Comments on Hassan V debunker

Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- a.ghazali
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #120 - January 23, 2010, 12:38 PM

Quote from: IsLame on January 22, 2010, 09:39 PM
Way to go Ghazali ! You've on my theological dream team podium with Omar K now, you'll both have to fight it out between you

Fight it out - what like Jihad? Nah I'm a lover not a fighter! Anyway Omar is best at the top of the podium.

Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
- a.ghazali
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #121 - January 23, 2010, 12:59 PM

Quote from: debunker on January 22, 2010, 09:41 PM
First off, Ibn Kathir et al are speculating left and right about the heights.

Oops sorry I didn't realised the Ibn Kathir was speculating. Maybe Muslims should replace the most widely used explanation of the Qu'ran (Tafsir Ibn Kathir) used for the last 700 years with the new non-speculative 'Tafsir Debunker'

Of course Debunker is a well known qadi, master scholar of history, and a mufassir. Whereas Ibn Kathir was simply a jester living during the Golden Age of Islam where there were no resources or expertise to accurately comment on Qur'an and Hadiths.

Its a shame hundreds of millions of Muslims over the last 700 years did not understand the Qur'an which Allah couldn't make clear in the first place, because this impostor speculator provided incorrect commentaries.

Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
- King Koopa
- Ex-Muslim
- Your Mom's Favorite Lover
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #122 - January 23, 2010, 01:03 PM

Quote from: a.ghazali on January 23, 2010, 12:59 PM
Oops sorry I didn't realised the Ibn Kathir was speculating. Maybe Muslims should replace the most widely used explanation of the Qu'ran (Tafsir Ibn Kathir) used for the last 700 years with the new non-speculative 'Tafsir Debunker'

Of course Debunker is a well known qadi, master scholar of history, and a mufassir. Whereas Ibn Kathir was simply a jester living during the Golden Age of Islam where there were no resources or expertise to accurately comment on Qur'an and Hadiths.

Its a shame hundreds of millions of Muslims over the last 700 years did not understand the Qur'an which Allah couldn't make clear in the first place, because this impostor speculator provided incorrect commentaries.

+1
- skynightblaze
- Member
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #123 - January 23, 2010, 01:41 PM

Quote from: Debunker
No. Like I explained above, all you have to do is submit to the creator God, regardless of any scripture.

Thats not true at all and you know it. WE have 3:64 as you quoted vs 3:85 wherein any religion other than islam is not acceptable as per quran.So what is it exactly? Scripture does matter.
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #124 - January 23, 2010, 09:05 PM

Quote from: IsLame on January 23, 2010, 10:40 AM
QFT

Whats QFT?

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- Iblis
- Ex-Muslim
- betta rekognize
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #125 - January 23, 2010, 09:06 PM

"quoted for truth"

Quote from: thinkfree on September 28, 2010, 07:58 PM
Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #126 - January 23, 2010, 10:18 PM

I promised myself not to take a peek until next weekend, but I broke my promise, so here goes:

@ sky

Muslim/Islam is different from muslim/islam (which means submission/submitters).

@ tara

ok, use a different word then. What would you call something that once it exists, it stays on forever? Due to my weak language skills in both Arabic and English, the only term I can think of is eternal... if there's a better term, please do alert me.

anyway, apparently the verses I listed in my post addressed to Hassan were never checked by you. Our souls existed long before our life on this Earth (according to the verses I brought during my discussion with Hassan).

@ Ghazali

First off, Ibn Kathir et al are indeed specualting regarding the Heights. Proof? Read their Tafsir regarding the Heights... they have different contradictory ideas trying to explain the Heights (at least the Arabic version of their Tafsir is extensive).
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?nType=1&nSora=7&nAya=46&taf=KATHEER&l=arb&tashkeel=0

Of course, never mind their great scholarship when they all parrot each other and give the same excat contradictory Tafsirs.

e.g. see here.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=8240.msg206742#msg206742

And in case they unwittingly blaspheme, then they should still be celebrated as our great scholars,

e.g. according to Ibn Kathir, Jesus is God and he sent messengers (Simon, John, and non other than Paul himself!). In fact, according to Ibn Kathir, Jesus (God) first sent Simon and John to the town of Antioch to call people to Him, but when they (Simon and John) failed in their mission, Jesus later sent Paul to their aid! Halleujah! (but anyway, eventually all 3 fail.)
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?nType=1&nSora=36&nAya=14&taf=KATHEER&l=arb&tashkeel=0

This heresy is the Tafsir for this verse.

036.014
YUSUFALI: When We (first) sent to them two messengers, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, "Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you."
PICKTHAL: When We sent unto them twain, and they denied them both, so We reinforced them with a third, and they said: Lo! we have been sent unto you.
SHAKIR: When We sent to them two, they rejected both of them, then We strengthened (them) with a third, so they said: Surely we are messengers to you.

Oh, and Islamic scholarship was not restricted to Sunnis, you know. Mutazlites, for example, flourished about 100-200 years after the dawn of Islam but they were supressed by Sunnis.. I don't agree with everything Mutazilites believed, but I think no one should suppress the ideas of others. The religion is NOT owned by any group.

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- skynightblaze
- Member
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #127 - January 24, 2010, 01:37 PM

Quote from: Debunker
@ sky

Muslim/Islam is different from muslim/islam (which means submission/submitters).

As far as my understanding is concerned your point is that people who dont believe in islam will not necessarily go to hell and for this purpose you quoted 3:64 when Hassan asked you why anyone should go to hell for disbelief in islam.

If what you say is true i.e if jews ,christians and atheists arent necessarily going to hell then its contradicting hell lot of verses from the quran 3:85 being one because it clearly says that those who disbelieve in islam are going to hell.Also On closer inspection of 3:64 I see that your conclusion of 3:64 is faulty .

A point to be noted here is that 3:64 doesn?t talk anything about hell/heaven at all.It merely says that people of the book should come to common terms with some basic tenets of islam.Now tell me is that merely sufficient to achieve salvation? IF yes then all the muslims should be going to heaven and not hell because they all satisfy those criteria mentioned in the verse but I guess you would agree that is not the case.There are other criteria that decide hell or heaven. Lets have a look at those verses.

Those who dont believe in islam will not have a good time after this life.Here is it :

[003:085]
If anyone desires (or adopts a way of life) other than Islam, it will never be accepted. In the life-to-come, he will be among the losers.

This includes atheists,jews and christians because they dont believe in Allah.

Lets see some more verses

24.56.
So establish regular Prayer and give regular Charity; and obey the Messenger. that ye may receive mercy.

See here again? One of the condition to get mercy of Allah is to obey his messenger. Who is this messenger here? Ofcourse Muhhamad! So merely coming to an agreement that there is only 1 God is not a sufficient condition to save yourself from the hell fire.

48. 13.
And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!

Do you see again the condition for going to hell? Belief in Allah and his messenger so its just not belief in God as 3:64 claims . Its also includes belief in the messenger I,e Muhhamad . The pre condition is belief in both i.e GOD and his messenger uniquely identifies islam. In short you need to believe in islam to avoid hell and not just God..

58.5.
Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be humbled to dust, as were those before them: for We have already sent down Clear Signs. And the Unbelievers (will have) a humiliating Penalty,-

See the same thing here.Those who who resist Allah and his messenger that is refusal to believe in islam are going to hell . This includes jews,christians and atheist because they show disbelief atleast in Muhhamad .

Now if you claim that quran just wants people to come to common terms i.e belief in 1 God for salvation then why do these verses say something else other than belief in GOd ? Why do they say belief in Muhhamad is necessary? Doesn?t this mean that belief in islam is necessary for not going to hell? So you see the primary criteria is belief in both GOd and Muhhamad. The other criteria are sins and good doings .
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #128 - January 26, 2010, 12:19 AM

@debunker (regarding soul)
Do all living things have a soul or only humans?

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #129 - January 26, 2010, 12:30 AM

@ Tara

Animals too have souls... But only man has an eternal soul (breathed from the Soul of God).

Now, I hope you won't ask me about the Soul of God... because I know nothing about it, nor does anyone (verse ?)

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #130 - January 26, 2010, 12:35 AM

@ sky

check out the transliteration of 27:38.

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #131 - January 26, 2010, 12:43 AM

Quote from: debunker on January 26, 2010, 12:30 AM
@ Tara

Animals too have souls... But only man has an eternal soul (breathed from the Soul of God).

Actually I think you are wrong here. Humans aren't the only ones, Jinns also have eternal soul.
Any reason why only man/jinns has eternal soul and not other animals?
If animals have souls, do other smaller microorganims which are ALSO living things but aren't exactly "animals" also have soul?

Quote
Now, I hope you won't ask me about the Soul of God... because I know nothing about it, nor does anyone (verse ?)

God has a soul? Interesting..

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #132 - January 26, 2010, 12:47 AM

@ tara

I don't know anything about microorganisms.

Quote
God has a soul? Interesting..

What's far more interesting is that you don't know that. Have you ever read the Quran?

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #133 - January 26, 2010, 12:53 AM

Quote
@ tara

I don't know anything about microorganisms.

Well, if all the living things have a soul, then microorganisms must have it too.
I don't get why our soul is eternal but not an animals. Is it because we are intellectually smarter?

Quote

What's far more interesting is that you don't know that. Have you ever read the Quran?

Yes, I have read it many times in the past but I don't remember all the verses. Last time I read it was about 5 years ago.

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #134 - January 26, 2010, 12:58 AM

@ tara

you're going off topic here.

Anyway, our bodies are the bodies of animals, obviously. We do everything the animals do, including defecating and urinating. The only thing that is distinctively human is super intelligence.

When man was in paradise, he was in a perfect realm. This makes me even speculate that Adam and Eve were not even made of the same fabric humans are made of. When they were cast out of paradise, they assumed the imperfect human body which has a very similar biology to that of animals.

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #135 - January 26, 2010, 01:20 AM

Quote
The only thing that is distinctively human is super intelligence.

You will probably not agree to this and I am not debating or arguing here but heres what I think about the "soul". The only reason why we believe in soul is to become immortal and I havn't come across any evidence of existence of a soul. We think we are too important to just die like animals do. Every living thing is struggling to survive but we know that death is inevitable so we need some sort of assurance that it's not the end and that we aren't worthless once we die. This is something that occured to me while I was attending an oncology lecture some years ago. One of the theory about the basis of cancer is that the cell is trying to become immortal so it swtiches off its programmed death/apoptoses and multiplies at an uncontrollable rate as its mechanism to achieve immortality. (not that this proves there's no soul but just my own theory of how immortality is something we want to achieve)

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #136 - January 26, 2010, 01:29 AM

Quote
You will probably not agree to this and I am not debating or arguing here but heres what I think about the "soul". The only reason why we believe in soul is to become immortal and I havn't come across any evidence of existence of a soul. We think we are too important to just die like animals do. Every living thing is struggling to survive but we know that death is inevitable so we need some sort of assurance that it's not the end and that we aren't worthless once we die. This is something that occured to me while I was attending an oncology lecture some years ago. One of the theory about the basis of cancer is that the cell is trying to become immortal so it swtiches off its programmed death/apoptoses and multiplies at an uncontrollable rate as its mechanism to achieve immortality. (not that this proves there's no soul but just my own theory of how immortality is something we want to achieve)

Of course, that's plausible. Another plausible explanation to why every primitive human community seems to be worshipping some sort of a deity is that this is a part of the human intelligence and advanced psychology.

Of course, religionists believe the urge to worship is a human instinct.

But one thing's for sure. Our emotions/feelings/etc are not simply chemical reactions. The brain is the seat of the "I", it is not, the "I".

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #137 - January 26, 2010, 01:34 AM

Debunker, I cannot debate whether there is a soul or not because theres no evidence that supports a soul and theres no evidence that denies it either. All I can say is what I feel about it and my reasoning for not believing in a soul.

Quote
Of course, that's plausible. Another plausible explanation to why every primitive human community seems to be worshipping some sort of a deity is that this is a part of the human intelligence and advanced psychology.

I think thats because when we are helpless, we just need someone to be there for us. When we are happy, we need someone to share it with (like people thankgod when they are happy). We are suckers for love and feeling more important than we actually are.

Quote
But one thing's for sure. Our emotions/feelings/etc are not simply chemical reactions. The brain is the seat of the "I", it is not, the "I".

How can you say that? As a doctor I can tell you all your emotions are from your brain.

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #138 - January 26, 2010, 01:48 AM

The brain is neccessary but not sufficient, important but not everything.

Like I abstractly explained, the brain is the seat of the "I", it is not the "I".

So you think you're just stardust? A big clumps of atoms? And your emotions are *solely* chemical reactions?

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #139 - January 26, 2010, 03:23 AM

Quote

So you think you're just stardust? A big clumps of atoms? And your emotions are *solely* chemical reactions

Our emotions are SOLELY due to what happens in our brains! This is a proven fact, not one of those theories that people can debate on. Do you think you will have the same emotions and personality after you go through a frontal lobotomy??
Have you ever met a person suffering from Schizophrenia? They actually see things that aren't there and hear sounds that aren't made. It's all because of a chemial imbalance and can be corrected with antipsychotic drugs.
Have you heard of antidepressant drugs? Do know that they alter your mood by affecting the neurotransmitters in your brain to make you less depressed?
Your mood/emotions can be altered with drugs so what more evidence do you need that it is the chemical reactions that are responsible for you mood/emotions?

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #140 - January 26, 2010, 03:39 AM

@ tara

you confuse me... do you understand the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition?

Anyway, I did not, anywhwere, say that the brain was not necessary... I maintained that it's essential but not everything.

Anyway, it seems to me that you would think super computers too have emotions and feelings, except we're not aware of them.

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #141 - January 26, 2010, 03:46 AM

Quote
@ tara

you confuse me... do you understand the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition?

I simply stated that brain is solely responsible for your emotions, thoughts, personality

Quote
Anyway, I did not, anywhwere, say that the brain was not necessary... I maintained that it's essential but not everything.

I never said it was everything, I only said its responsible for your emotions. Ofcourse you need your other organs to survive too, not just brain.

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #142 - January 26, 2010, 03:58 AM

What I meant is: your body (including the brain) is ONLY a requirement for the "I". That's how this world works, but our bodies are NOT everything, otherwise we wouldn't have been aware of our own existence, for example... we would have been like any super computer for example, functioning without even knowing that it exists.

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #143 - January 26, 2010, 04:18 AM

Quote
What I meant is: your body (including the brain) is ONLY a requirement for the "I". That's how this world works, but our bodies are NOT everything, otherwise we wouldn't have been aware of our own existence, for example... we would have been like any super computer for example, functioning without even knowing that it exists

Do you think someone who is brain dead is aware of his existence?

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #144 - January 26, 2010, 04:38 AM

@ tara

Quote
Do you think someone who is brain dead is aware of his existence?

Wow! brain dead! Why even go this far? One who is asleep or in a comma is not aware of their existence.

Why do you keep pretending that I'm implying that the brain is not *necessary* for awareness?

As far as this world is concerned, the brain is *necessary* for awareness BUT not *sufficient*, or you can pretend that all we are is just a sophisticated clumps of atoms.

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- Iblis
- Ex-Muslim
- betta rekognize
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #145 - January 26, 2010, 04:42 AM

Quote from: debunker on January 26, 2010, 04:38 AM
BUT not *sufficient*, or you can pretend that all we are is just a sophisticated clumps of atoms.

Elaborate.

Quote from: thinkfree on September 28, 2010, 07:58 PM
Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #146 - January 26, 2010, 04:46 AM

doube post..

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- taraC
- Murtidah
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #147 - January 26, 2010, 04:47 AM

Quote
Wow! brain dead! Why even go this far? One who is asleep or in a comma is not aware of their existence.

Why do you keep pretending that I'm implying that the brain is not *necessary* for awareness?

As far as this world is concerned, the brain is *necessary* for awareness BUT not *sufficient*, or you can pretend that all we are is just a sophisticated clumps of atoms.

We are sophisticated clumps of cells, which make up all our organs, which makes us who we are.
Brain is the only thing responsible for our thoughts and emotion, so when the brain is damaged or even when theres a slight change in chemicals such as neurotransmitters, our mood/emotions totally change.
A person whos depressed can elevate his mood by taking anti depressants.
A peson whos hallucinationg due to a chemical imbalance can stop hallucinating if given proper drugs which will alter the chemcials.
If this is not evidence to prove that it is only our brain with all its neurons causing our mood/emotion/thoughts then I really don't know what is.

If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
- debunker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #148 - January 26, 2010, 04:50 AM

happiness is NOT serotonin/serotonin receptors... seretonin/receptors is only a requirement for happiness.

pleasure is NOT dopamine/dompamine receptors... dopamine/receptors is only a requirement for pleasure.

The "I" is not the brain... the brain is only the seat of the "I".

I hope now you will stop confusing what I'm saying.

A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
- skynightblaze
- Member
- offline
Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
Reply #149 - January 26, 2010, 01:51 PM

Quote from: debunker on January 26, 2010, 12:35 AM
@ sky

check out the transliteration of 27:38.

How is this connected to the topic being discussed? The only thing that I can make out from transliteration are the english alphabets and nothing else.
Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »