Which came first? plants or animals?

[Mr Strawberry]

-- Solid gold.

You do know that the originator of that "religion" is an active poster here, don't you?

As far as I know a Poe is someone who attempts to parody the posts of religious fundamentalists, but gets mistaken for the real thing because no parody of fundamentalism can be too over the top.

But I'm unaware of the poster who first drew attention to this impossibility of distinguishing genuine creationist posts from parodies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And that's "roughly saying the same thing" to you?

Yes.
Both claim that the contents of the book were revealed by a god.
In fact, I think the quran stresses it more.

Or did you mean, both roughly claim to be from god?

I'm confused here.

I can say "exactly the same thing" if that makes you feel better.

I prefer "roughly the same", because the revealing didn't alledgelly happen the same way. The bible is supposed to be more about being inspired, while the qu'ran is said to be almost dictated word for word.

So yes, "roughly" the same thing.

The same thing being "coming from a god" and "roughly" in terms of how it was delivered.

Are you gonna dissect it even more, or will you finally just address the questions asked? Off course, that will require some intellectual honesty on your part and honestly... I have come to the conclusion some time ago that you are incapable of being intellectually honest.

 

[biggles53]

Yes.
Both claim that the contents of the book were revealed by a god.
In fact, I think the quran stresses it more.



I can say "exactly the same thing" if that makes you feel better.

I prefer "roughly the same", because the revealing didn't alledgelly happen the same way. The bible is supposed to be more about being inspired, while the qu'ran is said to be almost dictated word for word.

So yes, "roughly" the same thing.

The same thing being "coming from a god" and "roughly" in terms of how it was delivered.

Are you gonna dissect it even more, or will you finally just address the questions asked? Off course, that will require some intellectual honesty on your part and honestly... I have come to the conclusion some time ago that you are incapable of being intellectually honest.

You want honesty...??

You DO know who you're talking to, right...?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you gonna dissect it even more, or will you finally just address the questions asked?

If you want to know what we think of the Koran from our perspective -- and I suspect you don't -- you are going to get the Koran from our perspective.

I already gave you four excellent reasons why I believe the Koran to be bogus.

For the record, here they are again:

1. The Koran and the Bible contradict each other.
2. Mohammad is considered a false prophet.
3. The Bible generates our faith, not the Koran
4. The Author of the Bible indwells us.

Unless you want me to believe you're asking a legitimate question in order to ridicule our answers, you're going to have to try a different approach.

Like, for instance, saying you understand.

If those four aren't good enough, try learning what diabolical plagiarism and diabolical mimicry are.

Off course, that will require some intellectual honesty on your part and honestly... I have come to the conclusion some time ago that you are incapable of being intellectually honest.

You call yourself "DogmaHunter", then you refuse to acknowledge and/or respect another faith's dogma.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You want honesty...??

You DO know who you're talking to, right...?

Hahaha
Well... I did say that I came to the conclusion already that he's incapable of intellectual honesty

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you want to know what we think of the Koran from our perspective -- and I suspect you don't -- you are going to get the Koran from our perspective.

That's not what I asked.

I already gave you four excellent reasons why I believe the Koran to be bogus.

No. You gave me four assertions that are implied only after one decides to believe on over the other.

What I asked for were the reasons for deciding to believe one over the other. Which is not the same.

Unless you want me to believe you're asking a legitimate question in order to ridicule our answers, you're going to have to try a different approach.

It's not my style to set up such traps.
I asked because I'm genuinly curious.

The guy I asked the question to said he read the quran.
I would like to know why he believes the bible and not the quran.
As in, what is it about the bible that gives it more credibility that the quran lacks? Or vice versa, what does the quran have that the bible lacks which decreases its credibility?

Any answer that starts from the premise that the bible is true and the quran isn't, is not a valid and intellectually honest answer to my question.

To put it simplisticly so that you perhaps understand it:
If I ask you why you believe 2+2 equals 4 and not 5, then answering "because I already believe that it is 4 and not 5" is not a valid answer to my question.

If those four aren't good enough, try learning what diabolical plagiarism and diabolical mimicry are.

You mean, like the flood of noah being a plagiarised version of the much older epic of gilgamesh?

You call yourself "DogmaHunter", then you refuse to acknowledge and/or respect another faith's dogma.

I have zero respect for any faith based position, if you must know.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have zero respect for any faith based position, if you must know.

Zero respect is one thing.

Ridiculing those who do have respect is another.

For the record, you must not respect yourself either; as I used you as the standard for not accepting the Koran, and that apparently wasn't good enough.

But for the record, we'll try it again and see:

Do you believe the Koran was fully-revealed to Mohammad by Gabriel?

If not, is it okay if I don't believe that as well?

(Just YES or NO please.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Zero respect is one thing.
Ridiculing those who do have respect is another.

????

I just asked a question about his reasons for believing one book over another book. If that is "ridiculing people", then I don't know what "to ridicule" means. I just asked a question and I have no idea why you feel the need to derail this in such a personality attacking manner.

For the record, you must not respect yourself either; as I used you as the standard for not accepting the Koran, and that apparently wasn't good enough.

The question is not about me. It's about a person who believes one religious book while disbelieving another religious book. I believe no religious books at all. So the question doesn't apply to me. Because the question is "why this book and not that other book?".

Do you believe the Koran was fully-revealed to Mohammad by Gabriel?

If not, is it okay if I don't believe that as well?

(Just YES or NO please.)

That's not the question being asked.

Again, please stop with this derail.

 

[TLK Valentine]

-- Solid gold.

You do know that the originator of that "religion" is an active poster here, don't you?

Actually, AV -- it would appear that Mr. Nathan Poe, the originator of Poe's Law, has been banned from the forum... As his profile page shows that his last post was nearly three years ago, it would appear that ban is permanent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

For the record, here they are again:

1. The Bible generates our faith, not the Koran

I suppose that's a lot more convenient than having God generate your faith...

Does the name "Holy Spirit" ring a bell?

 

[Skaloop]

EternalDragon's answer is directly in relation to your question(s) in post #400.. don't you think?

Yes, it absolutely is. And it was just the answer I expected. And my response to his answer still stands; saying that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God is not a logically sound argument.

-There was another question i don't remember if this was by you asking "where did the Bible say that."

I don't think that was me.

 

[Skaloop]

I am just verifying that it dos claim it throughout many different unrelated books the same way. I said nothing about "truth". That is a separate matter.

The books of the Bible are hardly unrelated.

 

[EternalDragon]

The books of the Bible are hardly unrelated.

Time period written and author, yes they are.

 

[EternalDragon]

I'm just asking why he believes what one book states while disbelieving what another book states. Do I have your permission to ask for clarifications about his reasons for believing one thing while disbelieving another thing that roughly says the same thing?

I can give you a whole long list of verses where the Bible makes those claims. If the Koran makes the claims you say, back it up and tell me where they are found. I have a copy of the Koran right in my lap. I have not found any such references as yet.

I will await your response and they must be correct verses stating that the revelation is direct from God or God breathed, etc.

 

[EternalDragon]

Except they're not unrelated books -- the authors of the later books had the earlier ones in front of them as they wrote.

Convenient, isn't it?

No, they did not and many revealed things they wrote about they didn't even understand, so no, it is not convenient.

"Truth" is a separate matter from what the Bible claims? Remember, you said it, not us.

It is a separate matter. That is what I said. I don't appreciate the dishonest tactics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Time period written and author, yes they are.

Culture, no they aren't. Do you really think that the later authors were completely unaware of the authors or material that came before them?

 

[Riberra]

Culture, no they aren't. Do you really think that the later authors were completely unaware of the authors or material that came before them?

There is a high probability that the apostles knew about The Old Testament (also known as the Jewish Tanakh)..The Torah also know as Pentateuch is about the first five books of the Bible .
However as you surely know ... the New Testament is preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ...with reference to his coming mentioned in the Old Testament .

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can give you a whole long list of verses where the Bible makes those claims. If the Koran makes the claims you say, back it up and tell me where they are found. I have a copy of the Koran right in my lap. I have not found any such references as yet.

I will await your response and they must be correct verses stating that the revelation is direct from God or God breathed, etc.

You claimed to have read the book. Apparantly you didn't read with much attention.

Can you please just answer the questions instead of dodging it?

What is it about the bible that makes it more believable to you then the quran? Or what is it about the quran that makes it less believable to you then the bible?

Additionally:
- what is your geographic location?
- what is the religion of your parents?
- what is the dominant religion in the place you live / grew up?

None of these answers require me to quote anything at all. You claimed to have read both the bible and the quran and clearly you believe the bible and think the quran is nonsense.

Why so reluctant to answer this simple question?
Don't make me quote Peter 3:15



EDIT: just to make you stop dodging:
"The month of Ramadan in which I revealed the Quran as guidance to mankind ..." [Quran 2:185]

There's many more. Just one makes my point.

 

[KWCrazy]

What is it about the bible that makes it more believable to you then the quran? Or what is it about the quran that makes it less believable to you then the bible?

To evaluate the message, look at the prophet.
Jesus walked the earth sinless and perfect. He cast out demons in the name of the Father, healed the sick, performed many miracles including calming storms and walking on water, and rose again from the dead.

Mohammed was a thief, a murderer, a rapist, a man with 13 wives; one as young as six, and a man who preached conversion by the sword and enslavement of all who would not submit to his made up religion. Mohammed never performed a miracle. When he died, he went straight to his final destination which was likely very, very hot. Mohammed passed none of the tests of a real prophet and was probably history's most successful false prophet. Mohammed saw all women as stupid and inferior to men. He led a deplorable life and his false religion has led hundreds of millions to destruction.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To evaluate the message, look at the prophet.
Jesus walked the earth sinless and perfect. He cast out demons in the name of the Father, healed the sick, performed many miracles including calming storms and walking on water, and rose again from the dead.

Circular reasoning.

Mohammed was a thief, a murderer, a rapist, a man with 13 wives; one as young as six, and a man who preached conversion by the sword and enslavement of all who would not submit to his made up religion.

Lol.
First, that's clearly the opinion of a christian islamophobe.
Secondly, the koran doesn't portray him as such.

So already, we see a double standard. You judge the character of Jesus by going by what the bible says of him, but you don't do the same with Muhammed.

Mohammed never performed a miracle.

Nore was he supposed to according to the mythology. I also fail to see why he should. I don't see how that would change the quran being false or right.
Would it change anything if the quran said he raised the dead? Just wondering.

Personally, the dude NOT engaging in what-can-only-be-described-as magic is actually a plus in terms of credibility. The less extra-ordinary things the mythology requires me to take on faith, the more plausible it becomes for me.

When he died, he went straight to his final destination which was likely very, very hot.

This is again speaking as a bible believing christian.

Mohammed passed none of the tests of a real prophet

And who decides what the requirements are for that test? Your bible again?

and was probably history's most successful false prophet.

The whole point of the exercise is to explain the methodology by which you arrive at that conclusion. All I see you say is "because I already believe this other religion". That is not valid reasoning. It's confirmation bias. A fallacy.

Mohammed saw all women as stupid and inferior to men.

Much like everyone else in those times. The bible is not different. It was a "man's society" after all.

In fact, in your particular religion, women are guilty of the fall. And that has reflected throughout history on women in rather unpleasant ways.

He led a deplorable life and his false religion has led hundreds of millions to destruction.

Christianity is not different. Don't you know why they were called the "dark" ages?


All in all, just like AV and EternalDragon, you miserably failed at my thought experiment.

I invite you to try again, this time without engaging in confirmation bias, without holding double standards and without appealing to a priori beliefs.

Just give me an objective and valid reasoned argument that shows how the bible is more credible then the koran.


EDIT: forget it. I'll create a thread as this is seriously off topic.