Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Catch a Hypocrite

Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:10:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theists tend to refer to intelligent design, in comparison to design from unintelligence, as proof that God exist. That due to the sophistication and repeating patterns in creation, it must have originated from choice, rather than from non-choice.

Yet when I have demonstrated this to atheists that a repeating patterns cannot originate from non-choice, they continue to say "Sure it can. We have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, DNA, etc.. All of this was created without choice". When we ask "how do you know"? They say, "because clearly, we see no one choosing to do so". In other words, proof that a repeating pattern was created without choice is..........."we don't see anyone making a choice".

Now watch. If any atheist found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, they would all say "someone chose to make it". If you then ask did you see someone make it, they say "NO".

This is inconsistent. They just stated that proof of non-choice is that they saw no one choose to make it, yet claim the IPhone was made from choice, despite not seeing someone make it.

The standard of evidence that atheists apply for themselves, suddenly shifts and is not evidence when a theist uses it. Making it hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is not evidence. As such, the evidence that sophisticated design and order such as repeating patterns can originate from non-choice fails, proving God's existence.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:18:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:10:08 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Theists tend to refer to intelligent design, in comparison to design from unintelligence, as proof that God exist. That due to the sophistication and repeating patterns in creation, it must have originated from choice, rather than from non-choice.

Yet when I have demonstrated this to atheists that a repeating patterns cannot originate from non-choice, they continue to say "Sure it can. We have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, DNA, etc.. All of this was created without choice". When we ask "how do you know"? They say, "because clearly, we see no one choosing to do so". In other words, proof that a repeating pattern was created without choice is..........."we don't see anyone making a choice".

Now watch. If any atheist found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, they would all say "someone chose to make it". If you then ask did you see someone make it, they say "NO".

This is inconsistent. They just stated that proof of non-choice is that they saw no one choose to make it, yet claim the IPhone was made from choice, despite not seeing someone make it. Hence the claim that an iPhone was made by choice is based on induction, as is the claim a snowflake was not.

The standard of evidence that atheists apply for themselves, suddenly shifts and is not evidence when a theist uses it. Making it hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is not evidence. As such, the evidence that sophisticated design and order such as repeating patterns can originate from non-choice fails, proving God's existence.

What is the difference between a snowflake and an iPhone?

We have abundant evidence of such devices being manufactured and built by humans. We have zero evidence of such with snowflakes. Ergo we treat them differently.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:26:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:18:33 PM, Envisage wrote:

What is the difference between a snowflake and an iPhone?

We have abundant evidence of such devices being manufactured and built by humans. We have zero evidence of such with snowflakes. Ergo we treat them differently.

Response: If you claim that not seeing something created is evidence that it came without choice, then an IPhone you find can be created without choice according to such logic. Yet you would claim it is created by choice. So the evidence for non-choice fails on such logic.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:28:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:10:08 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Theists tend to refer to intelligent design, in comparison to design from unintelligence, as proof that God exist. That due to the sophistication and repeating patterns in creation, it must have originated from choice, rather than from non-choice.

Yet when I have demonstrated this to atheists that a repeating patterns cannot originate from non-choice, they continue to say "Sure it can. We have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, DNA, etc.. All of this was created without choice". When we ask "how do you know"? They say, "because clearly, we see no one choosing to do so". In other words, proof that a repeating pattern was created without choice is..........."we don't see anyone making a choice".

Now watch. If any atheist found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, they would all say "someone chose to make it". If you then ask did you see someone make it, they say "NO".

This is inconsistent. They just stated that proof of non-choice is that they saw no one choose to make it, yet claim the IPhone was made from choice, despite not seeing someone make it.

The standard of evidence that atheists apply for themselves, suddenly shifts and is not evidence when a theist uses it. Making it hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is not evidence. As such, the evidence that sophisticated design and order such as repeating patterns can originate from non-choice fails, proving God's existence.

We know how snowflakes and crystals are formed.

We also know that the process of them being formed is a process of non-choice.

Consequentially, we reach a simple conclusion:

Some patterns are a result of choice. Others a result of non-choice.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:32:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:28:26 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:

We know how snowflakes and crystals are formed.

We also know that the process of them being formed is a process of non-choice.

Consequentially, we reach a simple conclusion:

Some patterns are a result of choice. Others a result of non-choice.

Response: An argument based on hypocrisy is not evidence. So you do not know. So one cannot claim that the proof of non-choice is because choice was not seen, then claim something was chosen to exist without seeing it. That is hypocrisy, which is not evidence. So we know it comes from choice only, and not from non-choice.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:35:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:32:44 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:28:26 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:

We know how snowflakes and crystals are formed.

We also know that the process of them being formed is a process of non-choice.

Consequentially, we reach a simple conclusion:

Some patterns are a result of choice. Others a result of non-choice.

Response: An argument based on hypocrisy is not evidence. So you do not know. So one cannot claim that the proof of non-choice is because choice was not seen, then claim something was chosen to exist without seeing it. That is hypocrisy, which is not evidence. So we know it comes from choice only, and not from non-choice.

But we see how a snowflake is made, and we see there is no choice.

Where is the choice in the making of a snowflake?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:26:49 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:18:33 PM, Envisage wrote:

What is the difference between a snowflake and an iPhone?

We have abundant evidence of such devices being manufactured and built by humans. We have zero evidence of such with snowflakes. Ergo we treat them differently.

Response: If you claim that not seeing something created is evidence that it came without choice, then an IPhone you find can be created without choice according to such logic. Yet you would claim it is created by choice. So the evidence for non-choice fails on such logic.

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:44:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:35:16 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:32:44 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:28:26 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:

We know how snowflakes and crystals are formed.

We also know that the process of them being formed is a process of non-choice.

Consequentially, we reach a simple conclusion:

Some patterns are a result of choice. Others a result of non-choice.

Response: An argument based on hypocrisy is not evidence. So you do not know. So one cannot claim that the proof of non-choice is because choice was not seen, then claim something was chosen to exist without seeing it. That is hypocrisy, which is not evidence. So we know it comes from choice only, and not from non-choice.

But we see how a snowflake is made, and we see there is no choice.

Where is the choice in the making of a snowflake?

Response: Snowflakes are the result of a weather system, and that system was created by God. So snowflakes originate from choice.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:51:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM, Envisage wrote:

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.

Response: Exactly. What you just applied was an inductive argument. Similarly, we have evidence that non-choice does not create a repeating pattern. So using your logic, non-choice cannot create a repeating pattern based on induction. Therefore, God exist.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:57:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:51:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM, Envisage wrote:

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.

Response: Exactly. What you just applied was an inductive argument. Similarly, we have evidence that non-choice does not create a repeating pattern.

You do? The snowflake examples etc are quite compelling in refuting that assertion.

So using your logic, non-choice cannot create a repeating pattern based on induction. Therefore, God exist.

You misunderstand what I said.

Via. induction you can state that an iPhone was made by choice.
Via. Induction you can state a snowflake was not made by choice.

It's pretty basic stuff faithah that you are misunderstanding.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:00:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:57:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:51:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM, Envisage wrote:

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.

Response: Exactly. What you just applied was an inductive argument. Similarly, we have evidence that non-choice does not create a repeating pattern.

You do? The snowflake examples etc are quite compelling in refuting that assertion.

So using your logic, non-choice cannot create a repeating pattern based on induction. Therefore, God exist.

You misunderstand what I said.

Via. induction you can state that an iPhone was made by choice.
Via. Induction you can state a snowflake was not made by choice.

It's pretty basic stuff faithah that you are misunderstanding.

Response: Yes. It is basic understanding that induction, as you just stated shows that a snowflake and IPhone came from choice. Proving God exist. Thank you.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:06:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:57:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:51:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM, Envisage wrote:

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.

Response: Exactly. What you just applied was an inductive argument. Similarly, we have evidence that non-choice does not create a repeating pattern.

You do? The snowflake examples etc are quite compelling in refuting that assertion.

He's going to use circular logic. He'll say God made the weather which made the snowflake. When you ask him proof of God and him making the weather, he'll say that the proof is that there are no repeating patterns that arise from non-choice. Then it'll start over again.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:10:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:00:18 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:57:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:51:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM, Envisage wrote:

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.

Response: Exactly. What you just applied was an inductive argument. Similarly, we have evidence that non-choice does not create a repeating pattern.

You do? The snowflake examples etc are quite compelling in refuting that assertion.

So using your logic, non-choice cannot create a repeating pattern based on induction. Therefore, God exist.

You misunderstand what I said.

Via. induction you can state that an iPhone was made by choice.
Via. Induction you can state a snowflake was not made by choice.

It's pretty basic stuff faithah that you are misunderstanding.

Response: Yes. It is basic understanding that induction, as you just stated shows that a snowflake and IPhone came from choice. Proving God exist. Thank you.

Are you here to discuss or are you here just to repeat yourself and declare yourself the winner? Because you are making no effort to highlight the failing in my understanding if there is one.

Your point about it demonstrating snowflakes came by choice is a non-sequitir so far, and I request you supply the logic that gives you that conclusion.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:12:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:06:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:57:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:51:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM, Envisage wrote:

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.

Response: Exactly. What you just applied was an inductive argument. Similarly, we have evidence that non-choice does not create a repeating pattern.

You do? The snowflake examples etc are quite compelling in refuting that assertion.

He's going to use circular logic. He'll say God made the weather which made the snowflake. When you ask him proof of God and him making the weather, he'll say that the proof is that there are no repeating patterns that arise from non-choice. Then it'll start over again.

Response: Amusing, when that is actually your logic. You will say an entity without choice originated the weather, which made the snowflake. When asked of proof of such a non-choice entity and it causing weather, you say the proof is that there are no repeating patterns in the weather that arises from choice. Then it starts over again.
In other words, hypocrisy. Hence, the very title of the thread.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:13:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:12:03 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:06:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:57:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:51:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM, Envisage wrote:

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.

Response: Exactly. What you just applied was an inductive argument. Similarly, we have evidence that non-choice does not create a repeating pattern.

You do? The snowflake examples etc are quite compelling in refuting that assertion.

He's going to use circular logic. He'll say God made the weather which made the snowflake. When you ask him proof of God and him making the weather, he'll say that the proof is that there are no repeating patterns that arise from non-choice. Then it'll start over again.

Response: Amusing, when that is actually your logic. You will say an entity without choice originated the weather, which made the snowflake. When asked of proof of such a non-choice entity and it causing weather, you say the proof is that there are no repeating patterns in the weather that arises from choice. Then it starts over again.
In other words, hypocrisy. Hence, the very title of the thread.

Actually, I'd point you to how weather is formed in the first place.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:16:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:10:41 PM, Envisage wrote:

Are you here to discuss or are you here just to repeat yourself and declare yourself the winner? Because you are making no effort to highlight the failing in my understanding if there is one.

Your point about it demonstrating snowflakes came by choice is a non-sequitir so far, and I request you supply the logic that gives you that conclusion.

Response: To the contrary, you are failing to demonstrate any flaw in my position. So the question you are asking you should be answering yourself.

You just made the claim that it is a non-sequitir, with no evidence to back the claim. You simply made it, then that was it. So again, follow your own advice and back your assertions with evidence, rather than make my argument with behavior that makes the topic of the thread an accurate depiction your claims.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:19:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:16:15 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:10:41 PM, Envisage wrote:

Are you here to discuss or are you here just to repeat yourself and declare yourself the winner? Because you are making no effort to highlight the failing in my understanding if there is one.

Your point about it demonstrating snowflakes came by choice is a non-sequitir so far, and I request you supply the logic that gives you that conclusion.

Response: To the contrary, you are failing to demonstrate any flaw in my position. So the question you are asking you should be answering yourself.

You just made the claim that it is a non-sequitir, with no evidence to back the claim. You simply made it, then that was it. So again, follow your own advice and back your assertions with evidence, rather than make my argument with behavior that makes the topic of the thread an accurate depiction your claims.

I said that your claim that it (what I said earlier) demonstrates snowflakes came from choice was a non sequitir so far (since the conclusion doesn't logically follow). You have yet to actually provide the argument. Since its your claim, the onus is on you to actually provide the argument first so I can address it.

So far I have yet to see it.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:22:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:19:32 PM, Envisage wrote:

I said that your claim that it (what I said earlier) demonstrates snowflakes came from choice was a non sequitir so far (since the conclusion doesn't logically follow). You have yet to actually provide the argument. Since its your claim, the onus is on you to actually provide the argument first so I can address it.

So far I have yet to see it.

Response: to the contrary, it is your claim that it is a non-sequitir, thus it is for you to show exactly what makes it so. Again, you have not. So the onus is on you, since it is your claim, to show how it is. Your failure to do so actually supports the fact that my argument is valid.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:24:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:22:32 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:19:32 PM, Envisage wrote:

I said that your claim that it (what I said earlier) demonstrates snowflakes came from choice was a non sequitir so far (since the conclusion doesn't logically follow). You have yet to actually provide the argument. Since its your claim, the onus is on you to actually provide the argument first so I can address it.

So far I have yet to see it.

Response: to the contrary, it is your claim that it is a non-sequitir, thus it is for you to show exactly what makes it so. Again, you have not. So the onus is on you, since it is your claim, to show how it is. Your failure to do so actually supports the fact that my argument is valid.

I have asked you to provide the whole argument, you have not done so (which is why its a non sequitir). I am done here.

Hitchens Razor needs some use.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:27:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:24:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:22:32 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:19:32 PM, Envisage wrote:

I said that your claim that it (what I said earlier) demonstrates snowflakes came from choice was a non sequitir so far (since the conclusion doesn't logically follow). You have yet to actually provide the argument. Since its your claim, the onus is on you to actually provide the argument first so I can address it.

So far I have yet to see it.

Response: to the contrary, it is your claim that it is a non-sequitir, thus it is for you to show exactly what makes it so. Again, you have not. So the onus is on you, since it is your claim, to show how it is. Your failure to do so actually supports the fact that my argument is valid.

I have asked you to provide the whole argument, you have not done so (which is why its a non sequitir). I am done here.

Hitchens Razor needs some use.

Response: My whole argument is the OP. So stating it was not provided is invalid. It is for you to show how it is flawed, which you have not, thus supporting the fact that it is valid. Proving God exist. Thanks for the assistance.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:30:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:13:39 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:12:03 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:06:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:57:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:51:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:39:05 PM, Envisage wrote:

If we had no evidence that an iPhone did come from choice, then yes, we could make that inference that the iPhone did not.

But we do. And that's the difference. It's an inductive argument.

Response: Exactly. What you just applied was an inductive argument. Similarly, we have evidence that non-choice does not create a repeating pattern.

You do? The snowflake examples etc are quite compelling in refuting that assertion.

He's going to use circular logic. He'll say God made the weather which made the snowflake. When you ask him proof of God and him making the weather, he'll say that the proof is that there are no repeating patterns that arise from non-choice. Then it'll start over again.

Response: Amusing, when that is actually your logic. You will say an entity without choice originated the weather, which made the snowflake. When asked of proof of such a non-choice entity and it causing weather, you say the proof is that there are no repeating patterns in the weather that arises from choice. Then it starts over again.
In other words, hypocrisy. Hence, the very title of the thread.

Actually, I'd point you to how weather is formed in the first place.

Response: And I'll show you how it's origin is from choice.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 10:07:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:10:08 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Theists tend to refer to intelligent design, in comparison to design from unintelligence, as proof that God exist. That due to the sophistication and repeating patterns in creation, it must have originated from choice, rather than from non-choice.

Yet when I have demonstrated this to atheists that a repeating patterns cannot originate from non-choice, they continue to say "Sure it can. We have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, DNA, etc.. All of this was created without choice". When we ask "how do you know"? They say, "because clearly, we see no one choosing to do so". In other words, proof that a repeating pattern was created without choice is..........."we don't see anyone making a choice".

Now watch. If any atheist found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, they would all say "someone chose to make it". If you then ask did you see someone make it, they say "NO".

This is inconsistent. They just stated that proof of non-choice is that they saw no one choose to make it, yet claim the IPhone was made from choice, despite not seeing someone make it.

The standard of evidence that atheists apply for themselves, suddenly shifts and is not evidence when a theist uses it. Making it hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is not evidence. As such, the evidence that sophisticated design and order such as repeating patterns can originate from non-choice fails, proving God's existence.

You may see an iPhone being made if you visit its factory. Lol
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 10:12:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 10:07:51 PM, debateuser wrote:

You may see an iPhone being made if you visit its factory. Lol

Response: And you will see an IPhone not being made when you find it on the ground. Thus the laugh is on you.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 10:12:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Forget trying to argue logically with Fatihah. He doesn't think logically. I don't think he knows how to at this point as he mistakes repetition of an illogical answer to his own questions as somehow "proof" of his being right. No matter what you post in response it doesn't matter, he'll just repost his "debunked as usual" mantra that evades rationality for him. We feed his need for approval of his Muhammadan ideology by falling for these rather pointless "proofs" of Muhammad's 7th century bad ideas about most everything worthy of respect, like human life for example..

Fatihah, this is what you need to address: Nothing else. From today's news:

"Somali woman killed for not wearing veil, relatives say
Al-Shabab fighters in Mogadishu, Somalia (5 March 2012)
Al-Shabab is fighting for an Islamic state in Somalia

Militant Islamists in Somalia have shot dead a Muslim woman for refusing to wear a veil, her relatives say."

These murderous Muhammadan madmen represent your Muhammadism to us in the West. You yourself represent Muhammadism irrationality, complete inability to reason logically. Put yourself in our non-Muslim shoes: we are dealing with lunatics who are armed and dangerous when we are dealing with Muhammadans when they have their majority political power. It means innocent people die as Muhammadans force people to knuckle their hideous 7th century religious fascist Sharia rules guaranteed to erase basic human rights of all Muhammadan believers such as the right to not be a Muhammadan or wear the Muhammadan uniform.

Get a real religion, Fatihah. Go back to school and take some basic courses in critical thinking as you don't have a clue what critical thinking is. It's not just me telling you this either so some day pay attention to feedback about your behavior in public.
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 11:06:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 10:55:39 PM, dee-em wrote:
A theist who believes the weather is made by god. ROFL.

Lol, weather is like 1st grade science, may be earlier.
Ashton
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 11:26:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 11:23:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
An atheist who thinks the weather is not created by God. Too amusing.

Why would an atheist (I'm not btw), believe God created the weather? They don't believe in God after all.
Ashton
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 11:33:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 11:26:51 PM, birdlandmemories wrote:
At 7/30/2014 11:23:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
An atheist who thinks the weather is not created by God. Too amusing.

Why would an atheist (I'm not btw), believe God created the weather? They don't believe in God after all.

Response: Why would a theist not believe that God created the weather? They do believe in God after all.
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 11:35:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 11:33:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/30/2014 11:26:51 PM, birdlandmemories wrote:
At 7/30/2014 11:23:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
An atheist who thinks the weather is not created by God. Too amusing.

Why would an atheist (I'm not btw), believe God created the weather? They don't believe in God after all.

Response: Why would a theist not believe that God created the weather? They do believe in God after all.

Because there's something called the WATER CYCLE
Ashton