Muslims get therapy after church meet

2011-10-10 12:46

Kuala Lumpur - Islamic authorities will provide counselling to a dozen Malaysian Muslims to "restore their belief and faith" after they attended a community dinner at a church hall, a royal sultan said on Monday.

The case has triggered worries among officials in Muslim-majority Malaysia that some non-Muslims were trying to convert Muslims. Proselytising of Muslims is punishable by prison terms of various lengths in most Malaysian states.

Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, the constitutional ruler of Malaysia's central Selangor state, said Islamic officials who inspected a dinner at a Methodist church hall in early August found "evidence that there were attempts to subvert the faith and belief of Muslims".

The sultan did not elaborate on the evidence or mention Christians in his statement, but said the evidence was "insufficient for further legal actions to be taken".

‘Unauthorised raid’

Church officials had repeatedly denied any proselytisation occurred at the dinner, which they described as a multiethnic gathering to celebrate the work of a community organization that worked with women, children and HIV patients.

Christian leaders had also criticized Islamic state enforcement officials for what they called an unauthorised raid.

Malaysia's state sultans command immense moral clout particularly among Malaysia's ethnic Malay Muslims, who regard them as the top authorities on Islamic issues. Muslims, who comprise nearly two-thirds of the country's 28 million people, are not legally permitted to change religion.

"We command that (Islamic officials) provide counselling to Muslims who were involved in the said dinner, to restore their belief and faith in the religion of Islam," Sultan Sharafuddin said.

Reverend Hermen Shastri, the general secretary of Malaysia's Council of Churches, said the sultan's statement "brings closure to the case".

Rights of minorities ‘not respected’

"No one should speculate or aggravate the situation further," he said.

The sultan added on Monday he was "gravely concerned and extremely offended by the attempts of certain parties to weaken the faith and belief of Muslims".

"We hope that after this, any and all activities ... for the purposes of spreading other religions to Muslims in Selangor must be ceased immediately," he said.

Malaysia's non-Muslims mainly comprise Christians, Buddhists and Hindus, some of whom have complained in recent years that enforcement officials are often overzealous in trying to uphold Islam and fail to respect the rights of minorities.

  • Currie_Mafia - 2011-10-10 13:00

    Muslims,Christians....the 2 covers of the same story book.

      The_Realist - 2011-10-10 13:05

      you can put the jews into the same book too.

      Met - 2011-10-10 13:48

      The ones who serve and worship the trinty of satan, I, me and myself, are full of wisdom here, I notice, In Psalm 37, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, says he laughs at you. I know that as absolute truth because after 30 of thinking(sic) like you ,I fell flat on my face before the God you are mocking. But yet again, He said that this would happen. So, you may not realise it, but you are fulfilling prophecy. Praise the Lord!

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 13:56

      @ Ascendo Tuum - speak against the Bible if you will, but do us a favour and READ it first? Flood - doesn't say they worshipped the wrong god - it says the world was full of unspeakable sin. Doesn't specify what. But it must have been really bad. Worship of false gods came after the flood - pagans started worshipping their ancestors (eg Thor came from Tiras, grandson of Noah) Murdering the first borns - you mean like Pharoah did, or Herod? This may come as a surprise, but God didn't command them to do that... But hey, if you don't like God and His commandments, you can always just deny Him. THAT will make Him go away won't it...

      Currie_Mafia - 2011-10-10 14:32

      ..a man lived inside a huge fish & was spewed out on the sea shore...and this wasn't a parable, it really happened ?!!!

      meelo - 2011-10-10 15:09

      according to the Quraan their is a verse which sais "there is no compulsion in religion" that means its a free choice... so i dont for second believe the first thing i read, there is another side to this story...

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 16:39

      Meelo, so no compulsion in religio heh?? ummm, you failed to mention the death penalty if a Muslim convert from his fairy tale to another fairy tale. Yet no sanction if a man in his 50's marry a 6-year old girl and start to rape her at the age of 9.... "Religiots and Donkeys: A donkey is a simple creature it would follow a carrot on a stick, but it is still capable, even with its most basic of intellect of determining when there is no carrot." -John Kelly Ireland

      meelo - 2011-10-10 17:17

      Delusion please quote the verse that sais so if some Muslims do that they wrong but Islam does not teach that... im waiting....

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-10 19:47

      @Meloo, The Quran in Sura 5:33 says: 5:33 "Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter" In the Hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57: "Whoever change[s] his Islamic religion, then kill him."

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 20:10

      AntiThesis, Trust me - Meelo will convert it into a metaphor or use another trick. Which parts of the Quran / Bible are methapors and which not (according to believers): a) Everything means what it says until advances in knowledge or ethical standards make it no longer tenable to view it literal b) At that point, if it’s incoherent, it’s converted into a “mystery”. c) If it is scientifically disproven, it’s converted into a “metaphor”. d) If it’s morally abhorrent, then: e) it’s “a lesson for another time”, f) or “doesn’t mean what it seems to say”, g) or “is not for us to question”, h) or was never actually “inspired” by some holy poltergeist.

      meelo - 2011-10-10 23:42

      Delusion - what takes preference over hadith ?.... the Quraan right! and the Quraan makes no mention of it, it rather sais "there is no compulsion in religion" Coming back to the Hadith its the same like treason practised today, anyone betraying the government and disclosing info could cost many lives, therefore this was implemented then but is not a mainstream belief by Muslims today. If you knew or studied the conditions they lived in then you would know all this but you dont

      Delusion - 2011-10-11 09:02

      Ahh! I predicted that you are going pull a (predictable) trick here. So the Hadith and the Suran in the Quraan is cr@p? Well I agree nogal. Or parts of it? Or it should be seen in "context" such as mankind's ultimate role model's rape of a 9 yeart old? Or you will tell us which parts are cr@p and which not heh? Refer to my previous posting on how you zeolots change the rules to keep your imaginary friend relevant. We are tired of living in a world with adults that still believe in imaginary beings, we are even more tired of living by the deplorable decisions adults make based on their beliefs in imaginary beings.

  • Mad Hatter - 2011-10-10 13:06

    Sounds a lot like thought and belief policing . Tragically scary .

  • Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 13:17

    "Proselytising of Muslims is punishable by prison terms of various lengths in most Malaysian states." You would be surprised how many countries have "proselytising" as a punishable offence. On Friday I read of a chap in Crete (yes, a European country, that's Greece) who was given a fine + jail term for the same thing. They "spared" him jail but he has to pay the fine. He was Christian and led his friend to Christ, his friend was obviously OK with it but his family was not so laid charges. In other words, freedom of religion exists but freedom of speech does not.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 15:04

      For the guy who gave thumbs-down:

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 07:53

      No Matt, again you are twisting the facts to suit your perspective. The man in question was a Pentecostal evangelical Christian, and since Greece's official church is the Greek Orthodox Church - which is protected by anti-proselytizing laws, the charge - bizarrely - was thus of converting a christian to a christian. You painted a picture of proselytizing being forbidden i.e. the good 'ol gospel is not allowed to be spread by satanic secular laws abolishing freedom of religion. Lies, lies and then some, Matt - and I have most definitely added a thumbs-down to your nonsense.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 08:52

      @ AntiThesis - may I just point out the obvious to you - if you went on holiday to Greece, met a chap who was of religion, you told him there is no God and he believed you; you would be breaking the law and could go to jail. Do you think that is fair?

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 09:21

      Matt, in which case I would have converted this reasonable to chap to what religion exactly? Proselytizing is only applicable to converting someone to a(different or other) religion. As I have also said, this is a completely bizarre and ridiculous case, and a step back for freedom of(from) religion and civil liberties as any laws protecting religion are.

  • Peacock - 2011-10-10 13:20

    They saw the true light and are now being punished. That is how idiotic the islamic religion is.

      Currie_Mafia - 2011-10-10 14:28

      true light..?!! that some kinda energy saving LED ?!!

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-10-10 15:01

      energizer bunny APPROVES!

  • Yoda Goldstein - 2011-10-10 13:22

    Not legally permitted to change religion... What an incredibly sick joke.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 13:49

      Yup and you'd be surprised where the same law applies. Greece!!! And to my knowledge, Israel too - at least that was the case in the 1970s

      trevb - 2011-10-10 16:28

      @ matt Israel is a democracy and you can do as you please < naivity is no excuse for babble

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 08:16

      People, don't confuse Proselytising and Apostasy with one another. Proselytising: Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another. Apostasy is the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. Yoda is talking about Apostasy, which, @Matt, is not illegal in Greece or any western country.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 08:56

      @ Trevb - I mentioned that it at least was the case in the 70s that you were allowed to have a different religion in Israel, but were not allowed to tell anyone about it. I got this from a missionary who went there. That was 40 years ago and I hope it changed. Eish don't take it so personally :-)

  • Brent - 2011-10-10 13:35


  • christopher jonker - 2011-10-10 13:37

    nothing an atheist can possibly say about religion can ever compare to the horrible reality. A fine example of the religious mind at work.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 14:04

      The horrible reality being... Bulgaria pre-1990s - religion banned - "pastors" were secret police agents so if anyone went to one, the police knew who to arrest and execute next. Once made democratic and religion allowed, Bulgaria officially has next to zero atheists (going by stats). Hmm wonder why? China - even today - religion banned, or at least "tolerated" on the surface - most Chinese Christians are underground because they will be executed. During Mao's atheist reign of terror they were up to 15,000 Christian murders a month USSR under Stalin - religion banned, only atheism allowed. Communist regime collapsed so badly during Stalin's time that they HAD to review Communism to prevent mass starvation, and Stalin reluctantly "tolerated" church as from 1945. That didn't help the 60-100 million murdered people under his regime, many of whom killed for their belief in a god. Add the former East Bloc - Albania (notoriously bad), Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, DDR et al - add Cuba (recently religion was allowed there and just about all people flocked to church) - add North Korea TO THIS DAY... Indeed, whatever you say about religion can never compare to the horrible reality. When John Lennon sang "Imagine", he was either blissfully ignorant (though I doubt that, listen to Revelution, he KNEW) or he was trying to mislead people that belief in God equals death.

      Met - 2011-10-10 14:19

      Today there are more than a 100 million christians who belong to the house churches- not the ones sanctioned by the state.Their Bibles contain no Book of Revelation and is full of compromise. Under Mao, religion was brutally persecuted, but the underground church- the real and living church- did not only survive, but flourished

      daaivark - 2011-10-10 14:20

      Matt: Now I have heard everything. John Lennon was "trying to mislead people that belief in God equals death"??? Are you completely out of your mind. He was interested in promoting world peace. Deliberations about God played very little part in his thinking.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 14:30

      @ Daaivark - heard the lyrics lately? Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try No hell below us, above us only sky (it's obvious what his religious worldview is) Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too (all he had to do was look at the East Bloc - virtually no borders within the East Bloc/Russia if you were a resident of those countries. And... no religion?) In a 1980 interview with David Sheff for Playboy magazine, Lennon remarks on the message of "Imagine": Sheff: On a new album, you close with "Hard Times Are Over (For a While)". Why? Lennon: It's not a new message: "Give Peace a Chance"—we're not being unreasonable. Just saying "give it a chance." With "Imagine" we're asking, "can you imagine a world without countries or religions?" It's the same message over and over. And it's positive. CLEARLY Lennon sung of a world without religion. So again, either he was ignorant of the world around him in those days; or he did know and misled those who listened to the song. But as he sung of dislike for Chairman Mao in Revolution (1968), could he really have been that dumb that he didn't know about what was happening in China? I doubt it.

      Met - 2011-10-10 14:31

      Daaivark- You are the one who is being misled, along with John Lennon. Many of the Beatles songs were written by Alistair Crowley, a self proclaimed satanist. He believed in God, but did not follow Him. He made a deliberate and conscious choice to worship satan.

      Coconut - 2011-10-10 14:33

      Matt behoort sielkundige behandeling te ontvang, hy't toetaal sy varkies verloor.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 14:37

      @ Met - I can recommend you "Breakthrough" by Rudi Lack - see what he had to go through to spread the Good News in atheist countries + areas - stunning book! I didn't know the songs were written by Crowley - but the album cover of "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" definitely has Crowley on there (back row, 3-4 places from the left, bald old guy). Those people on the cover were "people which inspired them". Lennon also referred to Jesus as a bastard, claimed the Beatles were bigger than God... oh how the mighty fell! BTW, mentioning Crowley, the chap who wrote the Satanic Bible, he inspired Anton LaVey, who founded the first Church of Satan in an old hotel on California Road - yes, you know where I'm going with this. Eagles - Hotel California. Original LP inner sleeve has the inside of the "church" with LaVey looking down on it. Eagles have stated they are Satanists in interviews. Be careful what one listens to...

      daaivark - 2011-10-10 15:04

      COntext people. The remark about being "bigger than Jesus" was specifically in response to a question about their marketing impact. This has been laid out time after time, and is clear from the interview itself. Yes I have read the lyrics, though not lately as I am "blessed' with an excellent musical memory. We differ in our interpretation of things. As I have said in previous comments to you, there are many people (myself included) for whom discussions about the existence of heaven and hell are irrelevant in being good people. It is all very well feeling all warm and snug about being assured of a place in heaven whilst watching the world starve. Do not forget this was at the time of the famine in Bangladesh - something the Christian West chose to ignore. So Crowley appears on Sgt Pepper's cover. So what. The average Joe didn't know or care and it is common knowledge that he was very fashionable at the time. Not many actually took the lunatic seriously. The Eagles are NOT John Lennon. And don't tell me about Bulgaria again, please.

      christopher jonker - 2011-10-10 15:13

      the pious always trot out the same arguments, although Hitler is now left out, as his Christianity, warped though it was, is now common knowledge. the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century killed millions because ideology was forced onto society- a change enforced in this world in order to bring about a future utopia. sound familiar? swopping one delusion for another and relentlessly enforcing it to the ruin of all is hardly atheism. i am not sure what you are trying to say exactly by inserting various different issues seemingly at random- what's John Lennon got to do with it? he was a silly man, and for the record i really hate that song, it describes a communist utopia it would be worth dying to avoid. i am of course well aware that people believe and want to believe, but that doesnt make any of it true does it? The horrible reality i mentioned is the utter insanity of religious beliefs and the absolute surety of the faithful. if you believe insane things, you will commit insane acts. Moaist communism was very very far from being rational, and the faithful committed unspeakable acts in its name, not in the name of atheism. i am of course well aware that people believe and want to believe, but that doesnt make any of it true does it? as an atheist, i dont believe in god because he just doesnt seem to exist, and his followers believe crazy and often horifying things. thats it.

  • Badballie - 2011-10-10 13:38

    Religion is man made, their is not one God, even the Bible speaks of Gods, and Gods jealousy of other Gods. Mankind has a choice either give up religion or give up the continuance of the human race, Religion will be the death of us all.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 13:47

      Yes, the Bible speaks of gods... ONE GOD + a whole bunch of statues that the ungodly worshipped. Funny too how, when tested, they did nothing. Enjoy atheism... USSR (enforced atheism), 60-100 million deaths in Stalin's 31 years of rule - China (enforced atheism), 60-70 million deaths under Mao's 27 years of rule. 170 million deaths between 1923-1976 = 53 years. But hey, RELIGION is the death of us all... yes, the religion of atheism.

      Currie_Mafia - 2011-10-10 14:25

      We need more Hare Krshna temples around...Now there's a peaceful religion.

      Coconut - 2011-10-10 14:28

      @ Matt :-) They were not killed because of atheism but because of political idealism, in the same way that Hitler did not order the holocaust because of his vegetarianism or his belief in a god. You are being dishonest in your arguments because you are desperate.

      JConaPopsickle - 2011-10-10 14:33

      Sigh Matt. Atheism is not a religion, it is merely the lack of belief in a god. FYI Hitler was religious, go read his book Mein Kampf, as was Stalin (he was in a Catholic school and the Catholic church officially backed him in 1943)not that their actions makes all Christians bad. By all means defend your religion but don't lie and be dishonest about it.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 14:45

      @ Coconut - desperate? Stalin WAS a believer (Georgian Orthodox), read Darwin and went atheist. He said that killing a million people was like mowing the lawn, which is EXACTLY CORRECT according to the atheistical worldview based on the evolution theory. And Mao - while millions were massacred, they would chant "religion is poison!". Or try getting into Bulgaria before the 1990s, they would virtually dismantle your whole car at the borderpost just in case you're hiding a Bible in there... @ Popsicle - oh you'd better evaluate better. Humanism IS a religion, just read the Humanist Manifesto. As for Atheism, just look at the people who write on this site! It's not good enough to reject the existence of a deity, but they say with full absolution that there's no God. They proclaim anyone who believes in one to be stupid. That is religious zeal that many of us don't even have! As for it not being religion; simple question. Do you KNOW there's no God (in which case you know 100% of everything that ever was, is, will be)? No. You BELIEVE there is no God. Yup - religious worldview. If that's the view you want to have, that's your choice, but don't be deceitful and make it an issue of "science v religion" or "rationality v religion". God/no God are religious beliefs. You have to believe in either. @ Currie - peaceful se voet. Just this Friday I read 4 articles from India of violent Hindu persecution of Christians. I didn't expect that at all but yup...

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 14:59

      @ Currie - Hinduism a peaceful religion...

      Met - 2011-10-10 15:10

      Coconut- Marx wrote that "religion" was the opium of the people. They were killed for their fath, believe me. And it is happening today stil. Alice Baile, regarded as the mother of the New Age Movement( Many ways to get to heaven) has said that if Christians do not compromise, as millions have already done, they should be "done away with" Her publishing company was Lucis( after Lucifer) Press Today , Oprah Wynfrey, is regarded as the "high priestess" of the New age "church"

      JConaPopsickle - 2011-10-10 15:27

      @ Matt So what god does atheism worship? None. Calling atheism a religion is like calling not playing rugby,soccer or tennis a sport, not collecting stamps a hobby, bald a hair colour. It merely means lack of faith. Seriously you didn't know this? I say with certainty based on the balance of evidence there is no god just as I say the is no flying pink magical unicorns even though I haven't scoured the earth searching for unicorns. I don't come to my conclusions based on faith, I come to it based on the balance of evidence. Bring some evidence of god and I will reevaluate my opinion on the whole matter. I would be irrational if I didn't. Science couldn't give a toss about religion, it just goes about trying to explain the world and our religious friends goes ballistic as soon as the window for a god narrows. You seem to have some experience in being a Christian apologist.

      Coconut - 2011-10-10 16:22

      Matt says killing a million people is "according to the atheistical worldview of evolutionary theory". Fark, this guy's pathology is in a league of it's own.

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 16:25

      Logic 101: - By Matt a) Lenin was an athiest b) Lenin was a mass murderer Conclusion: Atheism = genocide (Copyright: Matt) Matt is (always) quiet about a certain mass murderer champion human rights abuser right on our doorstep, who happened to be a devout practicing sincere Catholic religiot. Neither will Matt(ever) mention the horrific genocides committed in the name of his imaginary friend (Crusades and Jihads spanning over centuries) You see, it does not really fit in well with his train of thought. I call it religiotic dishonesty

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 16:47

      Another treasure from Matt: a) Lenin read Darwin b) Lenin committed genocide Conclusion: Reading Darwin makes people genocidal (Copyright: Matt) Farkin sharp heh?

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 16:57

      While we are having fun: Matt, remind us about the evidence for the universe which is some 6000 years old. Yip that is what he believes...

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 09:06

      If I were as deluded and stupid as you make me out to be, why take great effort to try and ridicule me? "Conclusion: Reading Darwin makes people genocidal (Copyright: Matt)" Thank you, I appreciate the copyright. And yes that is true. But since your holy Wikipedia or Talkorigins doesn't tell you that, it must obviously be my misconception. @ Popsicle - I read Mein Kampf, every 626 pages of it. They guy went from fighting for Jewish rights as a teenager to outright hatred of them with a missing gap in-between. He often, in the book and in speeches, stressed that the "wrong people" should be prevented from breeding; in Mein Kampf he spoke of higher and lower races (which comes straight from Darwin). He also considered Christianity to be "the biggest lie that ever existed". He sought to make evolution the only way in Nazi Germany (quoted in 1947 by Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist). But having had this debate before, I am also aware of atheist sites which list "reasons why Hitler was Christian" and within seconds of reading saw where they went wrong. Crusades, Jihads... I don't know the figures but surely if you add up all wars throughout history, you wouldn't even come close to the amount of deaths Stalin caused in just 20 years. Let alone the others! Atheism not a religion? You BELIEVE there is no God. You BELIEVE you evolved from nothing 4 billion years ago. You BELIEVE animals to be your relatives. In 6000 years that has never been observed - hence, RELIGION.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 09:16

      Quotes - NOT from Christians/Creationists - please do enjoy :-) Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects FAITH as much as objective truth. Burbidge, G., 1992. Why only one big bang? Scientific American, 266(2):96. ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Reference Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947. ‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’ Reference 1.Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127–128, 1977. “The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.” Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 284.

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 09:48

      Matt, I have confirmed but all your quotes as originating from either Creation Ministries or Conservapedia. You are basically postulating that evolution - or the theory, not even the mechanism, is responsible for all evil, racism, fascism and other despotism. Social-darwinism is not even recognized as a term anymore. Your bigotry and religious dishonesty smacks of desperation.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 10:06

      @ AntiThesis - It doesn't matter where they came from, they are true quotes. Now you're bordering on ad-hominem. Quotes don't support your ideas so attack the source! Hardly a way to win a debate. ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’ Reference Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999. All together now... RELIGION!!! Just look at real life. Darwinism is an unquestionable belief and anyone who dares challenge it is persecuted. Hundreds of professors around the world have been fired, demoted, blacklisted from science journals because they DARED to question the holy Darwinian theory. Not even suggesting creation or God, merely suggesting maybe Darwin was wrong. Last case I heard of was a few weeks ago, Michael Reiss (though it happened 3 years ago). Evolutionist who dared suggest that maybe they should also teach creation/ID next to evolution despite him believing in evolution outright. Whoops, that's a no-no... forced to resign. Yes, call US the intolerant bigots if you will... wake up, smell the coffee and see what is REALLY happening in the world.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 10:10

      Dawkins disagrees BTW :-) I still can't believe the Apostle of Atheism said this about the ones he loves to hate: Richard Dawkins “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.” Reference: from Ruth Gledhill, Scandal and schism leave Christians praying for a ‘new Reformation’, The Times (UK), 2 April 2010. And this one, well we knew this already but just to re-iterate to the "Romans 1:22-25'ers" among us: ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’ Reference: ‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 10:34

      Matt those sources can hardly seen as unbaised - even you have to admit that, and are more often than not responsible for quoting out of context. Quotes are a dime a dozen, and doesn't prove anything - stick to the facts, its much more refreshing and constructive. Next you will be quoting scripture at me. You obviously don't understand the reason why science and religion doesn't mix, but luckily the scientific community doesn't take kindly to this sort of incroachment. Can you imagine if every scientist tried to wove their religious beliefs into scientific theory?? Michael Reiss deserved nothing less for this exact reason, you might feel afronted by this, but the collective sense of mankind gives a sigh of relief at this. I can't remember that Darwinism is a scientific field again?

      Caramel85 - 2011-10-11 11:51

      @AntiThesis Let me try to explain something to you and the likes of Delusion et al. In Christianity - the belief is that there is a God (the God of the Bible) who according to the Bible (in Genesis), created the universe and life etc., which forms the foundation of the Christian worldview. In atheism, the belief is that there is no God(s) and life in effect created itself without Divine guidance of any kind whatsoever. The foundation of atheism today is the modern evolutionary theory/neoDarwinism. IF you believe that we are nothing more than the product of time and chance, there is no such thing as objective morality. If, as an atheist, you decide that killing/stealing etc. is OK, there is nothing under your belief system to stop you. Your actions would not be inconsistent with your worldview. If a person, professing to be a Christian, were to go out and kill/steal/rape etc. then they would be acting contrary to their professed beliefs, and fellow Christians would condemn these actions as being inconsistent with a Christian worldview. While it is not impossible for athiests to have morals and be "good people", and no one is saying that atheists can't be moral (I know many athiests who are nice, moral people), what I am saying (and perhaps Matt will agree) is that their morality does not come from atheist roots. The morals of atheists/agnostics today must come from society, which inherited its moral values from stronger Christian influences in the past.

      daaivark - 2011-10-11 12:13

      Caramel85: You say, amongst other things: "The morals of atheists/agnostics today must come from society, which inherited its moral values from stronger Christian influences in the past." That is simply NOT a logical inference to make. (What on earth are "atheist roots" anyway?) If one's morality does not "come from atheist roots", the only other alternative is NOT that they come from "stronger Christian influences. One can try to deal with ethical or moral considerations by eliminating all preconditioned dogmatic thinking and looking at things from a completely rational perspective: What does this or that action contribute toward the betterment of mankind, or toward an ethical life which is good for all those around one. One should not need doctrine and dogma to tell one what is right and what is wrong. If you think about it, rationale makes it clear what behaviour is good for mankind and what is not. All this religious debate is just divisive and often self-righteous.

      Delusion - 2011-10-11 13:59

      Matt, we believe nothing. We form (informed) opinions when evidence backs it up. But unlike you, we are not married to these opinions. We have no holy fragile cows to protect. Our opinions are well supported by theory and evidence; have been experimentally verified and a generation of smart people have tried their best to falsify it - and failed. That is a good reason to form an opinion heh? Faith is the license one grants himself to believe in something which has no supporting evidence. If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith You can convince me to your views with ease: a) Find any evidence for the supernatural, and I am open for more... b) Find one hominid fossil in the same stratum as we find dinosaurs. c) Find one rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian stratum, etc. and I will drop evolution. Science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything.. Faith is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing. And religion is indeed the desperate pathetic attempt of believers to make their god of the gaps fit into reality.

      daaivark - 2011-10-11 14:15

      Matt: You ask: "If I were as deluded and stupid as you make me out to be, why take great effort to try and ridicule me?" That's easy to answer... Because you are so arrogantly insistent that YOURS is the only worthwhile point of view. That is just too arrogant to go unchallenged. And, quite frankly, it amuses me to see you go through your paces. You and a few others. Mel is quite incredible in her ability to twist logic, making the most outrageous statements in such clever language that it almost LOOKS rational. One has to admire that. And of course your tenacity is both admirable and entertaining.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 14:16

      @ Delusion - likewise, how about some evidence that everything came from nothing 20 billion years ago? Because that's the start of the whole package - an "infinitesimal region" of 1-trillionth the diameter of an atom. Overcome various scientific laws in the process. We believe "in the beginning God" and you believe "in the beginning dirt". Again, who cares where one gets the quotes from - I don't see you showing a non-biased source proving that those quotes are misconstrued or plain false. Alternatively, get the references I listed, read around them to get a bigger picture, and show us where they are wrong. As for the stratum, you assume (evolution, big bang et al are mostly based on assumption) that the layers formed in a given order and a given period. Dates are based not on scientifically solid dating methods (another debate issue) and doesn't take into account that in water (eg FLOOD) many layers can form simultaneously. Nor that certain animals (now fossils) would group in a water-scenario by mass or weight, which you'd interpret as older/younger. Anyway, know this - till 2005 I was outright atheist and had endured evolution et al throughout my education; and grew up in a country where culture emphasises logic. And I still found the Lord and became Christian. Plenty debates to be had but rest assured that besides faith there is plenty logic. You may also want to take note of Carbon85's words - she's a very intelligent person.

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 14:25

      Caramel85, Let me start of by saying that that your explanation is weak at the very least if not extremely repetitive, and very presumptuous. For you the natural or defacto position of everything is god. From there your thinking perpetuates. You are thus saying that if morality is not divinely instilled it does not exist or exists very abstractly and relatively in the ether of human consciousness somewhere. For you god is the only think that keeps people from behaving immorally - which actually means that your gods morality has failed this world horribly. You are making several erroneous and horrible presumptions in your premise. Religion has no doubt tried to monopolize morality and morals, but the truth is this notion exists only somewhere in the religious doctrine and scripture. Philosophers were debating and philosophizing about morality, ethics and leading a productive life long before the advent of theism or without the bounds of religion. Read some Plato, Aristotle and Confucius if you dont believe me. Even so, the greatest philanthropists and welfare and charity organizations of our time is secular, not religious, doing good for the sake of it, not for some eternal reward, or because it is commanded in some little piece of scripture. Morality that arrives from necessity is far superior to those derived from theism and religion. continued........

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 14:26

      @ Delusion - if evolution were proven to be factual beyond doubt (newsflash: it still hasn't), then people of all religions would have given up even debating the issue. Yet it is still a heavily topic, as it has been for the past 2500 years (check Epicurus of ancient Greece). So as you ask for evidence, the question can be reversed: * prove that 20 billion years ago, nothing exploded and here we are * prove that it's possible that we evolved from a rock (4.4bya - "it rained on the rocks for millions of years" 3.9bya primordial soup - bacteria "emerged", then evolution as per FARM) * Show us an organism that's busy changing from one KIND to another (adaptation has been observed, nobody argues with that - but proof of evolution requires a kind changing into another kind, else the whole model falls flat) But though I've been in debates, sometimes for a whole week - one thing is certain. I'll never agree with the atheistical, evolutionary view - you'll never agree with the theistical, creationist view. There is 1 difference though. If there was solid scientific evidence for your way, there would be no debate anymore. If there is evidence for our way, it will just be denied and denounced. The more I see evidence, the more I see the "na na I can't hear you" mentality. A whole 2000 years of my home country's history denied just because written accounts of pagans who had never read Genesis prove Genesis geneaology + flood to be true. Clearly certain people DO NOT WANT evidence. Bye

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 14:26

      Morality derived from secular humanism and welfare of all beings is also not conditional as is the case in religion. The morality as it exists in society is very much a function of upbringing, role models, examples and various other factors and influences, and is ultimately governed by natural law(judicial) as it evolved since Aristotle and premised by much earlier cultures. Humans have a natural tendency for compassion and love and coupled with our strong social existence, we become extremely moral creatures, striving for a harmonious existence. The notion that morality exists purely because of divine decree is simply absurd and irretrievable. The summation of my point would your answer to the following question: If it becomes apparent that God does not exist, would you still behave in a moral and ethical way?

      Caramel85 - 2011-10-11 14:53

      Hi daaivark, OK let me clarify for you, by atheistic roots I mean an atheistic worldview or belief system. Since, according to this worldview, we are nothing but the product of time and chance, there can be no objective foundation for moral absolutes. How would you, under an atheistic worldview, define what is morally right and what is wrong? It comes down to a subjective opinion. Under this system, we decide what is right and wrong, certain other people may decide differently about this, and there is no standard to appeal to should we disagree. The likes of Hitler and Stalin decided that it was morally OK to eliminate certain people. What would you say to them, what could you appeal to, to justify your belief that the killing of millions of innocent people was wrong? That Western society has predominantly Christian roots is undeniable. The fact that much of the western world is becoming increasingly secular is also without question. The laws and general moral beliefs of western society today are "left overs" of this Christian influence. Why, under atheism/evolutionary beliefs, should we try to behave in a way that benefits mankind and does no harm to others? Why should we consider the good of others when evolution is about the struggle for survival? If someone does not want to follow what you consider to be ethical behaviour, what would you say to them to convince them that they should? I'm not trying to be cute here, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on this.

      daaivark - 2011-10-11 15:12

      Caramel: If you were genuinely interested in my take, then I suggest that you read my comment again, as I deal with the very issues you raise and am loathe to just repeat a rational argument. But let's take issue on a few things: You state (as if it is true): "Western society has predominantly Christian roots is undeniable?" With respect, that is utter garbage. Western society as we know it has roots going back way before Christianity. Ancient Greek philosophers formulated many of the notions we still use (including that of democracy, so dear to us Westerners). Christianity enterred the picture very late in terms of world history. I am personally more influenced by Eastern thought than anything emanating from Christian dogma. Sure, I was brought up in a so-called "Christian" home by methodist parents and my brother later embraced Catholicism and is now a priest. I however left the unbrella of the church at age 14 and found my way elsewhere.

      daaivark - 2011-10-11 15:18

      Then you say: "Why should we consider the good of others when evolution is about the struggle for survival?" Not a reasonable question, as the notion of evolution is a lot less simplistic than mere survival of the fittest. It is more about how species develop and "mutate" (for want of a better word) to survive in their environment which is also constantly changing. So that's a complete red herring. In any case, as I have frequently remarked to Matt, I am less interested in these specifics than I am insistent that debating the existence or not of God is unimportant. One takes lessons from history, from this or that philosophy or religion (ALL have their points of interest) and one then makes decisions accordingly. I WILL NEVER accept the "big stick" and "dangled carrot" notion offered by Christian notions of hell and heaven. I don't behave in such and such a manner in order to attain a reward. That is just plain selfish. I try to live in a manner which best serves the people with whom I live. And if your notion of religion challenges that, well, I have no more to say. And please, don't rake up the old Hitler and Stalin bugbears, they're about as relevant to this discussion as spoiled eggs are. See my comments on learning lessons from history. Only a complete nincompoop would assert that they were decent people.

      Caramel85 - 2011-10-11 16:18

      Hi AntiThesis, Firstly, let me say that I am a Christian, so I do not support/defend religion in general, only Christianity. It seems you don't understand and/or don't read my comments properly. As I said before, NO ONE is saying that atheists cannot be moral, or are all evil, unethical etc. My point is NOT that one must belong to a religion to possess morals and ethics, simply that there is no basis for moral behaviour within an atheistic evolutionary scenario. Please see my response to daaivark as well, and perhaps share your thoughts on this. As a Christian, I follow the Bible's teaching on morality. It is very clear, love your neighbour as yourself, do not seek revenge or repay evil with evil. The morality we are taught to show is not limited only to Christians, nor is it a requirement for salvation. Rather, for Christians kindness and compassion are motivated by love and not fear or a sense of duty/obligation. Christians are not limited to showing charity through officially Christian organisations, and many donate to secular charities - have you considered this? I do very much doubt that humans are naturally inclined towards being nice to one another, one does not need to look very hard to see that this is the case. You say "your gods morality has failed this world horribly" but then say that "humans have a natural tendency towards compassion and love" - so which is it? continued...

      Caramel85 - 2011-10-11 16:28

      Finally, your question is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. I have no doubts about and am entirely satisfied intellectually with my beliefs. However, for an answer you might consider those who have gone from professing Christian to atheist due to evolutionary teachings. While I would imagine most maintain a decent enough level of ethics and morality, some do not, e.g. Hitler and Stalin.

      Caramel85 - 2011-10-11 21:22

      Hi daaivark, I was referring to morality/ethical values of modern western society. Sure, western society has roots that pre-date Christianity (obviously) but for a very long time much of Europe, Australia, the U.S.A, even S.A were predominantly Christian nations and as such Christian beliefs and values have had a larger influence on society, as opposed to the influence of Greek philosophy or Islam or whatever other religion/philosophy. I understand evolution as it's taught quite well, and I believe you miss the point of what I was trying to say. I was not trying to debate whether or not evolution is true. I was asking you to consider the basis for morality and ethics can be, presuming that atheism/naturalism is true. I think I made that clear. From what you say, it appears that you have a distorted idea of what the Bible teaches. Salvation is simply by faith, not by seeking to earn a spot in heaven by doing good deeds. Christian kindness and compassion are motivated out of love and gratitude for what we were given, not a need to earn extra brownie points. But, you have decided that Christianity is not for you, that is your choice and as long as it satisfies you then good and well. Whatever philosophy you practice, I commend you for trying to live to what appears to be a high standard of ethics. Of course, it's very likely that no one would say that Hitler and Stalin et al were nice people. I only look at what they believed and why, in order to understand their actions.

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-12 07:27

      I have posted responses in the main thread of this comments, because this one is getting extremely long:)

  • chris. - 2011-10-10 13:42

    Well it is only the mid 1400's on the Islamic calendar, you're just in time to witness the second inquisition.... Any religion that forces itself on the population the way christianity did and Islam now does is something to fear.

  • Frank - 2011-10-10 13:50

    So they need therapy and counselling from one dinner? I can't imagine what type of damage prolonged exposure to "Brainwashing Methodists" would have to the Islamic Faith. What happened in that meeting?

  • Cristina - 2011-10-10 13:57

    What a joke!!!...

  • nadinejudith.lotter - 2011-10-10 13:58

    Don't speak of things you know nothing about.Rather listen and see.God is in everything

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 16:59

      Which one? We have created some 2800 gods to date?

  • Currie_Mafia - 2011-10-10 14:22

    Met, the Trinity of Satan....Islam,Judaism & Christianity...These 3 religions have caused more deaths worldwide than any other plague,disease or war.... Keep an open mind, an open heart & start at the beginning.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-10 14:49

      Your idea of an open mind is to call the world's 3 largest religions satanic. How clever and open-minded of you... chop!

      Met - 2011-10-10 15:13

      You must go and read what Jesus said about "religion" when he spoke to the Pharisees. He hated it

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 17:15

      You must go up and read what Alice in Wonderland said about the "full moon" when she spoke to the cats in her room. They hated it. Would my mythical cr@p be more or less relevant that yours? If so, why?

  • BlackbootJack - 2011-10-10 14:55

    Muslims leaders around the world are afraid that if their sheep get a view of another religion...any religion...they will leave Islam. And why not...Islam is nothing but a blood thirsty cult trying to convert the entire world in submission to Allah the moon god. Don't believe me? just look at Africa, The UK...France and most of Europe. Open your eyes people!!! When you debate on Gods you are missing the entire point of this article!!

  • Realist72 - 2011-10-10 15:56

    Well well.. The usual suspects. Somehow Christianity always bears the brunt of the scolding atheist attacks. No-one need to fear true Christians (believers in Jesus Christ and HIS teachings) yet many (if not most) bashes these Christians and their faith, yet turns a blind eye to the religion/system that breeds hatred and intolerance. Direct your attacks at ISLAM - religion of Satan - and leave the real religion of peace and love alone.

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 17:03

      What? Who can possibly have a problem with the ulimate role model for mankind : a man in his 50s who married a 6-year girl and started to rape her at the age of 9? We sould NEVER mention this. it is disrespectful. " Man created god in his own image - which is why he's obsessed with sex, violent and irrationally vengeful, fails to listen to even the simplest instructions, completely unreliable and never there when you need him"-- Simon Oliver

      Realist72 - 2011-10-10 23:01

      @Delusion: You are talking about Islam right ? I kind of lost you at the "What?" section of your reply ...

  • Pueta - 2011-10-10 16:49

    There is only one God, HE IS the creator of the heavens and the earth and the whole universe. He is just, rightous,holy and King. HE IS WHO HE IS YAWHE HE LIVES FOR EVER AND HE IS INCONTROLL. HIS WAYS ARE PERFERCT AND RIGHT. HE RULES WITH GRACE,LOVE AND MERCY FROM EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING. Blespheming won't help any situation because He is the source of peace,love and all that is rightous for HE IS THE STANDARD OF LIVING.There is only one truth that He reigns with or without our acknowledgement of who He is. For befor creation He was, today He is still God, tomorrow and years to come HE IS.God wants everyone to be reconciled to Him for He created us for Him not to punish us but to fellowship with Him in worship and praise for HE IS WORTHY.Through Jesus Christ His Son we are able to know Him personally as both God and Father. Open your hearts to Jesus for He is ready to recieve you no matter where you are from, what you did, what kind of family you've been raised in. God is a respector of man (people) He loves equally and forgives equally and judges all with the same standard.

      Delusion - 2011-10-10 17:09

      A slightly different take on the same dude: You believe in an almighty invisible deity that impregnated an unconsenting virgin so he could be born as his own son to go forth on a suicide mission to save his creations from himself hundreds of years after he tried to get every living animal species on earth into a single boat in order to commit genocide all because a naked rib-woman ate a magic fruit after she was convinced to do so by a talking snake. You might one day find out that (too late though) that Zeus, Thor, Apollo or Ra (or any of the some 2800 gods we have invented thus far) might be the m@@r in because you followed the "false Christian religions" - be warned....

      The_Realist - 2011-10-10 17:31

      Pueta, take a read here... I think the 'beauty' of religion is no-one can prove or disprove the promises / hype. every religious group is CERTAIN that their version & beliefs are absolutely the correct beliefs. if that is so, then every other religion must be the incorrect religion.

      Christopher - 2011-10-10 19:10

      easy with the caps lock, i don't have bifocals.

  • Messenger - 2011-10-10 20:11

    Haha! This is so funny! Consider the opposite: Christians would not need therapy, because we know that Islam is false as Jesus and Paul warned us. Take for example Paul's warning in Galatians 1:6-9, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." "But though we, or an angel from heaven (JIBRIL), preach any other gospel (ISLAM) unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man (MUHAMMAD) preach any other gospel (ISLAM) unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 07:42

      You KNOW Islam is false?? But Islam knows Christianity is false, and their book warns about the same dangers as your book?? Cant you see the complete non-sequitur and irony here? All religions knows all other religions is false, because their divine manual tells them so?? Its a comical cosmic tug-of-war from which no victor can ever emerge.

      daaivark - 2011-10-12 07:37

      Messenger, ALthough I enjoy and appreciate the discussion I was having with Caramel, who seems to be able to grasp that other value systems, although they might not be for him (or her), do indeed have value to those who follow them, your incredily narrow isolated view just makes me laugh.

  • Ian - 2011-10-10 20:27

    @delusion. It's very easy to string together a load of nonsense-sounding extracts. It would be better to spend a few years actually learning how to interpret the writings. Especially the context in which the Old Testament was written.

      Delusion - 2011-10-11 09:08

      Yip, the " nonsense-sounding extracts" are those ones you personally dont like or dont agree with. and yes, it is not nice to have your delusional bubble pricked. Sorry! Here is another irritant: "I am tired of living in a world with adults that still believe in imaginary beings, I am even more tired of living by the decisions adults make based on their beliefs in imaginary beings."-- Carrie Larson

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 09:19

      @ Ian - fear not, Mr Delusion is but a practising Atheist. Without the religious belief that he evolved from a rock, he has nothing left in his worldview. ‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-11 10:22

      Matt, maybe some of the nonsense you are postulating would not be so ridiculous if biological evolution has been disproven and published as such in scientific journals and discarded by a whole fraternity of scientific disciplines and also have not spawned and confirmed as many other scientific fields, which has provided indisputable proof and various other concrete advancements and progress, especially in the medical sciences. As soon as something(anything) comes to light, whether it be scientific, philosophical or social, which doesn't align with your(religious) bigotrous and dogmatic zeal, this principle is from satan, a lie, engineered by evil agents and used by despots to further their secret desires to replace christianity or take over the world. Not everything in this world revolves around YOUR religion, and not every premise in this world relates or tries to replace christianity or nullify your worldview. There is a whole wide world outside your bible-study-group or religious tribe, and it doesn't really give a damn about what YOU believe will happen to us after death or what supernatural fictitious deity owns YOUR soul or wants you to worship it. Your nonsense is really getting repetitive and smacks of utter desperation.

      Matt :-) - 2011-10-11 14:35

      @ AntiThesis - using science journals sounds clever but understand this. Anyone who differs even slightly from Darwinian evolution + Big Bang + geologic column is BANNED from writing science journals. Plenty of cases where people, even evolutionists, were blacklisted from writing them just because it was discovered they dared question it, let alone bring ID/Creation/God into the equation. So, using science journals as an authority is akin to a survy by a communist report stating that 100% of people support communism (ie nobody would say "no" would they) But you do throw the term "bigotrous" quite easily. Above issue is clear bigotry. So is only allowing evolution taught in schools as the only possible option. So are certain humanists/atheists making disgusting statements like "religion must be expunged" or "people who pray are mentally dysfunctional" (you can tell I've had experience in such debates). How dumb must one be to shout "bigot, have an open mind" when one's having an open mind requires cursing all other views but one's own? But please carry on making accusations, please let those who insult carry on insulting; ad hominem just shows one's lack of ability to present challenging arguments. Interesting too that so far all "evidence" presented to me by News24 commentators have been evidence of adaptation within kind - microevolution - which nobody disputes. It does not magically make that evidence that the kind changes into another kind... Bye.

      qwasi - 2011-10-11 15:51

      Reading some of these arguments is painful. It seems clear to me that Matt is not an idiot, but some of his points make me want to bang my head against a wall. Such a clear example of confirmation bias - trusting and believing only sources which agree with his preconceived viewpoint. No one has ever been banned from writing in scientific journals for having differing viewpoints from Darwinian evolution. If anything they have suffered blows to their scientific credibility by not following scientific procedure and being intellectually dishonest. The process of peer-review journalism is way too transparent to simply ban someone for having a differing viewpoint. Science is far more humble than any religion and there are many cases in the past where scientific consensus has completely shifted based on new evidence. Dare I say if evolution by natural selection was disproved (which will not happen, it is an astounding and remarkably complete theory) the scientific consensus would swiftly shift. I'm not even going to start rebutting your objections against evolution because that would be a waste of time. Your moral and scientific objections are simply ridiculous and it's glaringly obvious you know very little about the science and mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution. You sound like a deluded Kent Hovind/Ray Comfort fanboy.

      Delusion - 2011-10-11 22:10

      Matt, as mentioned before, the evidence for common descent is consistent and cumulative. Over 200 000 peer reviewed research articles to date. And NOT ONE, yes not one disproving it to date. Do you have scientific evidence that disproves common descent? If so share it. If not not - you have wasted a lot of time here...

  • Newsferret - 2011-10-10 20:39

    Nothing wrong converting non-Muslim to becoming Muslims but the other way round is evil. What intolerance and they expect us to respect them and their selfish stone age customs.

  • Lauren Damas-Torres - 2011-10-10 20:40

    no amount of therapy will ever make muslims normal. they'll always be savages

  • JohnPicarra - 2011-10-11 00:18

    Today was The Battle of Tours, 732, Charles Martel stopped the muslim invasion of Europe. Khalid Yahya Blankinship argued the military defeat at Tours was 1 of the failures that contributed to the decline of the Umayyad caliphate: "Stretching from Morocco to China, the U. C. based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad—armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling U. dynasty in 750 AD. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the 1 time the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond. These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours."

  • seahorse - 2011-10-11 02:30


  • seahorse - 2011-10-11 03:14

    JAIS VS DUMC.......SELANGOR........H...JAIS..A..DUMC.....0/1 RESULT 0/0 .................REFEREE JAIS....LINESMEN.MUIS.....TIME DURATION SAUDI TIME........

  • AJ2 - 2011-10-11 10:29

    OK, that settles that, I've officially read it all now.

  • seahorse - 2011-10-12 01:00


      AntiThesis - 2011-10-12 06:56

      Are you on drugs?

  • AntiThesis - 2011-10-12 07:29

    Caramel85, at least with you one can more or less have a debate, which is appreciated. Firstly(on your charge of an atheistic worldview) - and hopefully this is the last time I have to state this - I want to stress that atheism is not a belief system, or a religion or anything even resembling a doctrinal ideology. It is simply a stance, or a position, nothing more. And terms such as "evolutionary atheism" is simply absurd, and exists only in the anals of fanatical evangelicals. Atheism (mostly) comes with a simple naturalistic, evidenciary worldview, as apposed to a dogmatic(religious) one. I don't subscribe to evolution(or any other principle for that matter) because it fits my worldview, I subscribe to evolution because the evidence has overwhelmingly swayed me(and a whole fraternaity of scientists) to do so. But if the evidence changes tomorrow and evolution turns out to be complete nonsense, guess what? I would discard evolution in a heartbeat. Being an atheist or secularist or agnostic etc, normally means you don't try and adapt the evidence to fit your worldview, but that your worldview is based on observable, objective and rational principles and evidence. Now apply this same methodology to religion? continued.....

      daaivark - 2011-10-12 07:42

      AntiThesis. I must agree with you. I enjoyed the exchange with Caramel, although I think we have agreed to differ (I have said about all I wish to say in this particular arena). There is a refreshing availability to be reasonable and a sincere respect for positions that differ from his or hers. I appreciate that immensely. It is rare on such sites. Caramel, I think you have complimented me on the manner in which I try to conduct my life and I truly appreciate that. It is tough trying to keep a moral compass without resorting to outside guiding factors like scriptures, accepted social mores, etc. and comments like yours make all the difference.

  • AntiThesis - 2011-10-12 07:59

    As to the christian roots of western culture, I have no doubt that it has had a massive influence, but whether it was for the best is open for debate. The Dark Ages can hardly be described as a high point in human and cultural morality and development, where Catholicism was a great corrupting factor, and this spell was ultimately broken by the Renaissance, which gave rise to Humanism and a era of philosophy which was in great tension with the Christian view. And again, western law as we have it today does NOT have its roots in christianity(or religion) - I recommend you make a quick study of the origin and evolution of the western judicial system. The fact that(for you) western law seems to mimick religious commandments is pure coincidence and a bit of social engineering. continued....

  • AntiThesis - 2011-10-12 08:31

    Your question about absolutes in morality and how this fits into a non-theistic worldview has always been a very strange one for me. Let me start with the assumptions in a premise like this. Your first assumption has to be: (1) people are completely immoral(by nature) and the normative state in the human pshyce is chaos, murder and destruction. (2) to balance this evil nature of man, we have god, the commandments, scripture and the teachings of jesus. These two assumptions is reflected in the Fall of man in Eden and the penultimate redemption and salvation. Unfortunately this take on morality only applies to 30%(christianity) of humanity, with the balance each segregated into their own take on morality. For a quick synopsis, demographicaly, where in the world do you think morality has dwindled to an all time low, and what do you think their religion(or lack thereof) is? And also take a loot at the middle east to see the worst case scenario for morality and ethics derived from religion.

      AntiThesis - 2011-10-12 08:38

      My morality, as morality in a secular humanistic sense, most defintely does not build on a principle of "survival of the fittest" - this is absolutely absurd. Human life has worth in its own right, and it is extremely precious and worth protecting. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism, and as such we have a collective duty to further and protect our culture, our children and their future, those that depend on us and that we rely on, our societies and ultimately humanity. If you don't feel this need you are not human. This social sense and desire for compassion, as well as or reason and intelligence is what defines us as a species. This all said, the biggest challenge we have as humans is to effectively transfer this ethics and instill a proper sense of morality in the next generation. The vehicle that is to accomplish this is not religion my friend, but education. To see what I am on about, read(if it doesn't give you chills or make you proud to be human, well.....)

  • pages:
  • 1