What's new

Does God Exist? | Javed Akhtar vs Mufti Shamail Nadwi

Suleiman said:
It doesn’t.

True monotheism has always predated paganism.

a Muslim is anyone who has submitted to the will of God, it’s not confined to one book, or one language, or one prophet. The word Muslim or Islam may have been different in language in different eras or across different cultures, but the concept is the exact same.

It is a universal and timeless concept that has existed before idol worship ever entered the world.
Click to expand...
*not confined to one book alone throughout history.
 
Suleiman said:
It doesn’t.

True monotheism has always predated paganism.

a Muslim is anyone who has submitted to the will of God, it’s not confined to one book, or one language, or one prophet. The word Muslim or Islam may have been different in language in different eras or across different cultures, but the concept is the exact same.

It is a universal and timeless concept that has existed before idol worship ever entered the world.
Click to expand...

Prove it thru scientific evidence and not he-said-she-said nonsense. As it stands the evidence from Hindu scriptures proven by modern science faaar predates any of your monotheistic noise.
 
Champ_Pal said:
A Hindu can be an atheist as long as he believes in Karma.

Rig Veda itself has an Athesit verse. It questions the existence of God that made this universe. It at least gives room for various thoughts unlike other cults that say, believe this or you are hell bound with some gruesome punishments. :dw
Click to expand...
Religio-athiest is more common in those beliefs that are tied down to specific places/geographies, it functions mainly as a cultural identity.

Can you become a hindu-athiest without believing in Karma?
 
Suleiman said:
You’ve been answered multiple times on this forum across many years on Islam but it’s like bhains kay agay been bajana. (No pun intended)
Click to expand...

Bump that thread where you supposedly answered anything


Suleiman said:
The fact that you say that for Hindu scripture but ignored everything that’s been presented to you regarding Islam not only by me but other users on this forum as well shows your bias.
Click to expand...


What was "presented" ? If anything the moment I start dealing with the usual green brgade over here you guys run to mods and try to get me banned or restricted thats the extend of your "presentation" ... if you got guts stand up and debate like a man on equal terms ... which you NEVER EVER WILL because you very well know that you will get badly owned.


Suleiman said:
You have one standard for your own religion, and another one for Islam.
Click to expand...


what standard are you talking about ?


Suleiman said:
Hinduism is science based now because you said so and others are he said she said after you’ve been answered so many times already 🤣
Click to expand...


No, I never claimed Hinduism is a science as no religion is. Religions are spiritual frameworks. But ancient Hindu texts contain remarkably accurate astronomical observations that align with modern measurements that are part of Hindu scriptures that are centuries before Islam or Abrahamic scriptures by few millennia.

Some Examples:
  • Vast cosmic cycles: One kalpa ≈ 4.32 billion years which is remarkably close to Earth's actual age (~4.5 billion).
  • Jupiter's orbital period approximated as 12 years (real: 11.86 years) used to time events like the Maha Kumbh Mela 2025 in Prayagraj, where Jupiter in Taurus + Sun in Capricorn created a rare alignment promoted as extra-auspicious (once in 144 years), drawing largest human gathering ever.
  • Earth-Sun/Moon distance ratios ≈108–110 times diameters near modern values.
  • Earth's daily rotation explained by Aryabhata (499 CE).
  • Cosmic egg (Brahmanda) emerging into expansion evocative of Big Bang models.
Heck Ramayana is approx 7000 yrs old and thats based on cosmic events described in it.
 
HalBass9 said:
Prove it with scientific evidence that cows are superior than human and human deserve to be slaughtered over a cow.
Click to expand...

Read my previous post again ,,,

here is the relevant part for you :

"No, I never claimed Hinduism is a science as no religion is."
 
Mufti Shamail was very logical in all of his arguments. The debate was about Does God exist but Javed was twisting. He must be still shivering thinking of argument of contingency and questioning his own believes.
 
why is a song writer debating a religious cleric on religion. seems stupud. javed akhtar is an intellectual only when it comes to the world of poetry and writing, on everything else hes barely a psuedo intellectual.

also these debates are pointless, if you could prove the existance of god it would negate the idea of rewarding people for beleiving in god. the whole point is you are rewarded because gods existance is not provable. no one rewards u for beliving the skys blue or tree trunks are made of wood. if you believe great, if you dont great, enjoy your life.

also threads on religion gives me throwback vibes of pakpassion in the late 00s, every second thread was a religious debate. those were interesting times, lol.
 
uppercut said:
Prove it thru scientific evidence and not he-said-she-said nonsense. As it stands the evidence from Hindu scriptures proven by modern science faaar predates any of your monotheistic noise.
Click to expand...

Science proved that there was a god with an elephant head?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Science proved that there was a god with an elephant head?
Click to expand...
It depends on your beliefs.

Modi for example believes this story you are referring to is proof that ancient Hindus were experts in genetic science and plastic surgery.

But hindusim is a diverse religion so uppercut might not believe the same as Modiji on this topic.
 
ElRaja said:
why is a song writer debating a religious cleric on religion. seems stupud. javed akhtar is an intellectual only when it comes to the world of poetry and writing, on everything else hes barely a psuedo intellectual.

also these debates are pointless, if you could prove the existance of god it would negate the idea of rewarding people for beleiving in god. the whole point is you are rewarded because gods existance is not provable. no one rewards u for beliving the skys blue or tree trunks are made of wood. if you believe great, if you dont great, enjoy your life.

also threads on religion gives me throwback vibes of pakpassion in the late 00s, every second thread was a religious debate. those were interesting times, lol.
Click to expand...
It was an atheism vs theism debate, not religious. He proved the existence of God, while Javed, a well-known atheist, wanted to prove there is no God.
 
Ball Blazer said:
It was an atheism vs theism debate, not religious. He proved the existence of God, while Javed, a well-known atheist, wanted to prove there is no God.
Click to expand...
not sure which point of mine you are answering, but even if its theism v atheism, i dont see how javed akhtar is qualified to argue the point.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Religio-athiest is more common in those beliefs that are tied down to specific places/geographies, it functions mainly as a cultural identity.

Can you become a hindu-athiest without believing in Karma?
Click to expand...
Even though there is deeper philosophical explanation of the word Karma fundamentally it means every action has a consequence or basically what goes around, comes around.

I am sure even an atheist believes there will be consequences for his/her actions, if they don’t then the word for it is sociopath/ psychopath not “atheist”, so basically yes 👍
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Science proved that there was a god with an elephant head?
Click to expand...

point me to the post where I claimed that. This is why you should never enter into these debates involving anything about India/Hinduism as you will invariably get owned and then resort to your usual tantrums.
 
Ball Blazer said:
If an atheist won't prove his point of 'No God' then who else will?
Click to expand...
Atheism is stupid. What’s the point to go around trying to desperately prove god doesn’t exist. How is it different from some missionary preaching their religion 🤦‍♂️

Sure someone might have issues with radicalism and other social issues associated with religion but you don’t have to be an atheist for that.
 
I’d rather not waste time watching some Indian entertainer debate there is no God.

This bloke should try debating a Hindu . They believe in hundreds of Gods , even you yourself can be God . But you can also believe in no God even while you’re a God .

Now work that one out, makes quantum physics look easy .
 
I wonder how much following this maulana has in India, seems like Pakistanis approve his theology 👍,good to see a guy who looks like “that” in the day and age of Islamophobia getting a platform in India.
 
Ball Blazer said:
If an atheist won't prove his point of 'No God' then who else will?
Click to expand...
its not a casual conversation, if your going to present something as a debate then you need to have both sides represented by similar levels of competence. on the theism side was a mufti, someones whos daily job is religious affairs, and on the other you have a celebrity poet. makes no sense, other than knowing what interest a celebrity would pull.
 
KingKhanWC said:
I’d rather not waste time watching some Indian entertainer debate there is no God.

This bloke should try debating a Hindu . They believe in hundreds of Gods , even you yourself can be God . But you can also believe in no God even while you’re a God .

Now work that one out, makes quantum physics look easy .
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The guy is a musician scorned. If he wants to believe in Elephants and Monkeys bestowing life on Earth then its his call, his decision, to what ever helps him sleep at night.

There's no need to have these debates. Islam is already the fastest growing religion in the world thanks to its enemies and atheists.

People don't get it, the more we talk about Islam, in bad or good light, the greater the awareness, cos people go out and do read and research. At least the naysayers are FORCED to read up on Islam. This is job done.

This is why Islam is the fastest growing religion - the more the world talks about Islam, the stronger Islam comes.

COLD. HARD. FACT.
 
ElRaja said:
its not a casual conversation, if your going to present something as a debate then you need to have both sides represented by similar levels of competence. on the theism side was a mufti, someones whos daily job is religious affairs, and on the other you have a celebrity poet. makes no sense, other than knowing what interest a celebrity would pull.
Click to expand...
Have you read the Quran? You keep going on about the poet, the Qur'an IS Poetry and Prose - this is what convinced the people of its time of revelation that the Qur'an was indeed the infallible word of God.

The singer ain't a poet if he cant appreciate the poetry and prose of the Qur'an.
 
Javid Akthar's religion is Jonnie Walker.

Some one tell him to go find the answers at the bottom of the bottle instead of debating about a flat earth on the back of an Elephant.
 
Technics 1210 said:
People don't get it, the more we talk about Islam, in bad or good light, the greater the awareness, cos people go out and do read and research. At least the naysayers are FORCED to read up on Islam. This is job done.
Click to expand...

how has this worked out so far considering that you have been running away from me for a year or two .... not much conviction in your deen ehh ? :ROFLMAO:
 
Technics 1210 said:
Exactly.

The guy is a musician scorned. If he wants to believe in Elephants and Monkeys bestowing life on Earth then its his call, his decision, to what ever helps him sleep at night.

There's no need to have these debates. Islam is already the fastest growing religion in the world thanks to its enemies and atheists.

People don't get it, the more we talk about Islam, in bad or good light, the greater the awareness, cos people go out and do read and research. At least the naysayers are FORCED to read up on Islam. This is job done.

This is why Islam is the fastest growing religion - the more the world talks about Islam, the stronger Islam comes.

COLD. HARD. FACT.
Click to expand...

This banjo player with an Islamic sounding name was sent for an atheist to somehow expose Islam because a Hindu would have no starting point in such a topic.

Agree . If you want to diminish Islam in the world , don’t talk about it . The more they try to attack it ,the more people are accepting it .

It’s a natural inclination to believe in God and imo only ONE and who is not a monkey , elephant, rat , man, beast with multiple arms etc . When Muslims arrived into a pagan type culture , Islam spread rapidly because it simply has the most logical view of yes there is a God and his attributes are not creation like .

there’s always some agenda behind such debates . A thousand year Islamic rule cannot be wiped out from history because some Indian Frank Sinatra thinks he can prove there is no God
 
KingKhanWC said:
This banjo player with an Islamic sounding name was sent for an atheist to somehow expose Islam because a Hindu would have no starting point in such a topic.

Agree . If you want to diminish Islam in the world , don’t talk about it . The more they try to attack it ,the more people are accepting it .

It’s a natural inclination to believe in God and imo only ONE and who is not a monkey , elephant, rat , man, beast with multiple arms etc . When Muslims arrived into a pagan type culture , Islam spread rapidly because it simply has the most logical view of yes there is a God and his attributes are not creation like .

there’s always some agenda behind such debates . A thousand year Islamic rule cannot be wiped out from history because some Indian Frank Sinatra thinks he can prove there is no God
Click to expand...
Even the science has proven singularity, yet we have Atheists trying to convince us otherwise.

Agree with agenda. Lets see who are the greatest enemies of Islam, and beneficiaries of attacking Islam.

- Zionists
- Hindutva Cult
- Atheist Type 1 - despise only Islam, and respect other religions.
- Atheist Type 2 - don't believe in any God but will defend the divine right of the 'chosen' ones.
- Telly Tubby Tommy supporters.

PS: $5 Banjo player! 😂😂😂
 
Technics 1210 said:
Javid Akthar's religion is Jonnie Walker.

Some one tell him to go find the answers at the bottom of the bottle instead of debating about a flat earth on the back of an Elephant.
Click to expand...
One thing for sure Javed Akthar has contributed to art that has stood the test of time and has talent, skills, made a lot of money, paid high taxes for being in a elite tax bracket, raised kids who became artists/ entrepreneurs.

This maulana maybe will teach the word of god or help raising a mob in a riot. That’s about it.

I definitely see more value in Javed Akthar for sure.
 
ElRaja said:
its not a casual conversation, if your going to present something as a debate then you need to have both sides represented by similar levels of competence. on the theism side was a mufti, someones whos daily job is religious affairs, and on the other you have a celebrity poet. makes no sense, other than knowing what interest a celebrity would pull.
Click to expand...
Haven't you heard of Javed arguing and defending his atheist beliefs in multiple videos? He cites various examples to prove his point, which makes him sound like as if he is an atheism expert? Okay then, let him defend what he believes. The point is if you have a certain faith, then you must be able to prove that. If you cannot, then God must be existing. He says there is no god and cannot even prove it? Then what makes him question existence of God if he cannot defend himself at all?
 
Technics 1210 said:
Exactly.

The guy is a musician scorned. If he wants to believe in Elephants and Monkeys bestowing life on Earth then its his call, his decision, to what ever helps him sleep at night.

There's no need to have these debates. Islam is already the fastest growing religion in the world thanks to its enemies and atheists.

People don't get it, the more we talk about Islam, in bad or good light, the greater the awareness, cos people go out and do read and research. At least the naysayers are FORCED to read up on Islam. This is job done.

This is why Islam is the fastest growing religion - the more the world talks about Islam, the stronger Islam comes.

COLD. HARD. FACT.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with people believing in elephants or monkeys as gods, but when you claim Hindu scriptures are proven by modern science I think we are entering dubious territory.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I have no problem with people believing in elephants or monkeys as gods, but when you claim Hindu scriptures are proven by modern science I think we are entering dubious territory.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem either whatever floats their boat, but if they despise Islam and Pakistanis so much what in effing hell are they doing on this forum?

As for science proving Hindu scriptures - we have Modi claiming some Elephant invented email and cloud security during the battles of MahaBharat.
 
Technics 1210 said:
I don't have a problem either whatever floats their boat, but if they despise Islam and Pakistanis so much what in effing hell are they doing on this forum?

As for science proving Hindu scriptures - we have Modi claiming some Elephant invented email and cloud security during the battles of MahaBharat.
Click to expand...

Modi also claimed he had a 56-inch chest and he was not a biological being.

This type of ret*rd is running India. No wonder why India is experiencing setbacks. :inti
 
Ball Blazer said:
Haven't you heard of Javed arguing and defending his atheist beliefs in multiple videos? He cites various examples to prove his point, which makes him sound like as if he is an atheism expert? Okay then, let him defend what he believes. The point is if you have a certain faith, then you must be able to prove that. If you cannot, then God must be existing. He says there is no god and cannot even prove it? Then what makes him question existence of God if he cannot defend himself at all?
Click to expand...
not really, i only know javed akhtar from instagram poetry shorts.

i dont care about his view points, and they are besides the point, if i know a subject inside out i should be able to debate both sides.

these "debates" are essentially an excercise in entertainment, jake paul vs AJ if you will, because the audience these arguments cater to dont have any deep intellectual itch to scratch anyway.
 
Technics 1210 said:
Have you read the Quran? You keep going on about the poet, the Qur'an IS Poetry and Prose - this is what convinced the people of its time of revelation that the Qur'an was indeed the infallible word of God.

The singer ain't a poet if he cant appreciate the poetry and prose of the Qur'an.
Click to expand...
i read it partially in arabic when i was a kid, but i didnt see the point cos i didnt understand arabic. so i read it completely only in english. you are free to draw whatever conclusions you wish from that. im only commenting on the quality of the debate from whatever little i heard of it.
 
sweep_shot said:
Modi also claimed he had a 56-inch chest and he was not a biological being.

This type of ret*rd is running India. No wonder why India is experiencing setbacks. :inti
Click to expand...
Disagree.

Modi isn't the retard. Modi is nothing without his supporters.

The retards are the ones who voted for Modi, and support Modi.

(Same applies to Trump)
 
ElRaja said:
its not a casual conversation, if your going to present something as a debate then you need to have both sides represented by similar levels of competence. on the theism side was a mufti, someones whos daily job is religious affairs, and on the other you have a celebrity poet. makes no sense, other than knowing what interest a celebrity would pull.
Click to expand...
Then why did Javed Akhtar agree to a debate? Did someone put a gun to his head? These "Atheism" experts are pwned everyday and twice on a Sunday and there is always some excuse instead of the simple conclusion that "Atheism" is against science, against logic and against natural disposition.

People have the right to believe in whatever they want e.g. Tooth fairy etc but the issue with Atheists like to portray themselves as the paragon of enlightenment and intellectualism and when their beliefs are scrutinized they run with their tail between their legs with a ready made excuse.​

rpant_gabba said:
Does furgle burgle exist?
Click to expand...

As I said, people have the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in but as I also said you don't have a clue what is being put forward...
 
LordJames said:
Then why did Javed Akhtar agree to a debate? Did someone put a gun to his head? These "Atheism" experts are pwned everyday and twice on a Sunday and there is always some excuse instead of the simple conclusion that "Atheism" is against science, against logic and against natural disposition.

People have the right to believe in whatever they want e.g. Tooth fairy etc but the issue with Atheists like to portray themselves as the paragon of enlightenment and intellectualism and when their beliefs are scrutinized they run with their tail between their legs with a ready made excuse.​



As I said, people have the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in but as I also said you don't have a clue what is being put forward...
Click to expand...
i dont know why he accepted, i dont even know if he presented a good argument or not. im making an observation.
 
uppercut said:
You also said Muslims in India should be allowed to practice bigotry and religious intolerance with no repurcussions.

And ?
Click to expand...

No one should be slaughtered over anyones beliefs.

Intolerance is slaughtering humans over your beliefs.

Bigotry is slaughtering humans over your beliefs.

Easiest concept to understand if one isn't bigot and intolerant.
 
Atheists are always into these sort of debates - they thrive on this sort of stuff.

They like to pretend they are not, but they are, they love poking the bear for the simple reason they are the ones living in doubt, in search of conviction and appeasement. Meanwhile the Theists have full conviction.
 
ElRaja said:
i dont know why he accepted, i dont even know if he presented a good argument or not. im making an observation.​
Click to expand...
Then the argument is invalid because he knew who he was going against and accepted it. Mufti Shamail didn't create or invent theological argument it is well known and well debated.

The issue with "Desi Liberals/Secular/Atheists" is that they are ignorant, backwards and intellectually stagnant. Lets reflect on "Atheism in 2025" from the Western ground reality point of view​
Atheism is less popular because much of it was based on Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian theories which are no longer valid so we have "uncles" holding onto a dying belief and they sprout it in family gatherings because we respect them. The minute "uncles" sprout their "enlightenment" in front of others, it will get brutally shut down.

As you saw in the debate.

Even the "leftover Intellectuals of Atheism" have been brutally put down, see Lawrence Krauss vs Hamza Tzortzis, Cosmic Skeptic vs Subboor Ahmad and dozens of others between specialists.

Any "uncle" like Javed Akhtar who wants to forego belief and die on the "Atheism Hill" has the absolute right to do so but don't claim it to be an Academic position because they will get brutally shut down.

And consequences in the hereafter will be dire.

[3:19] Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allāh is Islām

Once again, there is no compulsion, no force, no arm twisting and the person can choose to believe whatever they want to believe.

[2:256] Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood

I end by reiterating everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in. "Uncles" like Javed Akhtar have been given a choice and freewill in this world to decide but then the consequences will be in the hereafter.
​
Technics 1210 said:
Atheists are always into these sort of debates - they thrive on this sort of stuff.

They like to pretend they are not, but they are, they love poking the bear for the simple reason they are the ones living in doubt, in search of conviction and appeasement. Meanwhile the Theists have full conviction.
Click to expand...

Atheists don't have science, logic or philosophy on their side either! They are arrogant enough to believe that they do!
 
Long debate - I will listen to their entire debate when uninterrupted.

Just my observation from each debater:

Mufti: The doctor's example was totally irrelevant. When a doctor sees his/her patient, doctor did NOT CREATE the patient. The doctor is using limited knowledge to cure the patient. While omnipotent would know the structure of the product and use COMPLETE knowledge for the remedy.

Akhtar Sahab: Why raise the point of mercy and justice when justice DOEST NOT EXIST without the concept of GOD as per himself. Why keep on harping on justice when he himself claimed the except human, there is no existence of justice in the nature. He is contradicting himself.

This is my conclusion after listening to the debate for a short time
 
ElRaja said:
its not a casual conversation, if your going to present something as a debate then you need to have both sides represented by similar levels of competence. on the theism side was a mufti, someones whos daily job is religious affairs, and on the other you have a celebrity poet. makes no sense, other than knowing what interest a celebrity would pull.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Javed Akhtar is a brilliant, entertaining speaker and a very creative script and songwriter but a theologian he's certainly not. I haven't watched the debate but I can guess he wouldn't be scintillating against a guy who makes a living debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

As an aside I've heard him speak live a couple of times and he's a superb raconteur. Just extremely entertaining. Pity he holds just a high opinion of himself that he gets into these kind of debates which he should be leaving to the professionals.
 
CricVet said:
Long debate - I will listen to their entire debate when uninterrupted.

Just my observation from each debater:

Mufti: The doctor's example was totally irrelevant. When a doctor sees his/her patient, doctor did NOT CREATE the patient. The doctor is using limited knowledge to cure the patient. While omnipotent would know the structure of the product and use COMPLETE knowledge for the remedy.

Akhtar Sahab: Why raise the point of mercy and justice when justice DOEST NOT EXIST without the concept of GOD as per himself. Why keep on harping on justice when he himself claimed the except human, there is no existence of justice in the nature. He is contradicting himself.

This is my conclusion after listening to the debate interrupted for only a short time.
Click to expand...

Pixel vs Whole Picture

The example of the Doctor giving an injection to a child is apt.
  1. Child is already in pain and Doctor inflicts more pain by giving Injection so suffering is compounded
  2. Doctor in the bigger picture is inflicting pain for providing comfort in the long run

Child has Pixel
Doctor has the bigger Picture.

Mufti Shamail is implying that a Pixel cannot be used to deduce the full pictures and any one human does not have the full picture but merely a pixel.

His example in the context and conversation and argument is valid but it is not his argument for the whole debate.
 
LordJames said:
As I said, people have the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in but as I also said you don't have a clue what is being put forward...
Click to expand...
Answer the question bro. Does furgle burgle exist?

It is framed exactly the way you asked your question.
 
@Bhaag Viru Bhaag

I think @Champ_Pal and others are referring to the āstika vs nāstika philosophical strands within Hinduism which Western thinkers have terms as "Theism vs Atheism" but from my learning it has more to do with the sanctity of Vedas rather then Theism.

However, there are sub-strands within Hinduism such as Karma-Mīmāṁsā within Mīmāṃsā which would allow someone to be "Hindu Atheists" due to rigorous focus on Karma, would it not be? This would not be a majority or mainstream position but philosophically possible within Hinduism.

Of course we know that many Hindus philosophers such as Adi Shankaracharya utterly refuted the foundations of Mīmāṃsā

Again, I am not an expert on Hinduism so happy to be corrected.​
 
HalBass9 said:
No one should be slaughtered over anyones beliefs.

Intolerance is slaughtering humans over your beliefs.

Bigotry is slaughtering humans over your beliefs.

Easiest concept to understand if one isn't bigot and intolerant.
Click to expand...

No one should willingly,deliberately pee upon others religious beliefs and keep doing that for centuries.

You here believe in the opposite of that and worse you will doggedly fight for the "rights" of those who want to indulge in the above despicable acts and worse you have the cheek to say that those who are opposing your view are the bigots!

Now what ?
 
uppercut said:
No one should willingly,deliberately pee upon others religious beliefs and keep doing that for centuries.

You here believe in the opposite of that and worse you will doggedly fight for the "rights" of those who want to indulge in the above despicable acts and worse you have the cheek to say that those who are opposing your view are the bigots!

Now what ?
Click to expand...

I'm fighting for the right of no one should be slaughtered over anyone’s beliefs.

But apparently bigots and intolerant are having difficult time comprehending it.
 
HalBass9 said:
I'm fighting for the right of no one should be slaughtered over anyone’s beliefs.

But apparently bigots and intolerant are having difficult time comprehending it.
Click to expand...


And I'am trying to tell you that the most EASIEST way to do that is to stop criticize others religious beliefs. What part of that sentence do you not understand ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HalBass9 said:
I'm fighting for the right of no one should be slaughtered over anyone’s beliefs.

But apparently bigots and intolerant are having difficult time comprehending it.
Click to expand...
Think you might want to look inward for that.

www.theguardian.com

Controversial Dutch film director shot dead in street

Theo van Gogh, the Dutch artist's great grand-nephew and a provocative filmmaker, was shot dead in a street in Amsterdam yesterday, police said, apparently because of a film he made about Islamic violence against women.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

then there is charlie hebdo.
uppercut said:
And I'am trying to tell you that the most EASIEST way to do that is to stop criticize others religious beliefs. What part of that sentence do you not understand ?
Click to expand...
Why? you have the right to believe and I have to have express my opinion about it.

I sincerely hope you are not condoning Hedbdo massacre and Theo Van gogh murder.
 
uppercut said:
And I'am trying to tell you that the most EASIEST way to do that is to stop criticize others religious beliefs. What part of that sentence do you not understand ?
Click to expand...

Everyone has a right to criticistice and no one should be slaughtered for it.
 
LordJames said:
Pixel vs Whole Picture

The example of the Doctor giving an injection to a child is apt.
  1. Child is already in pain and Doctor inflicts more pain by giving Injection so suffering is compounded
  2. Doctor in the bigger picture is inflicting pain for providing comfort in the long run

Child has Pixel
Doctor has the bigger Picture.

Mufti Shamail is implying that a Pixel cannot be used to deduce the full pictures and any one human does not have the full picture but merely a pixel.

His example in the context and conversation and argument is valid but it is not his argument for the whole debate.
Click to expand...
I understand the point he is TRYING to make. However, it is INAPT in my opinion. Whether doctor knows the aftereffect of the short term pain inflicted on the child or not, the doctor still does NOT know the consequences of the remedy. The doctor is using PROBABILITY that the short term pain MIGHT be long term gain (not necessarily).

In case of an omnipotent, the creator, should completely know the consequences of an action. The creator puts a being in pain FOR A TEST knowing the consequences.

They both put a being thru a misery - the difference is: ONE knows the consequences in the name of test, the other does not.
 
CricVet said:
I understand the point he is TRYING to make. However, it is INAPT in my opinion. Whether doctor knows the aftereffect of the short term pain inflicted on the child or not, the doctor still does NOT know the consequences of the remedy. The doctor is using PROBABILITY that the short term pain MIGHT be long term gain (not necessarily).

In case of an omnipotent, the creator, should completely know the consequences of an action. The creator puts a being in pain FOR A TEST knowing the consequences.

They both put a being thru a misery - the difference is: ONE knows the consequences in the name of test, the other does not.
Click to expand...
Thats the reason why they carefully avoid defining god.

epicurean paradox

    • If God is willing to prevent evil but can't, He isn't all-powerful.

    • If God is able to prevent evil but isn't willing, He isn't all-good.

    • If God is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God?.
 
rpant_gabba said:
Thats the reason why they carefully avoid defining god.

epicurean paradox

    • If God is willing to prevent evil but can't, He isn't all-powerful.

    • If God is able to prevent evil but isn't willing, He isn't all-good.

    • If God is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God?.
Click to expand...

 
CricVet said:
I understand the point he is TRYING to make. However, it is INAPT in my opinion. Whether doctor knows the aftereffect of the short term pain inflicted on the child or not, the doctor still does NOT know the consequences of the remedy. The doctor is using PROBABILITY that the short term pain MIGHT be long term gain (not necessarily).

In case of an omnipotent, the creator, should completely know the consequences of an action. The creator puts a being in pain FOR A TEST knowing the consequences.

They both put a being thru a misery - the difference is: ONE knows the consequences in the name of test, the other does not.
Click to expand...
Good, let's extend your understanding.

Creator is nothing like the creation so an exact example for what the Creator is doing cannot be given because Creator is nothing like the creation.

Here, in the simple example of patient vs Doctor an idea is being conveyed that there are flaws in creating a picture from a pixel and it can be extrapolated to try to ascertain a bigger picture.

The idea of "probability" is your conjecture, the Doctor can be dead certain that injection will provide a cure but from the child's perspective the pixel extrapolation to a full picture is still based on pain.

The people of Gaza are being butchered and they clearly understand that it is a test for them and these are dozens of testimonies, it's the "Atheists" inserting themselves into the argument and extrapolating something which isn't true.

The people of Gaza are Theists so an their example should be extrapolated based on their worldview.

The example of Patient vs Child is perfectly apt in showing the limitations of extrapolation based on a pixel and whether the Doctor is certain or reasonably sure or hopeful about the treatment is irrelevant!
 
rpant_gabba said:
Thats the reason why they carefully avoid defining god.

epicurean paradox

    • If God is willing to prevent evil but can't, He isn't all-powerful.

    • If God is able to prevent evil but isn't willing, He isn't all-good.

    • If God is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God?.
Click to expand...
The Churan that is fed to believers is that justice is delivered after the death of the culprit in Hell.

A hell or heaven for which there is no proof. But it’s a cool story to listen to. :dw
 
rpant_gabba said:
Thats the reason why they carefully avoid defining god.

epicurean paradox

    • If God is willing to prevent evil but can't, He isn't all-powerful.

    • If God is able to prevent evil but isn't willing, He isn't all-good.

    • If God is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God?.
Click to expand...
Islam which believe in a "Creator" also believe in afterlife so the life on this Earth is temporary and the suffering in also temporary.

Our children suffer from illness, severe pain and sometimes even death and our heart pains but Creator has told us that our child and we will be immensely compensated (many fold) so in the hope of meeting our children we remain patient.

Life on this Earth no matter how long is temporary while afterlife is permanent so Creator gives us temporary pain and suffering to give us permanent bliss and happiness.

This is our view so we don't see suffering with the same lens as someone with an "Atheistic" lens or even someone with a belief but without the rigorous and well defined belief in the hereafter would.

Our eyes shed tears and our hearts grief but the future prospect of joining with our loved ones in permanent bliss keeps us balanced.

So view the situation in Gaza with the lens of Gazans.....
 
LordJames said:
Islam which believe in a "Creator" also believe in afterlife so the life on this Earth is temporary and the suffering in also temporary.
Click to expand...
that is so unique. never heard that one before. its unlike anything espoused in any other religion. very original.
 
rpant_gabba said:
Think you might want to look inward for that.

www.theguardian.com

Controversial Dutch film director shot dead in street

Theo van Gogh, the Dutch artist's great grand-nephew and a provocative filmmaker, was shot dead in a street in Amsterdam yesterday, police said, apparently because of a film he made about Islamic violence against women.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

then there is charlie hebdo.

Why? you have the right to believe and I have to have express my opinion about it.

I sincerely hope you are not condoning Hedbdo massacre and Theo Van gogh murder.
Click to expand...

except "Criticize" was NOT what I said ... it got there by "magic" ... use your imagination ... lol
 
Local.Dada said:
Even though there is deeper philosophical explanation of the word Karma fundamentally it means every action has a consequence or basically what goes around, comes around.

I am sure even an atheist believes there will be consequences for his/her actions, if they don’t then the word for it is sociopath/ psychopath not “atheist”, so basically yes 👍
Click to expand...
Karma strictly means the repurcussions for your actions extend into the reincarnation or rebirth.

I am not so sure that atheists believe it, or that not believing it makes a person a psychopath.
 
rpant_gabba said:
rpant_gabba

Thread 'Morality of Religions- Discussion thread'

This thread is to discuss the morality of various belief systems

examples: some interpretations of manu dharma suggest that reincarnation/rebirth is necessary to move up social hierarchy

Ten commandments and mosaic law has silly things like prohibition of eating shrimp, all the while condone and encourage slavery.

eg. Exodus 21

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New International Version

“These are the laws you are to set before them: Hebrew Servants - “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with...
www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com

Than you have Xtiatiy claiming teaching os moses don't apply becos.. "insert your fav excuse here"

even though jesus said I've come to enforce laws of moses

>>>Do not think that I have...

Lets revive that thread.
Click to expand...

^ That was an epic thread. I think I ran circles around you. :)
 
RexRex said:
^ That was an epic thread. I think I ran circles around you. :)
Click to expand...
yup the one where you took the lines of WLC and said I'll commit murder if god commands me too. For a rational person on other topics you are a bit of loon on this religious stuff
 
HalBass9 said:
The funny thing is that he believes that's his inherented right.

Certified clownish behavior.
Click to expand...


Hold your camels ... you will know soon .... but if you are in a hurry look at post# 135 .... specifically the 1st sentence. Pretty sure you are smart enough to use your imagination as to why Post# 137 looks very different ;)
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Karma strictly means the repurcussions for your actions extend into the reincarnation or rebirth.

I am not so sure that atheists believe it, or that not believing it makes a person a psychopath.
Click to expand...
It’s the human ego that makes us believe that we are special from other animals. The only difference between humans and animals is an intelligent brain. A brain that can foresee events and plan accordingly. Animals cannot do that.
We eat like animals, grind with teeth, digest, have blood like animals. In the jungle, we are just a piece of meat for a carnivore. No different to a deer or a monkey.

You are right in saying Karma is action. But the action is what shapes one’s destiny. Bad karma results in souls reincarnation aka rebirth. Good karma makes the soul(Atman) reach the supreme soul (Paramatman). In Buddhism, it is same for the first part where the soul takes birth again aka reincarnation due to bad karma. With good karma the soul is not reborn and the suffering ends. Buddhism at its core is atheistic. Same with Jainism. Sikhism is more similar to Hinduism except the supreme soul is Waheguru. The definition of good karma varies though.
 
LordJames said:
@Bhaag Viru Bhaag

I think @Champ_Pal and others are referring to the āstika vs nāstika philosophical strands within Hinduism which Western thinkers have terms as "Theism vs Atheism" but from my learning it has more to do with the sanctity of Vedas rather then Theism.

However, there are sub-strands within Hinduism such as Karma-Mīmāṁsā within Mīmāṃsā which would allow someone to be "Hindu Atheists" due to rigorous focus on Karma, would it not be? This would not be a majority or mainstream position but philosophically possible within Hinduism.

Of course we know that many Hindus philosophers such as Adi Shankaracharya utterly refuted the foundations of Mīmāṃsā

Again, I am not an expert on Hinduism so happy to be corrected.​
Click to expand...
Astika is someone who believes in Vedas and the Gods of it along with Karma and Moksha.
Nastika is someone who rejects the Vedas and the deities. But the person believes in Karma. I feel Nastika is more closer to. Buddhism because of the rejection of Vedas and Gods.
India always had Charuvakas who were the closest to atheism. They rejected Vedas and also Buddhism and Jainism, Soul, Nirvana and Moksha. They only believed what they can see and experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Javed Akhtar was mocked by right-wing Indians for celebrating Virat Kohli's century against Pakistan
Replies
39
Views
1K
Technics 1210
Technics 1210
BouncerGuy
Javed Akhtar would rather go to hell than visit Pakistan
2
Replies
80
Views
3K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
The Bald Eagle
  • Poll Poll
Unabated diatribe by the Indian forces, does it imply that the wounds are still fresh?
Replies
25
Views
451
Stewie
Stewie
emranabbas
Tensions rise in Bangladesh amid anti-India protests, New Delhi flags security concerns
4 5 6
Replies
411
Views
4K
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
The Bald Eagle
"I used to believe I was born biologically after she passed away, upon reflecting, I was convinced that God had sent me" Narendra Modi
2 3
Replies
216
Views
7K
Bhaag Viru Bhaag
Bhaag Viru Bhaag
Back
Top