Islam - What's your view on it?

[UKMikey]

To explain my use of "design" again:
Mutations with the purpose to adapt and improve and increase the chance of survival of offspring. These are not random, but "mutations" with a purpose.

I thought mutations were random and the ones which happened to allow offspring to adapt to their environment were the successful ones. Saying that mutations occur purposefully to allow offspring to survive seems like putting the cart before the horse to me.

As I understand it, mutations succeed because of the survival of the creatures that carry them. They aren't purposefully designed ahead of time to enable those creatures to survive.

 

[PocketZeven]

I thought mutations were random and the ones which happened to allow offspring to adapt to their environment were the successful ones. Saying that mutations occur purposefully to allow offspring to survive seems like putting the cart before the horse to me.

As I understand it, mutations succeed because of the survival of the creatures that carry them. They aren't purposefully designed ahead of time to enable those creatures to survive.

I always thought these mutations were the result of change in environment. Like modern humans having less hair/fur and walking upright. I dont consider these as "random", but the purpose of climate changing and/or increase in intelligence and the need to use limbs to handle tools etc. Random suggests that these mutations are not influenced by anything, but randomness.

 

[Scaff]

Evolution does have a goal though. It is a reaction to change in the environment (purpose). It is not random. With "design" I meant the purpose of the genetic code that gives a being a certain trait. I never meant designed by a higher being or anything in that neighbourhood. I clearly am using the wrong word. I try to ask you guys, which word is more accurate because I cant think of a better word in english.

To explain my use of "design" again:
Mutations with the purpose to adapt and improve and increase the chance of survival of offspring. These are not random, but "mutations" with a purpose.

Which word should I use to describe that traits have evolved with purpose?

Evolution doesn't have a goal and its a random process.

Not does it have a specific outcome or is it a reaction to a change in the environment. A random mutation may provide an advantage in a changed environment, and may as a result given a greater chance of survival to those with that mutation. That however doesn't mean the environment drive that change, or that the change was in reaction to the change.

The reason why design as a term doesn't work and no one is suggesting an alternative is simply because its the wrong term to be using in the first place.

These mutations don't occur in a target manner, and you will get mutations that hamper the chance of survival as well a one that benefit it (and a whole lot that will do nothing to the chance of survival). A chance also exists that even with a beneficial mutation you might still not survive to pass it on.

 

[PocketZeven]

Evolution doesn't have a goal and its a random process.

Not does it have a specific outcome or is it a reaction to a change in the environment. A random mutation may provide an advantage in a changed environment, and may as a result given a greater chance of survival to those with that mutation. That however doesn't mean the environment drive that change, or that the change was in reaction to the change.

The reason why design as a term doesn't work and no one is suggesting an alternative is simply because its the wrong term to be using in the first place.

These mutations don't occur in a target manner, and you will get mutations that hamper the chance of survival as well a one that benefit it (and a whole lot that will do nothing to the chance of survival). A chance also exists that even with a beneficial mutation you might still not survive to pass it on.

I guess my interpretations does differ a lot from you guys. I understood the purpose of evolution is in essence "survival of the fittest" to prevent extinction.

 

[TenEightyOne]

the purpose of evolution

There is no purpose. It's just what happens.

 

[UKMikey]

I guess my interpretations does differ a lot from you guys. I understood the purpose of evolution is in essence "survival of the fittest" to prevent extinction.

That's the effect of evolution, not the purpose. You appear to be reading some kind of intent into it but those species aren't pulling metaphorical tracksuits and sweatbands on to become more fit before going out to tackle nature. From what I can see natural selection is more a case of throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's the effect of evolution, not the purpose. You appear to be reading some kind of intent into it but those species aren't pulling metaphorical tracksuits and sweatbands on to become more fit before going out to tackle nature. From what I can see natural selection is more a case of throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks.

Intent for survival? The result of evolution is a certain trait with a purpose. Like eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. Eating and drinking to survive. Perhaps my bad english is working against me again. Perhaps "function" would be a better replacement for "purpose"? Like the "function of a sex organs is to reproduce in biology" instead of purpose?

What would you call the phenomena of cells multiplying and organisms reproducing?

 

[BobK]

I guess my interpretations does differ a lot from you guys. I understood the purpose of evolution is in essence "survival of the fittest" to prevent extinction.

Evolution does not have a purpose. To suggest otherwise shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works, and the processes that drive it.

"Survival of the fittest" is a result, not a cause.

Mutations occur randomly. If the mutation increases the survivability of the organism, it is more likely to pass on the mutation to offspring. If the mutation decreases survivability, the organism is less likely to pass it on. That is the whole of evolution.

 

[UKMikey]

Intent for survival? The result of evolution is a certain trait with a purpose. Like eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. Eating and drinking to survive. Perhaps my bad english is working against me again. Perhaps "function" would be a better replacement for "purpose"? Like the "function of a sex organs is to reproduce in biology" instead of purpose?

What would you call the phenomena of cells multiplying and organisms reproducing?

I would call it viability. An organism that has evolved to stay alive. Given that dinosaurs couldn't evolve to survive the extinction level event that caused the ice age, would you say they were badly functioning or just unlucky? If that meteor had passed by the planet they might be still around today and our ancestors would still be picking dung out of their behinds. Survival of the fittest didn't help them even though they were the planet's dominant species 65 million years ago.

My point is that humans were no more designed than an action painter like Jackson Pollock designed the smudges and smears on his works of art. And the human race will still carry on even if not everyone uses their genitals for the function for which you're asserting that they're intended.

 

[Imari]

Mutations with the purpose to adapt and improve and increase the chance of survival of offspring. These are not random, but "mutations" with a purpose.

Nope. Just nope. Stop assigning human emotions to observed traits.

Which word should I use to describe that traits have evolved with purpose?

Whatever you like, because that's not how evolution works. Or traits, there is no such thing as a trait that evolved with a purpose.

Honestly, I think most of the problem here is that you strongly misunderstand evolution as this mystical force that imbues an organism with traits beneficial to it's environment. That couldn't be further from the truth. A population with varied traits will by nature have some individuals who are more likely to reproduce. The traits that these individuals have are thus more likely to be seen in later generations. No purpose, no design, and that's why even the term natural selection includes the word "natural" as it's not really selection in the traditional sense.

I always thought these mutations were the result of change in environment. Like modern humans having less hair/fur and walking upright. I dont consider these as "random", but the purpose of climate changing and/or increase in intelligence and the need to use limbs to handle tools etc. Random suggests that these mutations are not influenced by anything, but randomness.

You've got cause and effect mixed up. The mutations are not the result of a change in the environment. The mutations become dominant through a change in the environment, and thus their relative survival value. Yes, the mutations available are totally random. That's sort of the point.

There are any number of "natural" methods by which random mutations can occur to support this; radiation, gene errors, cancers, etc. Under your proposed "environmental mutation" hypothesis, what causes the mutations to occur?

What would you call the phenomena of cells multiplying and organisms reproducing?

Inevitable.

If an organism doesn't reproduce it will die out in the first generation. If it does reproduce but doesn't multiply, the population will be so low that it can be taken out by random chance. In either case, the chances of them surviving long enough to be observed are basically zero, let alone the chances of them surviving long enough to become intelligent, create the internet and type misunderstandings about evolution.

You do not understand evolution. Throw away your anthropomorphic ideas of "purpose" and "design", go back and read the Wikipedia page again, and then think about how ordered evolution could arise from random inputs.

 

[PeterJB]

I feel like it's been quite a long time since there's been any mention of Islam...

 

[UKMikey]

I feel like it's been quite a long time since there's been any mention of Islam...

Not much to discuss about it really.

I think everyone who's active here has pretty much made up their mind by now.

Although it may have been better off on the dedicated thread, I like the direction this conversation has gone was going.

 

[Georgeagea]

Islam - What's your view on it?
==> The biggest and most successful devil plot in history.

 

[Georgeagea]

Find me one contradiction or error in the quran. This is a bet. Noone has found anything wrong in it. If you can, i'll give you a high five if I ever see you face to face....

Ha Ha
A small list for you (that only scratches the surface and tackle simple ideas):
https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

 

[UKMikey]

Islam - What's your view on it?
==> The biggest and most successful devil plot in history.

Really? I'd say it had some stiff competition.

 

[BobK]

I feel like it's been quite a long time since there's been any mention of Islam...

I'm wondering if the current discussion might be better moved to the CvE thread.

 

[Georgeagea]

Really? I'd say it had some stiff competition.

Hahahahahahahaha wait a sec hahahahahaahahha
I thought this discussion is deep. Seems I was wrong.

You're comparing people to a religion?! I don't care what the cardinals did. Some are saints, some are devils. Same goes for any religion or any group of people, even if atheists.

I thought the discussion was about the ideology.

All I care about is what JESUS did/taught and what the most-obvious-false-prophet Mohammad did/taught. Those are the teachers of their respective religions.
All I care about is what Christianity teaches and what Islam teaches.
etc....
I hope you get the idea.

You asked for our view on Islam, and here it goes, once again:
Islam is the most obvious, yet smartest and most successful, plot the devil made to sway people from the true God. Easy.

 

[Scaff]

Hahahahahahahaha wait a sec hahahahahaahahha
I thought this discussion is deep. Seems I was wrong.

You're comparing people to a religion?! I don't care what the cardinals did. Some are saints, some are devils. Same goes for any religion or any group of people, even if atheists.

I thought the discussion was about the ideology.

Religions are man made, as such its impossible to separate the two.

All I care about is what JESUS did/taught and what the most-obvious-false-prophet Mohammad did/taught. Those are the teachers of their respective religions.
All I care about is what Christianity teaches and what Islam teaches.
etc....
I hope you get the idea.

'My made up story is better than the others peoples made up story'.

Got it.

Guess which of the two's holy text are the most violent?

You asked for our view on Islam, and here it goes, once again:
Islam is the most obvious, yet smartest and most successful, plot the devil made to sway people from the true God. Easy.

And yet the are both re-boots of the same faith (which its self is a rip-off of earlier faiths) and both worship the exact same god.

Or that the second most important prophet in Isalm? That would be Jesus, the woman described as the 'greatest woman of all time'? That would be Mary.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope. Just nope. Stop assigning human emotions to observed traits.



Whatever you like, because that's not how evolution works. Or traits, there is no such thing as a trait that evolved with a purpose.

Honestly, I think most of the problem here is that you strongly misunderstand evolution as this mystical force that imbues an organism with traits beneficial to it's environment. That couldn't be further from the truth. A population with varied traits will by nature have some individuals who are more likely to reproduce. The traits that these individuals have are thus more likely to be seen in later generations. No purpose, no design, and that's why even the term natural selection includes the word "natural" as it's not really selection in the traditional sense.



You've got cause and effect mixed up. The mutations are not the result of a change in the environment. The mutations become dominant through a change in the environment, and thus their relative survival value. Yes, the mutations available are totally random. That's sort of the point.

There are any number of "natural" methods by which random mutations can occur to support this; radiation, gene errors, cancers, etc. Under your proposed "environmental mutation" hypothesis, what causes the mutations to occur?



Inevitable.

If an organism doesn't reproduce it will die out in the first generation. If it does reproduce but doesn't multiply, the population will be so low that it can be taken out by random chance. In either case, the chances of them surviving long enough to be observed are basically zero, let alone the chances of them surviving long enough to become intelligent, create the internet and type misunderstandings about evolution.

You do not understand evolution. Throw away your anthropomorphic ideas of "purpose" and "design", go back and read the Wikipedia page again, and then think about how ordered evolution could arise from random inputs.

I understand what you are saying and I think it is rather the lack of my english. By "purpose" I meant function as a result of "survival of the fittest", because I definately meant the effect and not cause. Design I perhaps wrongly used to describe the disctiprion of a certain trait/organ. Like in the example the existance of a nose. It has a function and if not "designed" to do that, what would be the accurate word to describe it? Should I have just used the word "evolved"?

 

[BobK]

Should I have just used the word "evolved"?

Yes.

 

[Georgeagea]

Religions are man made, as such its impossible to separate the two.

No religions are not man made. Some of them definitely are but not all.
When God reveals himself to you, it's Him who made the initiative and not the opposite. That happened to Abraham for example.

Guess which of the two's holy text are the most violent?

Regarding violence:
First that's wrong. When a text mentions violence or speaks about it, it's one thing. But when the text encourages and teaches violence, that's another thing. We need to differentiate.
Second, the violence being referred to in the bible is in the old testament not the new one. Both are part of the bible but the new testament is called New for a reason. It's the final marching orders and is full of love and mercy; unlike the Quran.
Third, and most importantly, the bible is an inspired book of history. It contains stories, history, ideas, downfalls etc... It's literally a book of history compiled of many book written on a span of hundreds of years and many generations, that was inspired bu God. It should not and is not taken literally. It should be understood in its context and taken as a whole entity.
On the other hand, Islam claims the Quran is the holy book containing direct words from the mouth of Allah. It should be taken literally. It is not a book of history and it was written on a very short time span.
In that perspective, when the Quran tells you to "fight the nonbelievers" it means it literally and cannot be taken in any other way. You cannot explain it differently.
In that case, violence is a marching order in Islam.
The terrorists and their attacks are the biggest proof. They claim (and they are honest about that) that they are applying Islam to the letter.
You can't argue with numbers/facts.
Show me the thousands of christian terrorists (and their attacks) that can back up their acts by Jesus words.

both worship the exact same god.

Both worship the exact same god ==> Very wrong for soooo many reasons and on sooo many levels.
To keep it short, singular vs trinity. Unseen high arrogant vs humble seen visible. Deceiver vs faithful and honest. etc.... Too many to speak about in here.
Check youtube (https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...u-DgAhWj34UKHZ_zC9QQ_AUIECgD&biw=1280&bih=881).

Or that the second most important prophet in Isalm? That would be Jesus, the woman described as the 'greatest woman of all time'? That would be Mary.

You know how the devil deceives people?! He doesn't come dressing in red with 2 horns on his head and deceive them. He comes dressing as an angel/good guy.
When you claim Jesus is a prophet (as Islam does), but you strip him of his essentials (being God 2nd holy trinity person, being dead on the cross and has risen, being the almighty God in the felsh, etc...) you are manipulating his reality and lying about him and deceiving the people.
He (who should not be named ) wanted to sway people from the true God so he told them "yeah he's a very nice guy and a prophet but not God". That's called being smart. He just simply go bash Jesus and expect people to believe him.


Finally, let me say that I live in a muslim majority country between many of my muslim colleagues. I live with them and I know them, I know how they live and how they think. Trust me, I know a lot about Islam and I have read and watched thousands of documentaries and stuff etc... So I can claim that I know what I'm talking about.
I love muslims but I hate Islam.
Islam is a ideology/religion and not a race or ethnicity. So no one can call me racist for that. It's an ideology that should be fought. An ideology aiming to destroy the relationship between humanity and the true God (to sway them from being saved) and aiming to control the whole world by power, to submit it to their true god (Satan). Some of the muslims are simply really good honest people that unfortunately don't know about all of that, and are doing it on good will.

 

[Scaff]

No religions are not man made. Some of them definitely are but not all.
When God reveals himself to you, it's Him who made the initiative and not the opposite. That happened to Abraham for example.

Good luck proving that one.

All religion is man made.

Regarding violence:
First that's wrong. When a text mentions violence or speaks about it, it's one thing. But when the text encourages and teaches violence, that's another thing. We need to differentiate.
Second, the violence being referred to in the bible is in the old testament not the new one. Both are part of the bible but the new testament is called New for a reason. It's the final marching orders and is full of love and mercy; unlike the Quran.
Third, and most importantly, the bible is an inspired book of history. It contains stories, history, ideas, downfalls etc... It's literally a book of history compiled of many book written on a span of hundreds of years and many generations, that was inspired bu God. It should not and is not taken literally. It should be understood in its context and taken as a whole entity.
On the other hand, Islam claims the Quran is the holy book containing direct words from the mouth of Allah. It should be taken literally. It is not a book of history and it was written on a very short time span.
In that perspective, when the Quran tells you to "fight the nonbelievers" it means it literally and cannot be taken in any other way. You cannot explain it differently.

First you don't get to ignore the OT simply because it suits you (Jesus disagrees with you on that point in Matthew), secondly God in the OT literally murders everyone on the planet bar one family and repeatedly orders the death of people, third Jesus is violent in the NT.

Both books tell you to kill the unbeliever and to love the unbeliever, both are utterly contradictory. You are simply showing a rather massive amount of confirmation bias.

On a final note you are simply wrong is saying that numerous Christians do not take the Bible as literal, or that Muslims don;t take the Koran and non-literal.

In that case, violence is a marching order in Islam.
The terrorists and their attacks are the biggest proof. They claim (and they are honest about that) that they are applying Islam to the letter.
You can't argue with numbers/facts.
Show me the thousands of christian terrorists (and their attacks) that can back up their acts by Jesus words.

The LRA alone has killed more people that ISIS,

Christian terrorsim has a long and studied history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

(awaits the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy)

Both worship the exact same god ==> Very wrong for soooo many reasons and on sooo many levels.
To keep it short, singular vs trinity. Unseen high arrogant vs humble seen visible. Deceiver vs faithful and honest. etc.... Too many to speak about in here.
Check youtube (https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...u-DgAhWj34UKHZ_zC9QQ_AUIECgD&biw=1280&bih=881).

You know how the devil deceives people?! He doesn't come dressing in red with 2 horns on his head and deceive them. He comes dressing as an angel/good guy.
When you claim Jesus is a prophet (as Islam does), but you strip him of his essentials (being God 2nd holy trinity person, being dead on the cross and has risen, being the almighty God in the felsh, etc...) you are manipulating his reality and lying about him and deceiving the people.
He (who should not be named ) wanted to sway people from the true God so he told them "yeah he's a very nice guy and a prophet but not God". That's called being smart. He just simply go bash Jesus and expect people to believe him.

Your bias is showing in quite a big way here.

News flash for you, no evidence exists for god or the devil, and your using your own version of an imaginary friend to spout a whole lot of bigotory and trying to dress it up as 'helping people'.

Finally, let me say that I live in a muslim majority country between many of my muslim colleagues. I live with them and I know them, I know how they live and how they think. Trust me, I know a lot about Islam and I have read and watched thousands of documentaries and stuff etc... So I can claim that I know what I'm talking about.
I love muslims but I hate Islam.
Islam is a ideology/religion and not a race or ethnicity. So no one can call me racist for that. It's an ideology that should be fought. An ideology aiming to destroy the relationship between humanity and the true God (to sway them from being saved) and aiming to control the whole world by power, to submit it to their true god (Satan). Some of the muslims are simply really good honest people that unfortunately don't know about all of that, and are doing it on good will.

Oh so you want to save them all from themselves. How very fundamentalist of you.

 

[Tired Tyres]

No religions are not man made. Some of them definitely are but not all.
When God reveals himself to you, it's Him who made the initiative and not the opposite. That happened to Abraham for example.

All religion is man made. Every version of God is a reflection of ourselves. Anyone who has been personally contacted by God is going to have a really hard time proving that was actually God and not something significantly more mundane.

 

[Georgeagea]

Good luck proving that one.

All religion is man made.

This is an opinion. The religion in terms of hierarchy and structure is definitely man made (since it's a human religion in the end) but inspired by God and initiated by God to fulfill peoples thirst. So don't mix the basis/philosophy behind something with how it's structured.

First you don't get to ignore the OT simply because it suits you (Jesus disagrees with you on that point in Matthew), secondly God in the OT literally murders everyone on the planet bar one family and repeatedly orders the death of people, third Jesus is violent in the NT.

I'm not ignoring anything. But when you read the book as whole (as I already said and as you ignored) you will discover something very different.
Jesus came to "complete" the OT as He said. When you quote half a sentence, it's completely wrong. When you complete the sentence, it becomes true.
So you cannot read the OT without the NT because it's incomplete. When you read it all, you discover who is God and what does He asks you to do. Simple.
First, for God to kill, He has the very right to do whatever He wants with His creation. Simple.
Second, when He specifically asks in a certain very specific case (like it happens in the OT) He has the very right to do so again following the 1st principle.
Third, I dare you to find me where does the NT entice/encourage violence.

Both books tell you to kill the unbeliever and to love the unbeliever, both are utterly contradictory. You are simply showing a rather massive amount of confirmation bias.

Yeah. I remember when Jesus said that. (sarcasm) "Love your enemies, pray for them, etc..." in the same Matthew you claim to know (let alone the numerous other times in the NT by Jesus or his disciples).

The LRA alone has killed more people that ISIS,

Christian terrorsim has a long and studied history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

(awaits the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy)

Again missing the point. I can go kill whatever I want. How I back that up with my ideology makes the whole difference.
Again, we're discussing ideas/ideologies here, not people.

Your bias is showing in quite a big way here.

News flash for you, no evidence exists for god or the devil, and your using your own version of an imaginary friend to spout a whole lot of bigotory and trying to dress it up as 'helping people'.

Well I can't go debate Physics when I claim/believe that there's no material/particles.
You can't go debate religions when you claim/believe that there's no God.
You're now breaking all the laws of debate and common sense. God is a given truth in this talk, otherwise we would be discussing Atheism here, which unfortunately for you is not the topic of this post.

Oh so you want to save them all from themselves. How very fundamentalist of you.

True. Most muslims are casualties of their own religion. Ironic isn't it?! What you thought would save you is your own doom.

 

[UKMikey]

Well I can't go debate Physics when I claim/believe that there's no material/particles.
You can't go debate religions when you claim/believe that there's no God.
You're now breaking all the laws of debate and common sense. God is a given truth in this talk, otherwise we would be discussing Atheism here, which unfortunately for you is not the topic of this post.

That isn't really very logical.

If you choose to believe and assert that particles such as atoms and molecules don't exist, it's easy to provide physical proof to the contrary. There's plenty of physical proof that religions exist on Earth as well. You don't have to believe in God to accept or debate those religions' existence. Pointing that out is not "discussing Atheism". Does your discussing Islam mean that you accept Allah and Mohammed's teachings as a "given truth"?

 

[Georgeagea]

That isn't really very logical.

If you choose to believe and assert that particles such as atoms and molecules don't exist, it's easy to provide physical proof to the contrary. There's plenty of physical proof that religions exist on Earth as well. You don't have to believe in God to accept or debate those religions' existence. Pointing that out is not "discussing Atheism". Does your discussing Islam mean that you accept Allah and Mohammed's teachings as a "given truth"?

Of course not, but it's the topic of discussion. When I debate a religion, I can debate it and compare to other religious views.
However, how can you discuss them if you really believe that there's no God?! What would be the purpose/benefit of such debate for you?!

Oh and to follow your logic, it's also easy to prove that God exists.
Until science can PROVE me how the universe was created (not stupid theories but actually proofs),
and until science can explain to me how a man would raise form the dead,
a completely born-blind man can see in a second after a moment of faith,
a sick man can be found healed in a second after he prays deeply in faith,
Until science can PROVE to me what is love (prove it in a scientific way),
Until it can explain to me what is the consciousness in our brains, and why does it encourage you to be a good person and stings you when you do bad stuff,
Until... until... until... (I can go on for days),
until all of that, I can still continue to believe that there's God who has created the universe and has done all of the above.

 

[UKMikey]

Of course not, but it's the topic of discussion. When I debate a religion, I can debate it and compare to other religious views.
However, how can you discuss them if you really believe that there's no God?! What would be the purpose/benefit of such debate for you?!

Islam affects you and me whether you believe in Allah or not. Why can't we discuss it even though we're infidels?

Christianity affects me whether or not I believe in God. Why can't I discuss it as an atheist?

It sounds like your arguments against Islam are based on your believing that its adherents are lying about being peaceful. Where does that leave the Christians that act without faith such as Cardinal Pell?

To us both Islam and Christianity are unprovable. Disbelieving in one doesn't require acceptance of the other.

 

[Georgeagea]

Islam affects you and me whether you believe in Allah or not. Why can't we discuss it even though we're infidels?

Christianity affects me whether or not I believe in God. Why can't I discuss it as an atheist?

It sounds like your arguments against Islam are based on your believing that its adherents are lying about being peaceful.

To us both Islam and Christianity are unprovable. Disbelieving in one doesn't require acceptance of the other.

I agree with you about the religions affecting us. But what I meant is why would you care to know about it if you won't believe it anyways since you don't believe in God in the first place.
Oh and yeah definitely I agree that Islam is definitely not a religion of peace by any standard (google and watch some youtube videos about muslim imams and cheikhs laughing at that phrase (islam is a religion of peace)). They know it but they're just fooling the simple people of the west. I'm sorry to say that and it seems a bit harsh but it's true. But I'm a guy from the middle east and I'm arab and I know how muslims look at the western world. I can read and speak their holy language.
For me Christianity is easily proven. Check the edit I made to my post above. I know it's not full proof but it's a small drop in a whole big sea. It gives you an indication.

 

[UKMikey]

I agree with you about the religions affecting us. But what I meant is why would you care to know about it if you won't believe it anyways since you don't believe in God in the first place.
Oh and yeah definitely I agree that Islam is definitely not a religion of peace by any standard (google and watch some youtube videos about muslim imams and cheikhs laughing at that phrase (islam is a religion of peace)). They know it but they're just fooling the simple people of the west. I'm sorry to say that and it seems a bit harsh but it's true. But I'm a guy from the middle east and I'm arab and I know how muslims look at the western world. I can read and speak their holy language.
For me Christianity is easily proven. Check the edit I made to my post above. I know it's not full proof but it's a small drop in a whole big sea. It gives you an indication.

Why wouldn't I care about something that affects me in the material world, whether I believe in its precepts or not? It's the same question as asking why you care about Islam when you don't believe in it.

As for your proof of God's existence you're saying that because we don't know what happened in the first few instants of the universe we therefore must conclude that He did it. Where is the logic or common sense in that? You're holding your own religion and theirs to different standards and expecting us to do the same.

To us the biblical stories you cite don't really stand up as objective scientific proof in any meaningful way. For all we know, they may as well be fairy tales.

 

[baldgye]

Until science can PROVE to me what is love (prove it in a scientific way),

Got some bad news for you