter which is true.

There is no evidence that life exists on other planets. Does it follow that life does not exist on other planets? Is the proposition "life exists on other planets" false?

Many scientists believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe. According to your line of reasoning, these scientists are all irrational. Now that's odd, because so much attention has been directed to the search for extraterrestrial life that the scientific community even coined a new term for the study: Astrobiology. Now think about this for a moment. Astrobiology is a science for which there is no data, or at least no empirical data in support of the science. Imagine that.


Methinx, you are free to faithfully adhere to your opinions, I'll stick with logic. Like I said:

"Certainly, the atheist can eschew logic and reason and hold to the assumption "there is no God" on a blind leap of faith."

[Equestrian]

3) It does not follow from a lack of evidence for God that God does not exist. The lack of evidence for X is not evidence for not X.

Welcome to the church of the ghost hands, brother. Can I assume by this statement that you are now a full believer in the ghost hands that pull objects towards earth?

Thanks for the invitation to your ghost hands cult, but I'm sure you will forgive me if I decline. It should be clear from my statement that I'm a firm believer in the laws of logic. Something of which you and your cohorts seem to have little understanding.

[Equestrian]

It is a sad state of affairs when the atheists on this thread are incapable of following simple lines of reasoning. If these folks suffered from clinical stupidity, then they could easily be forgiven. But this is not the case at all. I don't think anyone here is stupid. It is likely, however, that they're predisposed to some kind of cognitive impediment such as confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is a tendency for people to notice or look for information that confirms his/her existing beliefs, while ignoring anything that contradicts those beliefs. It's a type of selective thinking.

I'm not suggesting that confirmation bias is exclusively an enterprise of the atheist, but many of the atheists that I've engaged with on this board certainly have cognitive inhibitions. This alone, however, does not adequately explain the failure to comprehend simple steps to a line of reasoning. Everyone is susceptible to all sorts of cognitive biases. It's common for people to favor information that agrees with their world view. We tend to self-identify with our view of the world and associate with those who share the same views. The longer we hold to a particular world view the more it becomes a facet of our identity, so that we are inclined to take it personally when a view or narrative challenges our own. Cognitive biases are obstacles that can inhibit our thinking process, but people can easily circumvent them if they are genuinely vested in the pursuit for truth. When it comes to evaluating a conflict between reality and ones own personal views, the sensible person will abandon or revise his views in favor of reality.

Can something as unremarkable as a mere bias inhibit my atheist buddies from following simple rules of inferrence?

Unfortunately the answer is yes. When it comes to a polemic that deals with social, political or religious issues, otherwise clear thinking people suddenly hit themselves with the idiot stick. Men who shrug off the harshest of insults instantly turn into offended little girls when confronted with a disagreeable view. Math wizards become puzzled by elementary arithmetic when faced with economic data that belies their politics. Foreign affairs experts engage in sophism whenever foreign events and sentiments disaffirm their analyses. Academic's arbitrarily move the goal posts when social/economic trends respond unfavorably to the policies they've advocated.

These are people who shun competing views altogether or reject them off-handedly without any consideration. When confronted with an opposing view, the immediate reaction, to some, is to lash out by ridiculing and demonizing their opponents. To others the reaction may be more controlled but equally disdainful. How one reacts to a competing view depends not necessarily on how committed they are to their own view but rather on the level of disdain they hold towards the alternative view. These are the characteristics of the ideologue.

What is an ideologue?

An ideologue is someone who looks at everything through the lens of their favored world view and refuses to genuinely evaluate the merits of any argument that conflicts with their world view. In a debate an ideologue will invariably make no concessions to the opposing side. Competing arguments, regardless of validity, have no legitimacy whatsoever. The ideologue firmly believes himself to be free from bias or less biased than his opponents and is overtly sensitive to criticism.


These are some of the hallmark traits of the ideologue:

1) Attempts to discredit the opposing argument by disparaging his opponents beliefs. This is a common practice in forums or venues where the community predominantly favors the views of the ideologue.

2) Claims to maintain the default position and will often enter a debate by promptly announcing that he holds a balanced perspective. "I'm a skeptic" and "I don't swim in the partisan soup" are catchphrases that the ideologue frequently evokes in an effort to establish his "free-thinker" credentials.

3) The ideologue will miss no opportunity to project his own character flaws onto his opponent. He will shamelessly take quotes out of context or edit responses in order to cast his opponent as a hypocrite. He will relentlessly try to portray his opponent as a dogmatist, racist, bigot, chauvinist, homophobe, Islamophobe or any other term that has entered the western lexicon of self-righteous tyrants. All of this will stand upon nothing but the ideologues contempt for his opponents world view.

4) Ignores or refuses to address specific arguments that counter his main points of contention and then responds by repeating the same points of contention over and again, often emphasizing or placing an entire sentence or phrase in big bold letters.

5) He's a glutton for fallacy terms. "Strawman!," "tu quoque!," " non-sequiter!" are terms the ideologue is famous for exploiting. He constantly accuses his opponent of committing logical fallacies without ever showing where in the argument the fallacy occurred. The ideologue employs these terms primarily for rhetorical affect.

6) Refuses to recognize the logical defects in his own argument. When an argument is shown to be defective, the ideologue will never concede. He simply responds by either rehashing the same argument or act as if he had never made the argument in the first place, proceeding instead to shift the debate in another direction by raising a different objection altogether.

If this post offends your sensibilities or if you feel compelled to object, then you're most likely an ideologue.

[Sten]

3) It does not follow from a lack of evidence for God that God does not exist. The lack of evidence for X is not evidence for not X.

Welcome to the church of the ghost hands, brother. Can I assume by this statement that you are now a full believer in the ghost hands that pull objects towards earth?

Thanks for the invitation to your ghost hands cult, but I'm sure you will forgive me if I decline. It should be clear from my statement that I'm a firm believer in the laws of logic. Something of which you and your cohorts seem to have little understanding.

Forgetting for a second that there is nothing logical about the religion of Catholicism,

you just said that the lack of evidence for X is not evidence for not X. There is a lack of evidence for ghost hands theory in place of gravitational theory, but that shouldn't stop you from believing it. In your own words, a lack of evidence for ghost hands is not evidence for a lack of ghost hands. If you really were a firm believer in the laws of logic, you should ask for evidence that these ghost hands exist before you believe in them, but this request would be invalidated by your previous statement.

You can't disbelieve in the ghost hands. Just because there's no evidence for them, does not mean they do not exist. Right?

[sum]

Hello Equestrian

Your posts are not relevant to the subject of this thread.

I am an atheist because I am not convinced of the existance of any god. Can you offer an explanation for the fact that god, if he/she/it exists, did not make us all believers and give us enough clear proof of god`s existance to convince everyone? Why do you think that god made some of us unable to believe?

sum

[Islambyme]

Hello Equestrian

Your posts are not relevant to the subject of this thread.

I am an atheist because I am not convinced of the existance of any god. Can you offer an explanation for the fact that god, if he/she/it exists, did not make us all believers and give us enough clear proof of god`s existance to convince everyone? Why do you think that god made some of us unable to believe?

sum

unable to believe? HAHAHA ridiculous....you think the defiantly disobedient would believe? Did Pharoah believe in Moses pbuh when he showed clear proofs? Did Jews believe Jesus pbuh when he showed clear proofs? If it was anyone else other than God, they would go straight to hell without even coming to this world, but God is merciful, He still gives them a chance to learn something from others, yet you just have to be insolent and never learn from your experience and you just have to challenge God's will like you are an equal to him. Such insolence and arrogance is what keeps you away from God, it would be better if you are just unconvinced of God, thereby you can burn in hell forever.

And We have certainly revealed to you verses [which are] clear proofs, and no one would deny them except the defiantly disobedient. Q2:99

Then is one who was a believer like one who was defiantly disobedient? They are not equal. Q32:18

And be not like those who forgot Allah , so He made them forget themselves. Those are the defiantly disobedient. Q59:19

Indeed, Allah is not timid to present an example - that of a mosquito or what is smaller than it. And those who have believed know that it is the truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did Allah intend by this as an example?" He misleads many thereby and guides many thereby. And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient, Q2:26

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, "O my people, why do you harm me while you certainly know that I am the messenger of Allah to you?" And when they deviated, Allah caused their hearts to deviate. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.Q61:5

So whoever Allah wants to guide - He expands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide - He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky. Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe.Q6:125

And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like livestock; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless.Q7:179

And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah ." And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss.Q4:119

Allah wants to accept your repentance, but those who follow [their] passions want you to digress [into] a great deviation.Q4:27

Cursed were those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and [habitually] transgressed.Q5:78

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah . They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.Q6:116

The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah , seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.Q14:3

And they have attributed to Allah equals to mislead [people] from His way. Say, "Enjoy yourselves, for indeed, your destination is the Fire." Q14:30

[They are] those whose effort is lost in worldly life, while they think that they are doing well in work."Q18:104

Say, "Whoever is in error - let the Most Merciful extend for him an extension [in wealth and time] until, when they see that which they were promised - either punishment [in this world] or the Hour [of resurrection] - they will come to know who is worst in position and weaker in soldiers."Q19:75

Twisting his neck [in arrogance] to mislead [people] from the way of Allah . For him in the world is disgrace, and We will make him taste on the Day of Resurrection the punishment of the Burning Fire [while it is said], Q29:9

Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way. Q25:44




And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things. Q9:115

Allah keeps firm those who believe, with the firm word, in worldly life and in the Hereafter. And Allah sends astray the wrongdoers. And Allah does what He wills. Q14:27

[Ibrahim (Abraham)] said: "And who despairs of the Mercy of his Lord except those who are astray?"

So as you can see Allah swt has ordered to what to do if you dont want to be led astray in the Quran in many places. And he certainly does not lead astray people except the defiantly disobedient and wrongdoers.

[sum]

Hello Islambyme

Your quote -
unable to believe? HAHAHA ridiculous....you think the defiantly disobedient would believe?

You do not think very clearly about what you write. The "defiantly disobedient" might well believe but are simply disobedient.

The whole of Islam hangs on the words and deeds of Muhammad, who was known to lie. There is no Allah and Muhammad was an evil charlatan. You have been programmed and your mind manipulated by continuous indoctrination throughout your life. I do not think that you are capable of critical thinking. Even the Koran acknowledges that it is vulnerable to critical thinking because muslims were forbidden to question the words of "Allah" because they are likely to see throgh the charade and leave Islam.

sum

[Fathom]

Hello Equestrian

Your posts are not relevant to the subject of this thread.

I am an atheist because I am not convinced of the existance of any god. Can you offer an explanation for the fact that god, if he/she/it exists, did not make us all believers and give us enough clear proof of god`s existance to convince everyone? Why do you think that god made some of us unable to believe?

sum

unable to believe? HAHAHA ridiculous....you think the defiantly disobedient would believe? Did Pharoah believe in Moses pbuh when he showed clear proofs? Did Jews believe Jesus pbuh when he showed clear proofs? If it was anyone else other than God, they would go straight to hell without even coming to this world, but God is merciful, He still gives them a chance to learn something from others, yet you just have to be insolent and never learn from your experience and you just have to challenge God's will like you are an equal to him. Such insolence and arrogance is what keeps you away from God, it would be better if you are just unconvinced of God, thereby you can burn in hell forever.

And We have certainly revealed to you verses [which are] clear proofs, and no one would deny them except the defiantly disobedient. Q2:99

Then is one who was a believer like one who was defiantly disobedient? They are not equal. Q32:18

And be not like those who forgot Allah , so He made them forget themselves. Those are the defiantly disobedient. Q59:19

Indeed, Allah is not timid to present an example - that of a mosquito or what is smaller than it. And those who have believed know that it is the truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did Allah intend by this as an example?" He misleads many thereby and guides many thereby. And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient, Q2:26

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, "O my people, why do you harm me while you certainly know that I am the messenger of Allah to you?" And when they deviated, Allah caused their hearts to deviate. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.Q61:5

So whoever Allah wants to guide - He expands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide - He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky. Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe.Q6:125

And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like livestock; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless.Q7:179

And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah ." And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss.Q4:119

Allah wants to accept your repentance, but those who follow [their] passions want you to digress [into] a great deviation.Q4:27

Cursed were those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and [habitually] transgressed.Q5:78

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah . They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.Q6:116

The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah , seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.Q14:3

And they have attributed to Allah equals to mislead [people] from His way. Say, "Enjoy yourselves, for indeed, your destination is the Fire." Q14:30

[They are] those whose effort is lost in worldly life, while they think that they are doing well in work."Q18:104

Say, "Whoever is in error - let the Most Merciful extend for him an extension [in wealth and time] until, when they see that which they were promised - either punishment [in this world] or the Hour [of resurrection] - they will come to know who is worst in position and weaker in soldiers."Q19:75

Twisting his neck [in arrogance] to mislead [people] from the way of Allah . For him in the world is disgrace, and We will make him taste on the Day of Resurrection the punishment of the Burning Fire [while it is said], Q29:9

Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way. Q25:44




And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things. Q9:115

Allah keeps firm those who believe, with the firm word, in worldly life and in the Hereafter. And Allah sends astray the wrongdoers. And Allah does what He wills. Q14:27

[Ibrahim (Abraham)] said: "And who despairs of the Mercy of his Lord except those who are astray?"

So as you can see Allah swt has ordered to what to do if you dont want to be led astray in the Quran in many places. And he certainly does not lead astray people except the defiantly disobedient and wrongdoers.

Do you understand that everything you said above is solely based upon your "beliefs" in the words that were written in an old book almost 1400 years ago?

Do you understand that you organize your entire life around the words that were written in an old book almost 1400 years ago?

Do you understand that everything you do is based upon the words written in an old book 1400 years ago?

Do you understand that you are being controlled and manipulated by only the words in an old book?

An old book is running your entire life. One single book controls everything you do.

Just a book.

Think about that. You don't need to reply to me. You don't need to answer to anyone except to yourself. Only you can break your mind from slavery to an old book, and think for yourself.

Think about this: If you had never read that book, or ever been told about it, would you still believe? If you had been told about another book, and believed the words in it, then what would be the difference between those two books?

No difference. Why? Because you believe what you read, and it doesn't matter what book it is. You will believe what you are told to believe, because you are controlled. You are owned. You are a slave to the words of an old book, and the teachings of people around you.

You are not free. Your mind is controlled. You cannot think clearly. You can not reason.

I am sad for you, because a mind is a beautiful thing to waste.

[sum]

Hello Islambyme

The book was dictated by a man, Muhammad, who was a liar, condoned lying and advocated deceipt in order to further his own aims. And you still believe it. Even though Muhammad will be in hell he will be laughing at all you muslims who fell for his claims.

sum

[Islambyme]

Hello Islambyme

The book was dictated by a man, Muhammad, who was a liar, condoned lying and advocated deceipt in order to further his own aims. And you still believe it. Even though Muhammad will be in hell he will be laughing at all you muslims who fell for his claims.

sum

Thats just your twisted lies.