Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (1 Viewer)

[redfield]

No, he would understand a lot more was alleged to have occurred.

It is well documented that this event occurred. I think the argument is a bit beyond that.

 

[SylviaB]

It is well documented that this event occurred. I think the argument is a bit beyond that.

um no

give me a secular source, then we'll talk

 

[redfield]

um no

give me a secular source, then we'll talk

The article I previously offered was from Wikipedia.

 

[redfield]

The article I previously offered was from Wikipedia.

Just in case you want to check. The Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So are we talking?

 

[hermand]

The article I previously offered was from Wikipedia.

and wikipedia says the same thing.

The Miracle of the Sun (Portuguese: O Milagre do Sol) is an alleged miraculous event...

so, yeah, it's alleged

 

[Kwayera]

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

Perhaps it was natural, perhaps it wasn't. But I think it's pretty miraculous that the event occurred as predicted by the children and at the time they said it would. I can give you lists of other unexplainable/predicted events that reinforce someone's belief in God. Yet, it is quite clear that you are determined these have natural causes.

Because there always is a natural cause. Those kids' "predictions" were only discovered after the fact, and by virtue of probability the chances of some kids, somewhere, spouting enough shit to be counted as a "prophecy" are very high. In fact this is true of all "predictions", unless you can point to an example where somebody said something like "there will be a magnitude 8.4 earthquake with its epicentre exactly beneath Hornsby Westfield at 8:15pm on the 14th January, 2021."

I've given you reasons why God exists (uncaused cause, miracles, etc.),

Those aren't reasons, and you (and anyone else) have yet to prove any "miracle" that didn't have an underlying natural cause or a perfectly reasonable natural explanation.

and you have replied with your reasons why they do not necessarily infer his existance. But now, it should be your turn. What makes you SO sure that the supernatural doesn't exist. The argument shouldn't just be me defending my belief - you all ought to as well. So, why are you all positive that God doesn't exist?

As an agnostic, I entertain the possibility of the supernatural, while not actively believing in supernaturality. Why? Because there's no reason to. There's no evidence. There's no need for it when perfectly good naturalistic explanations exist. So we don't know yet the origin of the universe - so what? We didn't used to know that the earth was round. There's no reason to assume that just because we don't know, we'll NEVER know, and thus its "cause" must therefore be supernatural.

Hence, there is no requirement for a god/gods to exist. The universe doesn't need them.

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).

Science is a tool. By the same argument, man "created" science, so man shouldn't be able to explain our existence.

Your logic, in this case, is flawed.

 

[redfield]

and wikipedia says the same thing.



so, yeah, it's alleged

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

 

[Kwayera]

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]

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]

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]

I hate Islam because it worships a paedophile.

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

 

[mirakon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.