News1 min ago
Ab Preachers – Are They Influencing Your Beliefs?
75 Answers
The sole intention of some here appears to be to preach their own particular flavour of religion. Is it working? Has anyone been tempted to find out more - or does it have the opposite effect?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
sorry, keyplus, I have to apologise and eat humble pie. I know so little about Islam that I am not qualified to discuss it. I should have confined my offer to Christianity and Judaeism.
I might say in passing that I have always had an open mind. I am prepared to listen to any theory or idea and examine it. But if I find that it makes no sense and there is no evidence or argument to support it then I reject it. That is how one arrives at rational conclusions, such as atheism.
I might say in passing that I have always had an open mind. I am prepared to listen to any theory or idea and examine it. But if I find that it makes no sense and there is no evidence or argument to support it then I reject it. That is how one arrives at rational conclusions, such as atheism.
A couple of years ago I knew nearly nothing about Faiths, other than Catholism. Now I am more familiar with other beliefs. particularly Islam, and am disappointed how this belief sticks dogmatically to the cruel and barbaric doctrine of the past.
If anything, the R&S section has made me more determined that the absence of beliefs [aka atheism] makes more sense than any religious Faith.
If anything, the R&S section has made me more determined that the absence of beliefs [aka atheism] makes more sense than any religious Faith.
chakka35
sorry, keyplus, I have to apologise and eat humble pie. I know so little about Islam that I am not qualified to discuss it. I should have confined my offer to Christianity and Judaeism.
I might say in passing that I have always had an open mind. I am prepared to listen to any theory or idea and examine it. But if I find that it makes no sense and there is no evidence or argument to support it then I reject it. That is how one arrives at rational conclusions, such as atheism.
17:10 Sat 12th Jan 2013
Well, for starters Chakka, if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure they believe in the existence of 'God'. :o/
sorry, keyplus, I have to apologise and eat humble pie. I know so little about Islam that I am not qualified to discuss it. I should have confined my offer to Christianity and Judaeism.
I might say in passing that I have always had an open mind. I am prepared to listen to any theory or idea and examine it. But if I find that it makes no sense and there is no evidence or argument to support it then I reject it. That is how one arrives at rational conclusions, such as atheism.
17:10 Sat 12th Jan 2013
Well, for starters Chakka, if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure they believe in the existence of 'God'. :o/
Morning all,
//But to me, one outpouring of intolerant scorn is pretty much the same as another.//
I don’t understand this comment from jno, nor why it is supported by missnemesis. In discussion on an open forum do they really expect the belief that the universe was created 6000 years ago to be tolerated without opposition? With the plethora of evidence freely available, no one need remain in ignorance, so it’s not surprising that such a ridiculous concept provokes scorn.
Words such as ‘vitriol’ and ‘intolerance’ smack of a victim mentality, and are often used here by apologists who have no argument to offer, but simply intend to engender unwarranted sympathy for the irrationality of religious dogma in an effort to stifle any reasoned debate. In other words, they’d rather the dissenters just shut up – and that is borne out by missnemesis’ statement //What I am surprised at is the complete intolerance of many AB members who feel the need to hijack threads ……there being little or no chance for those who are of a religious persuasion to be able to 'discuss' their beliefs properly.// There’s a simple answer to that, missnemesis, which would absolve you from accusations of committing the very offence you so freely accuse others of committing - intolerance. Discuss religion – and ignore the opposition.
Back to the question. I agree with Zacs and TheBuilder. This sort of preaching achieves precisely the opposite effect to that intended. All these people, including Keyplus, have with their continual proselytising, their penchant for moralising and insulting, their doom-laden prophesies of damnation, and their unwillingness to acknowledge indisputable reality, done their own particular religions – and their own credibility - far more damage than any rational atheist argument could ever hope to achieve.
//But to me, one outpouring of intolerant scorn is pretty much the same as another.//
I don’t understand this comment from jno, nor why it is supported by missnemesis. In discussion on an open forum do they really expect the belief that the universe was created 6000 years ago to be tolerated without opposition? With the plethora of evidence freely available, no one need remain in ignorance, so it’s not surprising that such a ridiculous concept provokes scorn.
Words such as ‘vitriol’ and ‘intolerance’ smack of a victim mentality, and are often used here by apologists who have no argument to offer, but simply intend to engender unwarranted sympathy for the irrationality of religious dogma in an effort to stifle any reasoned debate. In other words, they’d rather the dissenters just shut up – and that is borne out by missnemesis’ statement //What I am surprised at is the complete intolerance of many AB members who feel the need to hijack threads ……there being little or no chance for those who are of a religious persuasion to be able to 'discuss' their beliefs properly.// There’s a simple answer to that, missnemesis, which would absolve you from accusations of committing the very offence you so freely accuse others of committing - intolerance. Discuss religion – and ignore the opposition.
Back to the question. I agree with Zacs and TheBuilder. This sort of preaching achieves precisely the opposite effect to that intended. All these people, including Keyplus, have with their continual proselytising, their penchant for moralising and insulting, their doom-laden prophesies of damnation, and their unwillingness to acknowledge indisputable reality, done their own particular religions – and their own credibility - far more damage than any rational atheist argument could ever hope to achieve.
////Back to the question. I agree with Zacs and TheBuilder. This sort of preaching achieves precisely the opposite effect to that intended. All these people, including Keyplus, have with their continual proselytising, their penchant for moralising and insulting, their doom-laden prophesies of damnation, and their unwillingness to acknowledge indisputable reality, done their own particular religions – and their own credibility - far more damage than any rational atheist argument could ever hope to achieve./////
You are doing exactly the same, so what's the difference?
You are doing exactly the same, so what's the difference?
Rest of the post is what it says. You are going round and round in circles and it will keep on happening to you. Even if I say that you do not have to respond to my this post, you still would. Because it is not in your control. Anyway, by saying "Exactly" I did not agree with you and that is part of your condition that you just imagine.
Keenonhist – Islam was not borrowed or plagiarised from Judaism or Christianity. I am talking about Judaism and Christianity as it is known to the present world. Similarities are for the reasons that Muslims believe that Moses & Jesus (pbut) gave the same message as Muhammad (pbuh). First of all one thing for sure that they never called their message Judaism or Christianity. Had it been the case then Islam would have been known as Muhammadism or Muhammadanism. I know in the West for a limited period these words were used. In fact Muhammad’s message was the continuity of the previous messages. Bible known today has parts of the original message and parts (majority) added by the people who never knew Jesus (pbuh) let alone Moses (pbuh) because he was around centuries before Jesus (pbuh). Now only the parts of the original message are similar to the message in Quran. I will give you one example. If Quran was copied from Bible then why Muhammad (pbuh) left out trinity (which is not in Bible anyway) and resurrection part? These two are the foundation stone of the Christian belief today. It’s not that Quran does not believe in these two ideas but 1400 years ago Quran very strongly opposed these two ideas.
Now I will ask you two question,
1 - If these ideas were there then why Muhammad (pbuh) did not copy these and instead opposed these ideas?
2 – Suppose these two ideas were not there at that time and that might be the reason Muhammad (pbuh) did not copy them. However when these two ideas then become the core of Christian belief?
Now I will ask you two question,
1 - If these ideas were there then why Muhammad (pbuh) did not copy these and instead opposed these ideas?
2 – Suppose these two ideas were not there at that time and that might be the reason Muhammad (pbuh) did not copy them. However when these two ideas then become the core of Christian belief?
i asked someone this the other day on here - whether they thought their attempts to convert people would actually work, and whether it ever had before - got no response of course...
but no, it is a futile thing to do and thats what makes it all the more tedious and somewhat laughable past time for them.
sadly what they fail to realise is that rather than all of us being curious and viewing them as wise and someone worth listening to, we, on the whole, laugh at them, roll our eyes, shake our heads and generally pity them ... and of course some also get angry at them and delight in tearing down their arguments and watching them try to squirm their way round it...
but no, it is a futile thing to do and thats what makes it all the more tedious and somewhat laughable past time for them.
sadly what they fail to realise is that rather than all of us being curious and viewing them as wise and someone worth listening to, we, on the whole, laugh at them, roll our eyes, shake our heads and generally pity them ... and of course some also get angry at them and delight in tearing down their arguments and watching them try to squirm their way round it...
-- answer removed --
Must be confirmation bias Sandy, because I do not see many posts here started to "big up" the benefits or teachings of atheism, principally because there are no teachings of atheism, only an absence of belief in a supernatural entity in the absence of evidence.
I do see a lot of posts proclaiming the benefits of religion, however, and lots of posts claiming a kind of moral or ethical highground for believers.
There are also quite a few posts questioning scripture, or the bible, or asking how believers reconcile some of the logical or internal inconsistencies within the bible or koran.
Now, can you tell me why it is a sin to question religion, and faith, or to rebut some of the more absurd claims of those of faith, or simply to ask for evidence to support some of the wilder claims?
I do see a lot of posts proclaiming the benefits of religion, however, and lots of posts claiming a kind of moral or ethical highground for believers.
There are also quite a few posts questioning scripture, or the bible, or asking how believers reconcile some of the logical or internal inconsistencies within the bible or koran.
Now, can you tell me why it is a sin to question religion, and faith, or to rebut some of the more absurd claims of those of faith, or simply to ask for evidence to support some of the wilder claims?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.