Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity?

[Kwayera]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by redfield

It also quotes 30,000-100,000 witnesses of the event. Don't you think that it's quite a lot of evidence?

Lol no, especially when eyewitness accounts are famously inaccurate.

Did you see the gorilla? - Telegraph

[NCB619]

Originally Posted by redfield

Sorry, I intended it to be for someone else previously.

Yes, science may explain these. Yet, science cannot explain creation of the universe, since science was created with it. Philosophy and logic can (as demonstrated).

Not necessarily. How does one create existence, if existence itself does not exist yet?

[hermand]

Originally Posted by redfield

It also quotes 30,000-100,000 witnesses of the event. Don't you think that it's quite a lot of evidence?

did you read below the title sentence?

it casts a lot of doubt on the issue.

and besides, you were being pedantic about the 'alleged' comment made by SylvesterBr and you contradicted yourself by giving the link to an article that talked about the "alleged phenomenon". so i decided to point it out to you.

and if this is the sole reason for your faith, then god help us all.

[Planck]

Originally Posted by sunsettah

I hate Islam because it worships a paedophile.

They don't worship the paedophile, they EMULATE the paedophile.

[mirakon]

Originally Posted by Planck

They don't worship the paedophile, they EMULATE the paedophile.

No. Just no. Shut up and keep your prejudiced views that no even slightly intelligent person agrees with to yourself.

Also Islam is a religion that is almost exactly the same as Judaism (aside from the fact we have some more Prophets). So as a Jew, you are in a sense insulting your own beliefs.

[Arceupins]

Religion makes me lol.

Guyz srsly, srsly...

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by mirakon

No. Just no. Shut up and keep your prejudiced views that no even slightly intelligent person agrees with to yourself.

Also Islam is a religion that is almost exactly the same as Judaism (aside from the fact we have some more Prophets). So as a Jew, you are in a sense insulting your own beliefs.

Mohammad married and had sex with a child. Do you deny this?

[anonymous.92]

Our prophet, Muhammad, was not a paedophile. Islam condemns paedophilia, rape and sexual misconduct of any form. His wife, at the time of marriage, was above the age of puberty, and in an Arab society 1400 years that was not considered abnormal or deviant by women or men. At that time, a person was considered an adult when puberty was reached, and hence that would not have been classed as paedophilia.

The morals and conduct of a society is predominantly determined by the contextual period. In todays soiety, paedophilia has a vastly different definition than what it was centuries ago. Maybe centuries from now, we, as normal citizens, would be considered paedophiles.

You should know that Islam clearly does not condone any sort of dehumanising behaviour to women, men or children. If you, or anyone, had even read the Quran, that message would have been clear.

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by anonymous.92

Our prophet, Muhammad, was not a paedophile. Islam condemns paedophilia, rape and sexual misconduct of any form. His wife, at the time of marriage, was above the age of puberty, and in an Arab society 1400 years that was not considered abnormal or deviant by women or men. At that time, a person was considered an adult when puberty was reached, and hence that would not have been classed as paedophilia.

The morals and conduct of a society is predominantly determined by the contextual period. In todays soiety, paedophilia has a vastly different definition than what it was centuries ago. Maybe centuries from now, we, as normal citizens, would be considered paedophiles.

You should know that Islam clearly does not condone any sort of dehumanising behaviour to women, men or children. If you, or anyone, had even read the Quran, that message would have been clear.

Um.

According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.
..
Aisha stayed in her parents' home for several years until she joined Muhammad and the marriage was consummated. Most of the sources indicate that she was nine years old at the time, with the single exception of al-Tabari, who records that she was ten.

You condone child rape just because it was "common". Just because the definitions have apparently changed.

She was nine years old.

You disgust me.

[mirakon]

Originally Posted by Kwayera

Um.



You condone child rape just because it was "common". Just because the definitions have apparently changed.

She was nine years old.

You disgust me.

What exact sources are you using, please specify. Also, your sources seem to contradict each other (some of your sources say Aisha was nine others six). As they contradict they must be inaccurate.

[Iron]

Who knows how old she was exactly. I'm inclined to believe that she had reached puberty and that such a thing was widely accepted back then as normal - even by the girl and her family. Do you think cavemen were anxiously counting down the days before a girl's 16th birthday?
It's just a fact that women, let alone persons under 16, had far less rights 1400 years ago. This has very little to do with Islam or religion in general. It was dictated more by brutal environments, savage conflicts and limited technology.

People like Kway just have a totally self-centered view of all sacred texts. She'll loudly deny that Christ even existed, because she finds little in him to criticise. Yet she just as loudly will point to very brief and obscure passages buried in the old testament/koran, take them out of context, slap on some twisted values and attack away. But whatever, keep admitting to the text's historical accuracy only when it suits your bitter atheistic agenda...

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by mirakon

What exact sources are you using, please specify. Also, your sources seem to contradict each other (some of your sources say Aisha was nine others six). As they contradict they must be inaccurate.

She was bethrothed at six and the marriage was consummated at 9. My sources to not contradict with each other.

Watt, "Aisha", Encyclopedia of Islam Online
Amira Sonbol, Rise of Islam: 6th to 9th century, Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures
D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40
Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper San Francisco, 1992, p. 157.
Barlas (2002), p.125-126
Sahih al-Bukhari 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64, 7:62:65, 7:62:88, Sahih Muslim 8:3309, 8:3310, 8:3311, Sunnan Abu Dawud 41:4915, 41:4917
Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7

[alex.leon]

Don't you think that any religious fables or stories have absolutely no relevance to the modern day.

Oh, great, Jonah lived in a whale.

Oh, awesome, Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old.



...noone should care.

[Ksubi]

Originally Posted by Arceupins

Religion makes me lol.

Guyz srsly, srsly...

please explain.

[loquasagacious]

Interesting article from todays smh A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

Originally Posted by Greg Craven is vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University in smh

Attacking Christians is not really clever, witty or funny.

FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.

Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer's blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?

The answer is twofold. First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.

The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers - and perhaps especially Catholics - do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.

Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus. Thus, as a Catholic, I do not normally sense in some tabloid atheist the presence of a supreme discerning intellect. I simply place him or her in much the same pitiable bin of intellectual vulgarians as the chartered accountant who cannot see the art in Picasso, the redneck who cannot admit of indigenous culture, and the pissant who cannot see the difference between Yeats and Bob Ellis.

It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity. It is a bit like the old joke: how many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None - no matter what they do, they just can't see the light.

The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Applied to the average totalitarian dictatorship, this charge sheet would be over the top. Ascribed to virtually any ethnic minority, it rightly would result at least in public revulsion and quite possibly in criminal charges. But applied to Christians, it seems to be accepted as just another modern blood sport, like the vilification of refugees and the elimination of the private life of the families of public figures.

At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.