Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Muhammad's Flat Earth

170 comments:

donna60 said...

The producer of this video, I think he called himself "The Rationalizer" appears to be an atheist. The bible also uses poetic language when the earth is described, and if Muslims want to tell me that these discriptions in the Quran are poetic, I have no reason to reject them.

By the same reasoning that this producer rejects the Koran, he would reject descriptions of the earth as noninspired.

I have a bedspread, that I "spread out" over my bed. My bed isn't flat, it is a rectangular prism.

I'm sorry, I just never understood the reasoning behind "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Many times, the enemy of my enemy, just isn't going to get along with anyone, and least not me.

Kim said...

Invalid.

characterbuilder said...

David,

The producer of this video also finds error in the Genesis creation accoount(time approx.11:52)

What is your feeling about posting a video that also debunks the creation story in Scripture?

David Wood said...

I confess, I've never been a fan of the "only post material if the person who created it agrees with you on all major issues" tactic. If an atheist who thinks the Bible is total nonsense nevertheless makes several correct points about the Qur'an, I can't bring myself to ignore his points.

Robert Spencer is Catholic. I am not. I see no reason to avoid his outstanding research. Pamela Geller is a Jew. I see no reason to boycott her rallies. Ibn Kathir was a Muslim commentator. I quote him left and right (even when he attacks my beliefs!).

At the end of the day, if a Martian devil-worshiper says that the Qur'an calls for violence, the Martian devil-worshiper is correct. Similarly, if an atheist correctly exposes the Qur'an, he needs to be heard.

On a related note, I think donna60 is missing a crucial difference between Muslim apologists and Christian apologists. The main evidence for Christianity is Jesus resurrection. The main argument Muslims use is the supposed scientific accuracy of the Qur'an. So if the Qur'an is filled with scientific errors, the Muslim argument fails. And if the Muslim simply replies, "Well, all the false claims are poetic," that's fine, but he must then abandon science as the proof of his faith.

To see my point here, consider another Muslim argument. Many Muslims claim that the Qur'an is miraculously eloquent. Suppose an atheist responds by pointing out several grammatical errors in the Qur'an, and I post the video. I don't see how it would be relevant to say, "Well, what if the atheist finds grammatical errors in the Bible?" Christians aren't the ones claiming supernatural eloquence as proof of their beliefs. Muslims are. And if the argument fails, it fails.

Bartimaeus said...

Allahu Akbar the earth is flat Allah has declared it so. Allahu Akbar

Jazal said...

I still can't believe that in the 21st century people come and argue that the Quran is so scientifically infallible. Some people brought up the point about mountains to me, trying to mention that the Quran was so scientifically enhanced for its day. However, it doesn't take a geologist to know that mountains are the product (not the prevention) of the earth moving. It still boggles my mind to think people can reinterpret that to suit themselves. :/

donna60 said...

David, the only way we can demonstrate the resurrection of the Son of God, is through the eye-witness testimonies found in scripture. I defend my convictions that scripture is the word of God, and not only uncorrupted, but incapable of being corrupted.

And logically, although you are right that truth speaks for itself, and it doesn't matter which rogue or ragamuffin the words come out of, I know that emotionally, it has an impact to the person you are trying to convince.

I detest Patrick Condell. It's emotional, and I admit it. He could say that the words on this blog were in inky black letters, and I would be reluctant to give him credit for the truth. I despise his cracks about my country being the "United States of Jesus" spoken in his smug Brit tone, and really, I pretty much even refuse to listen to his videos, including the one that you post.

Why risk alienating people by your choice of messenger? The minute "The Rationalizer" began sneering at the bible, I began taking his arguments about the Koran apart.

andy bell said...

Excellent vid. Yes, the quran is fake. The bible was clever not to comment on the earth being flat. But then again, the bible is not a book of science. The quran, otoh, claims to be a precursor to Newton's principia.

And for those christians who are uptight about the rationalizer, go to his YT account. Everything is basically about how messed up the quran is. He's not really attacking the bible.

Leo said...

At Donna60,

Hi, don´t forget, that when Allah mentions for example in sura 15 verse 19 that the earth was made spread out, the word used for 'earth' is the Arabic word 'ard'. This word 'ard' is consequently used when Allah says that he made the heavens and the earth 'ard'.

Greetz
Leo

Kim said...

The Bible tells us the Earth is @ 6000 years old. Did God make a mistake?

simple_truth said...

donna60, the point was about the Qu'ran--not the Bible. If the subject was about the Bible, then I may agree with you depending upon the topic at hand. There was no focus on the Bible and perhaps only 2 comments on it throughout the video. That hardly counts as a rejection of the Bible, even if the person actually rejects the Bible. Does that make sense?

Fernando said...

Hi donna60... here's one difference I guess can help you: teh qur'an clearly states that it's message is to be taken litteraly since there are no methafores in it; that's not the case with the Bible were there're a pletora off literary genres some of them require the texts to be taken metaphoricaly... God bless!

curly said...

@Donna60
I agree David,
In my understandable, Quran is a full of arabic poetry. If you read Quran in english, it is so-so. If you read Quran in arabic language, it is beautiful and feel inspired. For me, I dunno because American Sign Language is my primary language.
Anyway, In Muslim belief, Quran is a FULL of God's word. Quran come from God's mouth. Muhammad is like a machine for God. That why some Muslim consider Arabic language is a holy language.
For Holy Bible, it is just inspire from God's breath in Evangelical Christian's view.

Kim said...

Fernando:

Hi donna60... here's one difference I guess can help you: teh qur'an clearly states that it's message is to be taken litteraly since there are no methafores in it;



http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25286


30:58 verily We have propounded for men, in this Koran every kind of parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities."

24:35 Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.

25:39 To each one We set forth parables and examples; and each one We broke to utter annihilation (for their sins).

29:43 And such are the parables We set forth for mankind, but only those understand them who have knowledge.

Kim said...

Isaiah 40:22

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreaeth them out as a tent to dwell in.





Is that an accurate description of the Earth?

Kim said...

His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth.

Waki` narrated in his Tafsir that Ibn `Abbas said, "Kursi is the footstool, and no one is able to give due consideration to Allah's Throne.'' Al-Hakim recorded this Hadith in his Mustadrak from Ibn `Abbas, who did not relate it to the Prophet . Al-Hakim said, "It is Sahih according to the criteria of the Two Sahihs, and they (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not record it.'' In addition, Ad-Dahhak said that Ibn `Abbas said, "If the seven heavens and the seven earths were flattened and laid side by side, they would add up to the size of a ring in a desert, compared to the Kursi.'




Further refutes the Earth is flat forced misinterpretation of the Quran.

Kim said...

Time Zones



Seeing as back fourteen centuries ago people probably did

not understand much about time zones, the Quran's

statements about this subject are considerably surprising.

The concept that one family is having breakfast as the sun comes up while another family is enjoying the brisk night air is truly something to be marveled at, even in modern time. Indeed, fourteen centuries ago, a man could not

travel more than thirty miles in one day, and thus it took him literally months to travel from India to Morocco, for

example. And probably, when he was having supper in Morocco, he thought to himself, "Back home in India they are having supper right now." This is because he did not realize that, in the process of traveling, he moved across a

time zone. Yet, because it is the words of Allah, the All-

Knowing, the Quran recognizes and acknowledges such a

phenomenon.



In an interesting verse it states that when history comes to

an end and the Day of Judgment arrives, it will all occur in an instant; and this very instant will catch some people in the daytime and some people at night. This clearly illustrates Allah's divine wisdom and His previous knowledge of the existence of time zones, even though such a discovery was non-existent back fourteen centuries ago. Certainly, this phenomenon is not something which is obvious to one's eyes or a result of one's experience, and

this fact, in itself, suffices as proof of the Quran's Authenticity.




Further refutes flat earth. And if your going to say, "well your Prophet Muhammad bleieved that the earth is flat and has 2 faces, 1 on the bottom 1 on the top and thats how there can be night and day at the same time then prove it. Forced misinterpretation from Islamophobes is very predictable.

My Two Sense said...

Kim.

"Islamophobia" is a recently made up word (a "portmanteau" and a "protologism" if you will). "Phobia" by itself means "an irrational fear of (something)".

I would argue that someone who is being critical of Islam based on research does not make one "irrational". So the "Overly Politically Correct Sorta word" known as "Islamophobia" is not even valid.

Turnabout being fair play and all... it could be easily stated that it is a fairly predictable response for someone defending Islam to say "Islamophobe" to someone who is critical of it.

mkvine said...

The Kim,

Wait, let me get this straight, are you saying that "time zones" prove the Quran is true? Am I missing something here?

Kim said...

Did people back then believe in time zones or a flat earth? idk tell me =)

volanj said...

Kim, in what sura this interesting verse about the Day of Judgment you mentioned in your post can be found? I searched Inet and found some postings about time zones in the Koran, but none of them gives the sura and the verse number. Thanks.

Mahdi said...

There isn't any verse in the Noble Quran that states the Earth is flat. Allah uses a parable that the Earth's crust is like a carpet spread out. It only appears flat because of it's vastness. In fact the Arabic word "Sutihat" means something spread out or extended.

Second of all, Muslims don't argue that the Quran is the word of God because it has some science in it. The Quran isn't a book of science, it wasn't meant to be a book of science. Part of Islamic faith is believing in the unseen such as Angels, Hellfire and Paradise. You can't explain those through science. The only reason people are now interpreting it this way is because of the recent emphasis on science.

Third of all, I find it quite disingenuous of you that you would cite a source from an Atheist who is known to attack all Religions. Why post a video of his when he attacks Islam and accept it as the truth, but not post a video when he does the same to Christianity? (You might also want to look at patcondell).

Fourth, I posted a comment asking why Sam Shamoun was abusive towards Muslims, which was later deleted (or never posted). Care to explain why?

gsw said...

@donna60:
you write:"The producer of this video, I think he called himself 'The Rationalizer' appears to be an atheist" as though that was somehow a bad thing?
Many atheists don't like the word - rather as you would not like to be referred to as an ascientist, afairyist or an aunicornist.
Almost all of us prefer not to be classified by what we are not, and if the producer of this video is not a theist, it is probable he is also not a fish. However, s/he obviously prefers the term Rationalizer rather than non-fish.

If the various holy books use poetic language, should we not doubt everything they say?
Perhaps the reference to a god is merely poetic for the life force and the Son is really the sun?

Or since they were not written in English, perhaps their poetry is not something we can appreciate, a form of satire or irony perhaps?

With so many possible explanations (power hungry priests?) for the god theory, perhaps we should not invest too much of our lives/money in something we will not be certain of while we still live.

Fernando said...

Hi kim... do you know the difference between parable and metaphore? do you? in methaphore the correlat reality is to be undestood in a non litteral way; in parabolle, the correlate reality is a perfect paralel to the given in the first words (litteral)... so: I do not think that you know that difference... iff you did you would not risk yourselff into total descredit...

surah 36:69:

وَمَا عَلَّمْنَاهُ الشِّعْرَ وَمَا يَنبَغِي لَهُ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا ذِكْرٌ
وَقُرْآنٌ مُّبِينٌ

And we have not imparted to this poetry, nor would have suited this: it is but a reminder and a discourse, clear in itself and clearly showing the truth...

so: according to the qur'an one must not understand its words as methafhorical...

on the other hand, Isaiah 40:22 is clearly a verse from a poem as you can see in the hebrew... and by the way: it's not a description off the earth, rather off the skyes...

poor soul... I'll be praying for you...

Deleting said...

Okay Kim, hold up just a second.
Islam also says the sun sets in a mirky pool and Dula-al karna (sorry for the misspelling of his name), who was Alexander the Great, discovered it.
The same alexander the great archalogoists and historians record as being a polytheist who thought he was a demi-god but Islam says was a prophet of allah?
Of course your right. Let's talk about whether arabs living in saudi arabia in the 7th century knew if there were timezones because that will prove Islam true and never mind all the references that Allah makes to the world being f.l.a.t.
Once again you're trying to take a small truth known in modern times to divert from real truths such as Alexander the great is a polytheist and the earth rotates around the sun from the real issue-Allah said the world was flat.

CristoTeAma said...

Its funny kims reasoning, he or she brings some verses which must be highly re interpreted to fit something, yet again we always must wonder, what happens with the clear errors, like embriological errors, the sky missiles, etc.. they jjust forget those. But i have always wander why should ppl believe for such things, if muhammad once some companions came and told him "hey mu there are ppl making prophecies and they are fulfiling" , and mu says " nah, its just that they have jinns telling them that". Then we should ask, if muhammad didnt trust in then using such arguments, why should we? Why sholdnt we think that even if there is in fact some real science it doesnt come from a devil spirit if accoding to muhammad they know some things hehe muslim reasoning...

Deleting said...

one more thing Kim.
The bible doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old. Bible historians said it. You're quoting man's estimation based from the accounts given in the bible.

CristoTeAma said...

Btw about "isllamophobes" word i would highly recommend all muslims to write to all med schools to stop teaching the errors of ancient greek medicine since they are "galenophobes" hehe, also i must say that if exposing these things make ppl islamophobes, why do you read the quran whiich is non muslimophobe? Because your book despises all non muslims, and i must ask too, does kim consider answering christianity christianophobes? I know there are smart muslims, but when you see in example kims reasoning, you must ask yourself if they do it for some kind of rare taqiyya or they cant just use logic at all

CristoTeAma said...

Oh i forgot to comment about the parables kim mentioned, if you read those verses it is saying that ther are like examples, so if its examples and we know that, but those examples are supposed to be just like the fact, we are interpreting those examples, the difference is that we dont believe that all that is said in the bible comes from god, many times some verses come from the prophets themselves and thats why they use expressions like "the lord has said" when they want to leave clear it comes from yhwh, but this is not the case in the quran, you are suposed to believe that this all come from god (cuf gabriel) and it is just like when it was revealed (surviving uthman burn redition) so we take those verses and make a deep research because it would prove easily that islam is such a nonsense, also i dont think you should use hadiths to make a point since the hadiths have terribles scientific mistakes in bukhari and redition and aalso would prove that the quran has missing verses, reeditions etc. So i really wonder how do muslims reason?

CristoTeAma said...

To donna60
why should we dismiss the facts if he is proving them with the same quran? If he attacks the bible we can easily defend and also science is not our argument to believe in jesús, yet it is for muslims to believe so.. also you should think twice about your statement, because muslims clam this scientific miracles because some scientifics (many of them atheists) make research, so if we use ur logic, since they are atheists, muslims shouldnt use any of their researches because in many of those they prove the quran is wrong.

minoria said...

Kim mentioned:

Isaiah 40:22

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreaeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

That was a point said by Shabir Ally in a debate but instantly I remembered the circumference of the earth.It is an imaginary circle that encloses the area of the earth but not its width.

Brian said...

I must agree with Donna on this one the minute he took the Bible out of context it showed He did not do his research. If one were to look in to the hebrew words used in Job and Jonah they would for one: See that the Hebrew words used were two different words. The one in Job is figurative and the one in Jonah is more literal but can mean a base. Point two I believe in Job 28 it wasn't God speaking but I believe it was one of Job's friends. They were Humans explaining what they observed not God saying these things, if you remember at the end of Job God made each friend bring sacrifices to Job and had Job pray for them. Do you know why this was? Well because the answers they gave to Job about God were wrong!

I will confess I have not looked to deeply in to Jonah yet but I am almost sure it was Jonah speaking and not God.

Point three is Simple plate tectonics happen under ground so it could appear the mountains have a sort of "Root". Watch any video that tries to show the formation of mountains and you will see My point.

I will agree with David though that the Bible doesn't claim to be scientific and parts are written in poetic form. If one thinks about it do you really believe the Hebrews thought the mountains had roots? They seen rocks all over and no doubt had lifted Many of them and seen no roots. They use it as figurative and not literal.

Another problem I find with this video is that when he brought up the Bible it distracted Me from the point He made about the Quran. Jesus was correct when he said with faith as a mustard seed you can move mountains, We know plates can shift and mountains do move. I just get a bit upset when Atheist trying to debunk Islam will take pot shots at the Bible as well. It is all to common that this takes place. Atheist hate Christianity because it exposes their sin nature. Even if they dislike Islam they still hate Christianity more. Their is a difference between Pamela Geller since I have never heard her take pot shots at the NT.

I am just saying that the guy in his haste to get attention on youtube Did not research the verses he used from the Bible, and if he Did not research them well what makes Me think he did his research on the Quran. I have found much clearer verses in the Quran that say as matter of fat that the earth is flat. He used none of those verses which makes Me think he was repeating what he heard on some website which has very bad information. I would say he used wikapedia which is not a very good source at times. Please do not think I am defending the Quran because I am not I am simply saying the guy did not do his home work when it came to the Bible so what makes Me think he got his facts about the quran right?

donna60 said...

Kim,

The passage in Isaiah 40 actually demonstrates the accuracy of scriptures.

Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isaiah 40
22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

A tent, as you can note, covers a three-dimentional area, whatever the shape is, it covers the sides and top of any three-dimentional object or objects. So when Isaiah, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is God, describes the heavens as a tent, he is describing the heavens as covering a three dimentional space, not a flat two dimentional object, but it goes beyond that.

As you may know, Christians believe that God is present everywhere. As God looks upon earth from His heavens, He could be looking at it from any place around us. And regardless of whether we live in Australia, or Norway, or Detroit Michigan, the heavens always appear above us, which is where God is viewing us from.

However, there is only one shape in which looks like a circle from any direction, and that is a sphere. If the shape of earth was flat, like a plate, and God was looking at it from the side, God would see the shape of a sickle- Or perhaps a straight line, or a half circle. Try this yourself. Get a plate from your cabinet and look at it from every which way. It only looks like a circle if you are looking at it directly above it.

But when God looks at the earth, He always sees a circle, regardless of the direction He is looking at, demonstrating that the earth is a globe, not a flat circle.

donna60 said...

Simple Truth, I agree with David, that it doesn't matter who says a truth, even if the person is a mad man from an asylum, if he speaks the truth, it is the truth.

But I am this argumentative kind of person, and the only reason my little brothers still talk to me as adults is the power of the gospel, because I was even an argumentative little kid.

That being said, I tend to try to figure out what someone is going to say to me in a debate, so I can destroy their argument before they even say it. That being said, if you showed this video to a Muslim, the first thing they would say, is "Look, this fella is making fun of the bible, too."

Kenpachi said...

Kim said

"Did people back then believe in time zones or a flat earth? idk tell me =)"

So if people 'back then' did believe the Earth was flat, the Quran obviously was not clear enough to enlighten them.

It's funny that you can only claim it as a miracle in the retrospective sense, using what you know from Western science to try and make the Quran look good. If the Quran is really replete with scientific miracles, then the people reading it a thousand years ago should have known all this then, but they didn't.

D. Collaric said...

Dear Kim :-)

Allah said in his book that HE GAVE THE all monotheistic religions and this INCLUDES THE Bible, now do not tell me that moHAMell also said that the "Bible" was corrupted, when the kooraan also states that:
allah created the earth in 6 days
and that one day can be either 1.000 years or 60.000 years.


Also where does moHAMmel say that the earth is indeed round? In the traditions we can read about many arguments, but nowhere does it address the question, if the earth is "round" how can a person stand upside down on a round earth? As a matter of fact, in Europe this question was asked of the "scientists" who claimed the earth to be round... While the stoned-gawd allah is busy holding the birds in the air, there is not one statement by the lice-ridden prophet that allah claims he is holding the people on the earth.

--
I'd rather be a proud kaffir then a humble Muslim

D. Collaric said...

Sorry have to correct a wrong number, it is not 60.000 years but 50.000 years, and some Muslims think the judgment day will be 50.000 years long. Just to think, some humans will wait in line for 50.000 years to be judged by the "stoned-gawd" allah!?

--
I'd rather be a proud kaffir than a humbly slaving Muslim :-)

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Kim I see where you copied your ridiculous statements about time zones but i fail to see the sura. Where is it? I have looked and looked but all i can find is the site you copied your response from. And so are you saying the hadith abrogate what the Quran clearly says?And what about the tafsir of the companion and first cousin of Mohamed?

Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:3)
We verily, have made it a Qur'ân in Arabic, that you may be able to understand (its meanings and its admonitions).

I guess the Allah was wrong in stating the Quran is clear.Funny thing is I cant find Muslims who agree on most Quranic topics!

Sura Al-Kahf (18:47)

And (remember) the Day We shall cause the mountains to pass away (like clouds of dust), and you will see the earth as a levelled plain, and we shall gather them all together so as to leave not one of them behind.

Sura Taha (20:53)

Who has made earth for you like a bed (spread out); and has opened roads (ways and paths etc.) for you therein; and has sent down water (rain) from the sky. And We have brought forth with it various kinds of vegetation.

Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:10)

Who has made for you the earth like a bed, and has made for you roads therein, in order that you may find your way.

Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:38)

Till, when (such a one) comes to Us, he says [to his Qarîn (Satan / devil companion)] "Would that between me and you were the distance of the two easts (or the east and west)" a worst (type of) companion (indeed)!

Sura An-Naba (78:6)

Have We not made the earth as a bed,

Sura An-Naziat (79:30)

And after that He spread the earth;

These seem clear to me. LOL!

John 8:24 said...

Kim,

I am still waiting for your response to my questions! It seems you are running away from answering them just like most Muslims. Here are my two comments from the "Islamic Paradise" post:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/08/muslim-cleric-discusses-islamic.html

-----------
John 8:24 said...

Kim said: "We know from Islamic teachings that Allah will make our hearts pure (in paradise)"

Kim said earlier: "Only the people with pure hearts can enter (paradise).."

Which is it? You contradict yourself!!! Why would Allah have to make Muslim's hearts pure if that is the condition required to enter into paradise?

And I hope by "pure-hearted" you don't mean these kind of Pakistani Muslims:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/12/data-shows-pakistan-googling-pornographic-material/

The irony is that Pakistan means "land of the pure"! It is a pretending game which you can see a lot in Islam. It is not done with calling oneself pure, pridefully feeling to be pure or enforcing pseudo-purity through harsh rules!

Another thing: I posted 10 questions for you. Have you got the answers?

August 23, 2011 5:49 PM
---------------

John 8:24 said...

Post 2
----

John 8:24 said...

Dear Kim,

WOW!!! It is quite unbelievable and shocking what you wrote! IS THERE ANYTHING - NO MATTER HOW SICK - THAT WOULD MAKE YOU WAKE UP AND REJECT ISLAM???

Kim said: "I'm not sure if he's trying to put some humor into this or if he's not mature enough to talk about this subject"

Your initial reaction seems be of disbelief. MAY I ASK YOU WHY? I guess perhaps because you have some sanity still left in you. But then you are a brainwashed Muslim who wants to submit to Allah no matter how nonsensical, sinful and perverse it may seem to you! And therefore, even if you find something abhorring and detestable, you harden your conscience and look for a lame defense. Allah knows best!!!

To answer your question - no, the imam here is not trying to put some humor into this - he is seriously trying to motivate his male Muslim listeners to follow Allah by pointing to the "benefits" that are waiting for them in paradise! He rather seems to thrilled thinking of the sexual pleasures and is enticing his listeners with it.

Kim said: "What's wrong with having a super beautiful wife/wives with you in the next life in Paradise."

1) Why do you use "wife/wives"? To somehow play it down? It is 72 Houris - the imam gives you the exact number!

2) So is there nothing wrong with a brothel-like paradise?

3) Is this the kind of paradise that you are living for and faithfully submitting to Allah all your life? - a sex-paradise?

4) Is this what you are longing to do in paradise ALL ETERNITY?

5) How are things that are considered evil and haram in this world by Muslims pure and halal in a Muslim's paradise and what you actually wait for in heaven?

6) Seriously, what is there for a Muslim women in such a paradise?

Kim said: "Only the people with pure hearts can enter so it's not like some pornstar is going to have fun in there, he'd be in Hell anyways."

7) Are you pure in heart? Or the imam who speaks here? Or can you name some pure-in-heart Muslims for me?

8) Why do you expect a pornstar having fun here in this world to go to hell but a "pure-in-heart" Muslim who goes to a Muslim paradise and has similar fun in heaven is actually fine with you?

9) Which heaven is better:
a) the one Jesus talks about - where there is no sex, no marriage and where we live like angels - rejoicing in the presence of God and praising him? (Matthew 22:29,30) A heaven of which the Bible says: "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Revelations 21:3,4)

b) the one Muhammad offers you - 72 virgins, unlimited-sex, x-ray vision to see through clothes and meat, eternal erections, unlimited-wine

Lastly,

10) What if Allah and his prophet Muhammad are actually deceiving Muslims with a lure of such paradise? - for Allah is the best of all deceivers (Surah 3:54). Have you considered that possibility?

Please answer all these questions and not run away from them - as I notice you and other Muslims often do when they face uncomfortable questions. It doesn't show the "purity of heart", does it? The sad part is that these questions are only for your good and by running away you are actually deceiving yourself.

May the true God bless you and may you know Him!

August 22, 2011 11:26 AM

Search 4 Truth said...

And these ayats would only be logical and possible if the earth was flat!

Sura An-Naml (27:61)

Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water).Is there any ilâh (god) with Allâh? Nay, but most of them know not.

Sura Al-Kahf (18:86)

Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allâh) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

Sura Al-Kahf (18:90)

Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allâh) had provided no shelter against the sun.

Sura Yasin (36:38)

And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.

Sura Yasin (36:40)

It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.

Mahdi said...

How so? None of those ayats you posted mention anything of a flat earth, neither do they point out to a flat Earth. Those two verses from Surat Al-Kahf merely mention Dhul-Qurnain meeting a group of people at sunrise/sunset.

donna60 said...

gsw
You misunderstand my opinions about the bible. My convictions regarding the fulfilled prophesy and resurrection of God from the dead, are based on the accuracy and reliability of Old Testament and New Testament scripture.

In so far as calling me ascientist, that would be inaccurate, since my BS degree is in biology, and it is what I do 40 hours every week in order to earn my daily bread. You are at liberty to call me afairyist and aunicornist, however. Those terms would precisely describe me.

Edward Woodward said...

I am nobody's enemy, I just like to point out what I see as the truth. I have no preference for what the truth should be, only that I possess it; so I change my mind when presented with evidence. I accepted long ago that I am not important enough that my desires should be able to affect reality.

The truth is that the creation story in Genesis is an Earth-centric one with an absolute up/down in it (even though the Earth did not exist and there is no up/down.

The truth is that Muhammad knew Genesis and copied it even though it was wrong. If the Torah had been correct then Muhammad would have got it right instead.

Anyone who thinks they can scientifically marry Genesis 1 to reality is welcome to talk to me. Sam Shamoun challenged me to have a skype debate with him on this very subject and then later decided it would be better to pretend I didn't exist.

So David, if you think the the Torah is scientifically accurate then please get in touch via skype and we can discuss it + record and upload it for others to see.

TheRationalizer

John 8:24 said...

Kim,

This seems to be the place from where you copy-pasted your Time Zone miracle of the Quran:

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/amazingq.htm#zones

However, where is that miraculous verse in the Quran? The miracle is mentioned but "the miraculous verse" itself is missing! And could you explain how does the Kursi hadith you posted refutes the flat earth mentioned in the Quran?

When will you start using your brain as a Muslim to think critically, understand and verify something before blindly believing and copy-pasting here to show your ignorance?

John 8:24 said...

Very good point, Kenpachi! Kim & Mahdi have you got an answer?

John 8:24 said...

Mahdi & Kim,

Kim said: "Invalid."

Mahdi said: "There isn't any verse in the Noble Quran that states the Earth is flat."

I guess you need to explain it to this arabic speaking Iraqi Muslim scholar who apparently did not get your memo that Quran nowhere states that the earth is flat! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPrEaFmtZww

Sam said...

Edward, don't think you can come here with your lies and get away with them. Do I need to repost all the emails and questions which I sent you in order to expose you as being no better than the Musim apologists you decry?

To correct your boldface lie, I didn't simply invite you to debate whether Genesis is compatible with modern scientific theories. I also challenged you, and will again repeat my challenge, to come on our show and defend your beliefs as an atheist so I can expose just how irrational and inconsistent you truly are. But, alas, you chose rather to run and pretend that I have been trying to avoid you, since you know better. You know just how inconsistent your position truly is. This is why you couldn't answer my objections on my facebook page, and so decided to do the tap dance.

In fact, you can't even account for the use of logic and truth in your worldview, and that is what I want to nail you on. Even your name exposes your inconsistency since you cannot account for the use of rationality in your materialistic, atheistic worldview.

This is why I issued my challenge to you to come on our show and defend your religious beliefs, despite the fact of you denying that you have any. You atheists are just as militant and religious as the Muslim fanatics that you speak out against.

So time for you to step up to the plate. I want to use you as my guinea pig so everyone can see what happens to atheists when their presuppositions are exposed and laid bare. I promise you that by the time I finished with you, you will wish that I never existed.

So time to put up or shut up, Edward. Your lies and bullying tactics don't work with us. Are you willing to defend your irrational atheist beliefs so they can be exposed for what they are? Or are you going to simply hide behide your criticisms of the Bible and the Quran, without ever bothering to defend how and why you know that your worldview is true?

Come on, (Ir)Rationalizer, make my day.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Mahdi

What are you reading? It is fascinating how the Muslim mind works. It seems the Muslim kind only grasps WHAT IT WANTS TO!

Sura Al-Kahf (18:86)

Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allâh) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

Sura Al-Kahf (18:90)

Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allâh) had provided no shelter against the sun.


(when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.)

the sun setting in a murky spring of water and near the murky water where the sun rests he found a people! HOW CAN YOU DENY REALITY AND WHAT IS BEFORE YOUR FACE?

I guess Mahdi and Kim are greater scholars than Jallayn and Mohamed first cousin and companion *Ibn Abbass!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْماً قُلْنَا يٰذَا ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّآ أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّآ أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْناً }

until, when he reached the setting of the sun, the place where it sets, he found it setting in a muddy spring (‘ayn hami’a: [a spring] containing ham’a, which is black clay): its setting in a spring is [described as seen] from the perspective of the eye, for otherwise it is far larger [in size] than this world; and he found by it, that is, [by] the spring, a folk, of disbelievers. We said, ‘O Dhū’l-Qarnayn — by [means of] inspiration — either chastise, the folk, by slaying [them], or treat them kindly’, by [merely] taking them captive.

* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْماً قُلْنَا يٰذَا ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّآ أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّآ أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْناً }

(Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun) where the sun sets, (he found it setting in a muddy spring) a blackened, muddy and stinking spring; it is also said that this means: a hot spring, (and found a people thereabout) these people were disbelievers: (We said: O Dhu'l-Qarnayn!) We inspired him (Either punish) either kill them until they accept to believe that there is no deity except Allah (or show them kindness) or you pardon them and let them be.

These scholars must be burning in hell for leading millions astray from the truth and doing a bad deed! Oh yeah, it's Allah who leads people astray! I forgot!

And if Allah please He would certainly make you a single nation, but He causes to err whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases; and most certainly you will be questioned as to what you did (16:93)

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Mahdi

What are you reading? It is fascinating how the Muslim mind works. It seems the Muslim kind only grasps WHAT IT WANTS TO!

Sura Al-Kahf (18:86)

Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allâh) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

Sura Al-Kahf (18:90)

Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allâh) had provided no shelter against the sun.


(when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.)

the sun setting in a murky spring of water and near the murky water where the sun rests he found a people! HOW CAN YOU DENY REALITY AND WHAT IS BEFORE YOUR FACE?

Search 4 Truth said...

@ mAHDI AND kIM

I guess Mahdi and Kim are greater scholars than Jallayn and Mohamed first cousin and companion *Ibn Abbass!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْماً قُلْنَا يٰذَا ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّآ أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّآ أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْناً }

until, when he reached the setting of the sun, the place where it sets, he found it setting in a muddy spring (‘ayn hami’a: [a spring] containing ham’a, which is black clay): its setting in a spring is [described as seen] from the perspective of the eye, for otherwise it is far larger [in size] than this world; and he found by it, that is, [by] the spring, a folk, of disbelievers. We said, ‘O Dhū’l-Qarnayn — by [means of] inspiration — either chastise, the folk, by slaying [them], or treat them kindly’, by [merely] taking them captive.

* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْماً قُلْنَا يٰذَا ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّآ أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّآ أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْناً }

(Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun) where the sun sets, (he found it setting in a muddy spring) a blackened, muddy and stinking spring; it is also said that this means: a hot spring, (and found a people thereabout) these people were disbelievers: (We said: O Dhu'l-Qarnayn!) We inspired him (Either punish) either kill them until they accept to believe that there is no deity except Allah (or show them kindness) or you pardon them and let them be.

These scholars must be burning in hell for leading millions astray from the truth and doing a bad deed! Oh yeah, it's Allah who leads people astray! I forgot!

And if Allah please He would certainly make you a single nation, but He causes to err whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases; and most certainly you will be questioned as to what you did (16:93)

D. Collaric said...

Dear Kim :-)

I mentioned to you that the “stoned-gawd allah” the one who authored (according to the quuuaraan)
also the Old Testament as well as the New Testament uses his “powers” to hold up the birds in the sky, where was this allah, when many of the airplanes went down since the Wright brothers took to flight? Looks to me, birds and to keep them up is more important to your “stoned-gawd” than human beings whom he calls in his own inspired book the Bible “his children...”

In any case:

16: 79 Do they not look at the birds, held poised in the midst of (the air and) the sky? Nothing holds them up but (the power of) Allah. Verily in this are signs for those who believe. Quote End]

So a Muslim will see in the flying birds a “sign” from his stoned-gawd allah while a unbeliever like myself will just scoff at this lunacy called “Islam”. BTW we have not found any traces of humans on this earth that would indicate that any of them were 6 Meters tall, much less 30 meters as your “prophet moHAMmel” claimed....

Tabari I:292 "It has been mentioned that the summit of the mountain upon which Adam was cast down is one of those closest to heaven. When Adam was cast upon it his feet were on it while his head was in heaven. He heard the songs of the angels. The angels were afraid of him so his size was reduced."
Hilarious would you not agree? Such a “Religion” can only be discarded on the garbage heap of time, where all the wrong ideas humans had about their various “gawds” belong.

--
I'd rather be a proud kaffir than a humbly slaving Muslim :-)

Edward Woodward said...

@Brian
Every argument is my own, these were my observations from reading the Quran.


@Sam
Yes, you also challenged me to justify my own beliefs and I accepted. You then told me you would send me a date + time to call into your 24 marathon show and said you would provide me with details, but as the date approached you had not emailed me.

I emailed you 2 or 3 times to ask if you had arranged a date + time and you did not reply.

The date came and went, I emailed you and again no reply.

So, you are publicly challenging me and I am publicly accepting. You explain to me how Genesis is scientifically and factually accurate, and I will justify whatever it is you think I believe that needs justifying.

So, let's arrange a date + time and we can meet on skype, have a video chat which can be recorded and uploaded.

You have my email address + you know my youtube account. If you haven't contacted me by the end of September I will assume you are pretending I don't exist again.

Edward Woodward said...

@Sam

>Do I need to repost all the emails and questions which I sent you in order to expose you as being no better than the Musim apologists you decry?

You have my permission to do so. Publish all of them without omissions.

But please do be thorough, also post the one where you said you would contact me with a date + time, and also the numerous emails from myself where I asked you why you hadn't sent me the details which you never replied to.

Keep in mind that I have gmail so I also have copies.

Sam said...

This is for Edward, a.k.a. (ir)rationlizer. Since you came here running your mouth again, you leave me no choice but to once again shut it tight.

I have a series of questions I want to ask you here in front of everyone so as to expose your god, i.e. science, and your religious beliefs, e.g. methodological naturalism. I also plan on reposting my series of questions from my emails and from facebook which you could not provide an adequate response to, so as to give you another chance of saving face.

The advantage you have in responding here in this blog is that I can't ban you like I did from my pages for choosing to tap dance around the issues and for providing some of the most pathetic, self-refuting responses I have ever read. Some of your replies even made the Quran look rational.

However, I don't mind the fact that I can't ban you since then everyone will see for themselves just how irrational and dishonest you really are.

Let me know if you are ready to begin your lesson in rationality, honesty, and consistency.

Charles said...

@ Mahdi. You said:

"Second of all, Muslims don't argue that the Quran is the word of God because it has some science in it. The Quran isn't a book of science, it wasn't meant to be a book of science."

Really? So why muslims are spending such efforts to convert westerns, using the Coran's "scientific miracles" argument?

I guess you read arabic. This is the official site from Zaghloul el Najar, president of the Scientific Miraculous Committe of the Muslim High Stand Affair in Egypt.

http://www.elnaggarzr.com/

Is it a scam? So why he officially operates from the biggest arab country? And why allow the infidel's convertion to be based on false claims?

You canno have it both ways.

At least christians do not pretend that God wrote the Bible. For instance, the Genesis creation story is considered by the Catholic church as an analogy: "lots of unsimilarities, few of simililarities". It is also written in the Bible that God's day is worth thousand years for men.

Bottom line:
The Bible is a collection of texts written and gathered by men inspired by God, speaking to his people about faith matters in a very simplistic way. Most of Christ's speeches were in parables.

As for the Coran, muslims claim it to be written by the hand of Allah himslef, to the smallest word and letter. It is even said that the angels were hearing the sound of the pen that he used, and that it is preseved as is on a golden table guarded by the angel Gabriel in Paradise!

For such a book which focuses on earthly matters describing the stars, the skies, the moutains, etc., one would wonder why it wasn't clearer and simpler?

Imagine the blow to the Chruch, had the muslims known that the Earth is round and turns around the sun, several centuries before Galilio did! Apparently, Allah missed a great opportunity to convert the infidels peacefully rather than by the sword!

Even the average muslim in the arabic word finds the Coran very hard to understand. So why a book intented for all humans at any era would be written in such a minority sophisticated language, which requests highly kowledgable scholars to understand and interpret, especially that there is no clergy in Islam?

....Either the Coran's author was clueless and had to use ambigious words to cover his ignorance, either todays muslims are desperatly trying to embelish their holy book, or both....

Anthony Rogers said...

Edward,

I think you should get over it; after all, the universe doesn't care if Sam edits your e-mails. If it does care, then I didn't get the memo, and it would be nice if one of its - dare I say it? - messengers reveals the mystery to me.

In case you retort that you care, please explain to us why you care.

Also, please explain why it ought to matter to anyone else what one unintended by-product of a non-rational, a-moral universe cares about. I am sure you will understand when I say that a "thus sayeth Edward" just won't persuade me.

In short, when you write the way that you do, it seems to me you are assuming all sorts of things about reality, knowledge, ethics and yourself that do not comport with anti-theism.

With that being the case, I am simply requesting you to explain to all of us, or at least to me, how you "marry" these underlying assumptions to what you as an atheist believe science tells you about reality.

Oh, one more thing: since you are concerned about the "truth" of what it says in Genesis 1 vis-a-vis science, I assume you are not an operationalist and believe that science actually produces knowledge. In light of this, would you be so kind as to explain to us what is your theory of science? For example, are you an inductivist? Something else? Do tell. I mean, if you can't even account for science, why should anyone entertain your skeptical questions that assume the validity of science? It's like a guy who can't afford a car insisting that it be a five speed and that it come in jet black with a sun roof.

Thanks for your time.

Anthony Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bfoali said...

Sam and Edward, I think the debate over the e-mail is a pointless one, since it doesn’t get to any important material. However, since the topic has arisen, and since a conclusion can be made (by seeing whether Sam ended up sending Edward an e-mail with a date and time for their debate), let’s show the e-mails quickly and move on. (But maybe not on this site, since the format of the comments section would make it hard to actually see any content).

Once this unhelpful debate is over, I would like to see a debate on the relevant issues at hand, since I think that could benefit many.

Sam said...

Edward, since you accepted the challenges, we will begin by debating your underlying presuppositions which go unchallenged, but which I will be nailing you on both here and for the for show for all to see, that is if yous till have the nerve to call in after I finish with you here.

Lord willing, I will post all my questions which caused you to duck tail here over the course of the following weeks. It is then up to you to reply to them, or repost your pathetic attempts of replying which didn't get you too far on facebook.

You are also more than welcome to call in our show so I can expose you in front of a live evidence. However, we will need to first debate your religious views before we get around to dealing with your feeble of attempt of trying to discredit Genesis. Lord willing, when I do silence your arrogant ranting, you will be wishing that I never existed.

With that said, do make sure to look for my posts and enjoy your lesson in honesty, truthfulness, and consistency.

BTW, also make sure to address Anthony Roger's objections since he is asking some of the same questions that I will be asking you. so don't evade addressing them.

Edward, I must say that in light of your inconsistencies, you would make an excellent Muhammadan.

Edward Woodward said...

I agree with bfoali, this is not the forum.

Sam, you say I tap dance around the question and warned I would not be able to do that in a video chat. I ask you in what way I have not answered your question and you never tell me...which I would not let you get away with in a video chat.

So, instead of just repeating a failed approach, let's do it in a skype video chat where both of us have the opportunity to say 'hang on a minute..."

You know how to contact me to send me a proposed date and time.

Edward Woodward said...

@Sam

When we talk in text it doesn't work. Simply because we are both able to say so much before the other person is able to interject.

This results in me giving a long answer, and you accusing me of not answering, followed by me asking how I have not answered, and you simply repeating that I have not answered.

So, considering you have said that it won't be possible for this to happen in a face to face chat let's do that. It will be far more conducive.

I don't want to hijack the comments on someone else's blog so that you can have your rant, so let's arrange a date and time to record the conversation on skype.

Sam said...

Sorry Edward, but you don't get away from defending your underlying presuppositions here. You came here running your mouth and I plan on shutting it here for all to see. Like I said, look for the questions to be posted during the week.

In the meantime, make sure to answer Anthony's questions since he has raised some of the same issues that I wanted to raise. So stop stalling and get to answering.

hugh watt said...

@Edward

If the site owner does not object to it, I see no reason as to why this debate can't take place here. After all, he [David] has posted a debate with John Loftus here. Maybe you'll feel more at ease with other atheists around to support you.

hugh watt said...

Btw, I watched most of your video and stopped when you made your ignorant comment on Genesis.

Bfoali said...

Sam,
Edward isn’t running away from you. Why are you trying to make it appear as if he is? He clearly-- and I find his point valid, since I brought it up-- wants to debate you on another format. He clearly isn’t afraid to debate you, so why don’t you just accept his challenge to do it somewhere else, and not in a comment section on a blog posting.

Edward Woodward said...

We have tried in text before, it goes like this

1: You ask something
2: I answer in great detail
3: You say I didn't answer, and write something else in great detail
4: I try to answer again in great detail
5: You tell me again I have not answered

And so it goes on. You said we needed to do it in video and I agree, because a text volley just gives us both the opportunity to go off too far without the other person having the opportunity to say "Hang on a minute."

Edward Woodward said...

In fact I am co-hosting The Magic Sandwich show tomorrow on BlogTV - I might be able to get on you at short notice as a guest if you are feeling up to it?

characterbuilder said...

I agree with Bfoali...

Please... enought of this I'm going to "shut" your mouth... "by the time I finished with you, you will wish that I never existed."

Frankly, it sounds like an attempt to intimidate Edward... and I don't think he's having any of it.

Bfoali said...

Sam,

If someone wanted to contact you, with an e-mail other then the one on the AI website, how could one do it? If you dont want to post your e-mail here, I think David has mine, you could get it from him (for I wouldnt want him to post it here).

Sam said...

Edward,

Stop with your stalling tactics and excuses. You are lying again. This is how it really goes:

1: You come running your mouth to me on my youtube page, facebook etc., trying to bait me into the Genesis debate while evading my challenge to defend your religious views.
2: I call you to account for it and then proceed to ask you questions, demonstrating your gross inconsistency.

3. YOU THINK you are providing cogent, coherent, consistent answers in great detail.
3: I proceed to document all of your inconsistencies and logical fallacies, much to your detriment.
4: I then warn you to answer my questions consistently, otherwise I will keep nailing you every time you fail to do so.

5.I even tell you that if you fail to remain consistent, but continue to beg the question, and pretty much make yourself the grounds and authority for truth or morality, that I then will block you since I don't have time for your games.

5: Sure enough, you can't help yourself, but end up doing the very thing I said that you should not do.

6. I then block you.

However, since you came here running your mouth AGAIN, then you leave me no choice but to expose here AGAIN.

This time I have no power to ban you which means you can keep repeating your inconsistent, incoherent babbling to my objections, and therefore confirm to everyone what I have been saying about your inability to account for such things as rationality, morality etc., in light of your atheism.

So let me put this in caps so we can get the ball rolling.

STOP YOUR STALLING TACTICS AND PROCEED TO THE DISCUSSION BY ANSWERING ANTHONY ROGER'S POST. ONCE YOU DO I WILL THEN POST MY CHALLENGES TO YOU HERE FOR ALL TO READ AND SEE HOW WELL YOU DO IN ADDRESSING THEM.

We can then take this to our show and see how well you do in front of a live audience.

Sam said...

This is to characterbuilder.

First, don't tell what to do or how to speak. I don't take orders from you.

Second, try to pretend to be objective and consistent by calling out Edward for his lies about me.

Did you bother to read what he wrote about me, or were you that excited to criticize me for putting militant atheists in their place, and showing them that their bullying tactics and slander doesn't work with everyone, that you decided to set aside all objectivity and fairness?

Here is what he wrote:

Anyone who thinks they can scientifically marry Genesis 1 to reality is welcome to talk to me. Sam Shamoun challenged me to have a skype debate with him on this very subject AND THEN LATER DECIDED IT WOULD BE BETTER TO PRETEND I DIDN'T EXIST.

Did you bother reading this lie and slander of my person? If so why didn't you call him out on it?

Now if you don't like it when I give this atheist a taste of his own medicines then please don't read my posts and go somewhere else.

Thank you.

characterbuilder said...

Sam,

Don't tell me what to write on this blog. I don't take orders from you.(How do you like that!)

The last time I checked this was David's blog. If David doesn't like what I write HE can tell me to go somewhere else.

Not you Bro.

David Wood said...

Edward,

Do you do public debates?

Sam said...

Character, last time I checked as well, this was David's blog. THEREFORE, practice what you preach, AND DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO ON SOMEONE ELSE'S BLOG! Now how do you like them apples!

Now go and find something productive to do, such as evangelizing the lost or defending the faith against disbelievers, instead of coming here and siding with them by antagonizing Christians.

la theos said...

Sam
I think Edwards request is simple, would you like to do a skype debate?

Sam said...

la theos. I think my request is simpler. Sine Edwards ran his mouth off here he is going to have to defend his views HERE. Moreover, I have invited him to call the show in to try to defend his views there as well.

Now let me make an even more simpler request to you, la theos. Why don't you help your fellow disbelieving co-religionist and se if you can answer my questions, since Edward definitely can't? You up for it?

Edward Woodward said...

@David: No, I maintain a 100% online/real-life separation.

@Sam
>This is how it really goes

Funny how you started the story *after* the point where you stopped responding to my requests to provide a date for our video chat that you said you would provide.


>You come running your mouth to me on my youtube page, facebook etc., trying to bait me into the Genesis debate while evading my challenge to defend your religious views.

Or, rephrased to explain what really happened....I saw one of your videos and commented on it.


>2: I call you to account for it and then proceed to ask you questions, demonstrating your gross inconsistency.

You did your "World Wrestling Entertainment" impression.


>3. YOU THINK you are providing cogent, coherent, consistent answers in great detail.

Absolutely correct, I did and I still do.


>3: I proceed to document all of your inconsistencies and logical fallacies, much to your detriment.

You proceeded to simply tell me I am wrong without any explanation, repeated your question (leaving me to guess what I needed to do to elaborate) and continued to insult me.


>4: I then warn you to answer my questions consistently, otherwise I will keep nailing you every time you fail to do so.

You repeated step 3...the second step 3, not the first one.


>5.I even tell you that if you fail to remain consistent, but continue to beg the question, and pretty much make yourself the grounds and authority for truth or morality, that I then will block you since I don't have time for your games.

Yes, you repeatedly told me that if I did not answer your question you would block me, but despite me repeatedly requesting you to explain in what way I had not answered you would not explain, leaving me to guess.


>5: Sure enough, you can't help yourself, but end up doing the very thing I said that you should not do.

Yes, I did keep doing the same thing; which was trying to guess exactly how my answer was inadequate because you would not explain.


>6. I then block you.

Actually no, after repeating the same pattern for a number of times I had yet another try, to which you replied

"Edward, I will answer the rest of your points later tonight, Lord willing. I have to go for now. Take care."

I thought "At last, we are getting somewhere!" I woke up the next morning to see that not only had you blocked me, but you had also deleted all of my comments. Now there's integrity :)


>STOP YOUR STALLING...(etc)

I tell you what, let's do this. I've created a thread on a 3rd party forum where neither you nor I are able to control the posts. It is a one-on-one forum so only you and I can post there.

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17449

Bfoali said...

I think the debate is settled. Even if Edward did lie about the e-mail situation (who knows and who cares now), I think the situation is becoming clear: Sam wants to have a debate on a comment section in a blog. Even though if he accedes to Edwards challenge, which would mean debating on Skype or any other normal debating platform, his examinations of Edward’s beliefs can reach a larger audience, via a much larger platform.

Sam, you’re not doing yourself any favours here, I hope you can look at this critically. If you responded to Osama Abdullah or Sami Zaatari on a comment section of a blog I would have never read any of your arguments (or know who you are or even what your arguments were).

Put aside whatever agitations exist and please have a discussion with Edward on a platform for all to see, not just you and the five other people who are active on this comment section (which would include me).

If you believe Edward began this all by taking a swipe at you, and I agree he did, then a refutation on here, on that matter alone, would have sufficed. But to have a debate on a comment section of a blog is an idea hard to justify, especially given the magnitude of the debate.

Edward Woodward said...

PS

>But, alas, you chose rather to run and pretend that I have been trying to avoid you, since you know better.

Please do publish the emails, all of them. Including the ones where *I* ran away by repeatedly emailing you asking for the date/time to call in + the skype contact details I needed to do so; and please do also include the multiple responses you wrote answering my requests which for some reason you did not send.

Edward Woodward said...

I'll take Sam's threat to publish emails as his consent to make them public.

Here is a copy of all the emails exchanged between Sam and myself regarding me talking to him live. This is apparently me running away.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63910602/SamAndI

Sam said...

Hahahaha!!!! Instead of beginning our discussion here, you chose to post stuff on another site. My goodness, Edward, if I wanted you to post our exchanges on another site I would have told you to do so. However, SINCE YOU OPENED YOUR MOUTH HERE, I ASKED YOU TO RESPOND TO MY QUESTIONS HERE AS WELL!

One final time, Edward. PLEASE RESPOND TO ANTHONY ROGER'S QUESTIONS SO I CAN THEN PROCEED TO POST MY QUESTIONS WHICH YOU COULD NOT ANSWER.

Edward, STOP STALLING. I don't have time for your bullying antics and tail ducking.

Sam said...

Time to expose Edward's lie once again.

You wrote:

Actually no, after repeating the same pattern for a number of times I had yet another try, to which you replied

"Edward, I will answer the rest of your points later tonight, Lord willing. I have to go for now. Take care."


Edward, here is what I posted after you failed to provide an adequate reply to my objections, but started to appeal to what you "personally" felt about the matter. That's when I decided to block you like i SAID i would if you continued to do your tap dance routine. Check the next posts for the exchange.

Sam said...

First Post to Edward

Here is my follow up responses which were posted on August 11:

Hey folks, pass the word to the irrationalizer that I banned him for being a dishonest, inconsistent hypocrite for failing to address my questions and for complaining about the moral actions of any religious tradition when he himself cannot give you a standard of moral absolutes by which he is able to determine whether something is objectively good or bad. He even started one post by saying, "personally," which simply exposes his own subjective feelings and tells us more about himself than it does about whether something is objectively evil or not. Tell him when he can answer the following questions that I will then unban him and allow him back on. First, what is the moral basis by which he knows whether something is objectively good or bad? Appealing to society or majority doesn't cut it since it simply shows just how irrational and subjective he is, since neither the majority nor society determines moral absolutes. Besides which majority and which society should we look to for our morality, Hilter's, Muhammad's, Sadam's etc.?

Continued in next post.

Sam said...

Pt 2 to Edward:

Second, ask him to tell you how doe he know that killing infants is horrible or evil? What does he base this on? If humans are nothing more than evolved animals according to his worldview then why should anyone consider it morally objectionable to kill infants who do not have any intrinsic value, but are simply bags of molecules in motion? Finally, what moral grounds does he have to suggest that killing the women and sparing the virgins in Numbers 31 is morally wrong when according to his worldview there are no such things as moral absolutes? Until he can provide a coherent, consistent, and rational answer he should change his name to the inconsistent irrationalist. Please pass this on to him. Thank you.

There is more. See next post.

Sam said...

Pt. 3 to Edward:

Also pass on these questions to Edward the Rationalizer, a.k.a. the inconsistent irrationalist. Since he has produced videos condemning Islam for the sanctioning marriage with girls who haven't had their menstrual cycles I am going to once again ask you the following. Seeing that he is an atheist who does not determine truth, and seeing that he believes that we are evolved animals who really do not have any intrinsic value, please ask him to explain what is his moral basis for even saying that such marriages are wrong? Again, instead of sharing his autobiography with us, e.g. telling us how he feels about the situation which is irrelevant and proves nothing, make sure he points out to you where he derives his morality from, and whether such morality is absolutely and objectively true, and not based on the subjective whims and feelings of certain people.

See next post.

Sam said...

Pt. 4 to Edward:

And if he does say that his code of ethics is objectively ask him to show you how he knows this when he isn't God, and doesn't believe in a being who reveals such things as moral absolutes. Moreover, since he appealed to the majority and to society to determine morality, ask him why is he again proving to be an inconsistent hypocrite by attacking Muslims for accepting marriages with girls who haven't menstruated yet when the Muhammadan number 1.6 billion worldwide and their societies say it is perfectly acceptable to marry such girls? In fact, there are far more Muhammadans than there are atheists. So the majority wins in this instance. Thank you.

Sam said...

So, Edward, now that I exposed your lies, it is time to resume the discussion by you answering these objections.

Don't appeal to your feelings, to the majority, to your society, since they are not the basis or foundation for morality or truth. Make sure your reply is logical, consistent, and based on an objective standard of truth and morality that is not dependent on your subjective whims, likes, or dislikes.

The ball is in your court. Shoot your best shut, loudmouth.

Edward Woodward said...

@Sam

You have challenged me three times now, and three times I have accepted. I am not even holding you to your challenge to debate live on skype but allowing you to use text which is why I started a discussion on another site.

I'm sorry, but I am not going to debate objective morality with you or anyone else in the comments section of someone's blog.


> I don't have time for your bullying antics and tail ducking.

I shall leave it to the readers to decide which of us two is using bullying tactics.

My offer stands. We can use the impartial 3rd party forum to discuss this, or we can do it on skype (which is what you originally agreed to.)

You challenged, I accepted (again), now stop stalling and let's do it properly.

Sam said...

Bfoali, please stop commenting to me. I don't care for your opinion and didn't ask for it. Like I told character, if you don't like it then don't read my posts.

And please stop lying about what I said. My reason for FIRST exposing him here is because EDWARD CAME HERE RANTING AND RAVING. So this leavs me no choice but to put him in his place right here for all to see.

Secondly, if you had been reading my posts I stated several times that we will also have these exchanges on our show. In this way, I can expose and put Edward in his place before a live audience.

Now stop bothering me and stop accusing me. Thank you.

Sam said...

THIS IS FOR EDWARD.

Let me help you form your answer by showing you what one of your fellow co-religionists said concerning logic and truth:

Wood makes yet another error with his argument for God based on trust in our logical faculties. He argues that logical truths must transcend human minds and exist in all possible universes, and therefore must exist in some grand, transcending mind (God). In reality there is no reason to believe logical truths are any more than impositions of the human mind upon our own experience, evolved because they happened to be the way of interpreting experience most conducive to our survival. Evidence for the subjective existence of logic exists via the fact that logic is inconsistent: Russell’s paradox (does the barber that shaves all barbers who don’t shave themselves shave himself) shows that you can, using logical principles, tie yourself up in irrevocable paradoxes. The fact that it’s a flawed system, besides the lack of evidence for the existence of an objective, logic-guaranteeing God in other contexts, supports the idea that logic is a faculty imposed on the world by us rather than a faculty inherent in the world itself.

And:

In the same way the inductive principle is demonstrably a tool of the human mind AND NOT SOMETHING THAT'S INHERENTLY TRUE about the universe, logical principles are tools of the human mind and not objective parts of the universe. And to answer your original query in full, we cannot determine the truth or falsity of a claim, we cannot prove anything to be true knowledge. We live in a world in which all decision comes down ultimately to dogmatism AND SUBJECTIVITY. And to answer your original query in full, WE CANNOT DETERMINE the truth or falsity of a claim, WE CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING to be true knowledge. We live in a world in which all decision comes down ultimately to dogmatism and SUBJECTIVITY...

This was posted on the comments section to David Wood debate with John Loftus (http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/03/david-wood-vs-john-w-loftus-does-god.html).

So basically, your coreligionist Cobohrson admits that according to worldview you have no way cannot explain why logic is a valid criterion to determine whether an argument is sound or not since logic doesn't objectively exist but is the mere subjective construct of our human minds.

Now if you think your fellow co-religionist is mistaken and do believe that logic is a metaphysical reality which is universally true and exists independently and irrespective of whether our species exists or not then please account for its existence in your naturalistic, materialistic worldview.

So now Edward, please comment on my questions, and on this candid admission by your fellow atheist.

Man, I just love it when atheists end up refuting each other.

Sam said...

FINAL TRY WITH EDWARD. Since you claim you have accepted my challenge THEN PLEASE GO AHEAD AND START YOUR REPLY TO WHAT I JUST POSTED. ALSO MAKE SURE TO ADDRESS ANTHONY ROGER'S QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THOSE ALSO TIE IN WITH WHAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU.

I will now wait for your replies and see how far they will get you.

Sam said...

Edward wrote:

I'm sorry, but I am not going to debate objective morality with you or anyone else in the comments section of someone's blog.

Interpretation:

"I am sorry, but I won't debate you or anyone else on morality here since I know that you will eat me alive and utterly humiliate me since my religious worldivew of atheism cannot account for such things as logic, truth, morality etc. This is why I evade such debates on forums where people will make mincemeat out of me and choose, instead, to criticize the religious texts of other people so I can pretend to be rational even though I cannot account for rationality."

If you don't like to do this on someone's blog THEN WHY DID YOU DO IT ON MY BLOG?

The real reason you won't do it is because you know you won't get away with soundbites or attempting to dominate a conversation by forcing t to go your way as you try to do in your live "discussions."

Like I said, you are a charlatan. Time to change your name to inconsistent irrationalist.

Sam said...

I do apologize to everyone for all the typos that are contained in my posts, since I am rushing through these replies and therefore I am not doing a thorough job checking for typos. I am actually posting these as fast as I can since I am currently busy doing other stuff at the moment, such as organizing material for new articles and responses to Muslims for our site.

Thanks and Lord bless.

Sam said...

One correction. When I asked Edward why he came to my blog and started up with me there if he really doesn't like to do such debates on blogs such as these on Wood's blog, I actually meant to say why did he come to my facebook page and run off his mouth, which forced me to shut it?

Edward Woodward said...

>FINAL TRY WITH EDWARD

And this is your tactic, you pretend you have done your best and that you have been forced to give up.



> Since you claim you have accepted my challenge THEN PLEASE GO AHEAD AND START YOUR REPLY TO WHAT I JUST POSTED

Did you read what I said? I won't debate you in the comments section of someone's blog. If you are serious about your challenge and aren't just shouting idle threats about how you will destroy me then please go along to the impartial 3rd party website I posted a link to and do so.



>ALSO MAKE SURE TO ADDRESS ANTHONY ROGER'S QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THOSE ALSO TIE IN WITH WHAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU.

I don't want to debate multiple people, I don't want multiple people posting inbetween or discussion, and I don't want to post on a medium which is associated with either of us.


I repeat, I posted a link to a 3rd party impartial site. I have started, so let's go.



>I am sorry, but I won't debate you or anyone else on morality here since I know that you will eat me alive (etc etc)

How does that make any sense? I am scared you will "eat me alive" in text on a blog's comments but I have no fear that you will do the same on a 3rd partial impartial discussion forum, and that I have no fear that you will do the same on a skype video discussion?

Please do not profess to know what is going on in my mind.



>If you don't like to do this on someone's blog THEN WHY DID YOU DO IT ON MY BLOG?

I didn't. We did it in emails, and then *you* suggested we speak to each other live. After I accepted your challenge you refused to reply to any of my requests for a date, time, and skype ID to contact. I note that you have not addressed the evidence in the emails I posted a link to and yet still accuse me of lying and running away.

Later I commented on a video of yours about how your excuse for a verse in Numbers sounded just like a Muslim apologist's excuse, it was you who decided to then steer that into the discussion you were avoiding having with me face to face.

It was also this experience where you later blocked me and deleted all of my posts that makes me not want to debate with you here. A 3rd party impartial forum or a skype video chat are the only two fair options.

**Here is a yes/no question. Is it true that I wrote to you on 3 or 4 occasions to request the date/time/skypeID for our chat and you did not reply?

I don't expect you to answer, because that would mean telling the truth, or denying the evidence I posted.


>The real reason you won't do it is because you know you won't get away with soundbites or attempting to dominate a conversation by forcing t to go your way as you try to do in your live "discussions."

Soundbites? Live discussions? What are you talking about?




>Like I said, you are a charlatan. Time to change your name to inconsistent irrationalist.

I'd prefer you spent your energy coming to the 3rd party impartial forum I linked to rather than throwing cheap insults, or would cheap insults be the best I could expect from you?



>Bfoali, please stop commenting to me

Is it annoying when multiple people are commenting in an open forum? Have I mentioned that I know a really good 3rd party impartial forum where I have already started a thread for us to get us started?

All you have to do is to back up your challenge and come and debate with me there. Stop threatening to destroy and humiliate me, and come and destroy and humiliate me. I am sure your arguments will be equally devestating there as they would here, won't they?

Bfoali said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam said...

ONE MORE TRY WITH EDWARD.

Did you read what I have been saying? Your excuse that you won't debate someone on someone else's blog is simply that, AN EXCUSE. Wood won't mind me going at it with you since he has allowed others to do the very same thing. In fact, some comments section have gone up to nearly 500 posts without Wood complaining.

Moreover, you did comment on my facebook page, so you are lying again when you said you only emailed me.

What makes this ironic, you proceed to contradict yourself in the very sentence since ou even admit that you did chime in on my facebook page:

Later I commented on a video of yours about how your excuse for a verse in Numbers sounded just like a Muslim apologist's excuse, it was you who decided to then steer that into the discussion you were avoiding having with me face to face.

Can't you ever stop lying? The questions I raised WERE IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO YOUR CRITICISMS, WHICH EXPOSED YOUR INCONSISTENCY AND DISHONESTY IN COMPLAINING ABOUT OT VIOLENCE WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN ACCOUNT FOR MORALITY AND RATIONALITY IN YOUR WORLDVIEW!

That you actually think that this was an attempt on my part to somehow steer anything is simply an indication of your inability to address my criticisms, thereby exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of your atheistic, naturalistic worldview.

Face it, your replies on my facebook page make the most irrational Muslim apologist sound coherent and intelligent.

And since you talk about "telling the truth," can you explain to me why does truth matter according to your naturalstic, materialsitic worldview. In fact, can you explain to me how do you arrive at or discover truth according to your worldview? Add these to my list of questions to you.

Moreover, after we finish our debate here you can then save all our replies and post them wherever you like, so you have no excuse to begin replying to my questions here.

So here is your chance to prove that all I am capable of doing is to "insult you." Here is where you can finally put me in my place by displaying your wonderful logic as you proceed to decimate my arguments.

And just so you don't have any more excuses not to reply here to my challenges which I posted, you can forget about Anthony Roger's questions.

SO NOW FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR GOD AND RELIGION, STOP WITH YOUR EXCUSES AND GET THIS DEBATE UNDERWAY.

From now on, I will only start responding to you when you muster the courage to answer the questions I raised in respect to your criticisms of my video on OT violence that I posted here again for all to read.

However, I won't be holding my breath because you now you can't refute my questions which exposed your inconsistency and dishonesty.

Ok, inconsistent irrationalist. Time to put up OR SHUT UP.

Edward Woodward said...

To answer your facebook question, I have no recollection how I ended up there, but it was your video that got me there and not the fact that it was your page - it could just have easily have been a link on youtube that you might never have seen.

Edward Woodward said...

>Your excuse that you won't debate someone on someone else's blog is simply that, AN EXCUSE

I have set up a debate on an impartial 3rd party forum, therefore your claim that I am making excuses is flawed. I simply won't debate with you on the comments section of someone's blog, it's that simple.

I wonder why though you are so reluctant to join me on an impartial forum? You will debate me on skype as long as it is on your show with your buddies, but not on skype on a one-on-one call. You will debate with me on your facebook page for a short while until you block me and delete my comments, and you will debate with me on your friend's blog, but you won't debate with me on a 3rd party impartial forum?

You have challenged me 3 times, I have accepted...3 times. The first time you simply refused to send me the skype details, the second time you blocked me, and the third time you are refusing to debate on an impartial forum. I think it's clear who is making excuses. I doubt you could even give a single reason why you won't use the impartial forum, could you?



>Moreover, you did comment on my facebook page, so you are lying again when you said you only emailed me.

I don't know if you are actually paying attention to what I am writing, but I never said I *only* emailed you. I have however said that the first time you challenged me and then chickened out was via emails, and that was *before* we spoke on facebook.

However, you seem quite reluctant to address the cold hard evidence I posted which was our email correspondences in which you clearly do not send me the information I needed to debate with you *on your own territory* despite my repeated requests.




>Can't you ever stop lying?

Please Sam, stop it. Your constant personal attacks don't make you look good. Re-read what I have written, I have not lied at all. What's more, the evidence is there for everyone to see. I am not denying talking to on facebook at all, I am saying that the events which led to you challenging me, threatening to humiliate me, and then pretending I did not exist all happened before we spoke on facebook - where you basically challenged me, threatened to humiliate me, and then pretended I didn't exist by deleting my posts and blocking me.



>YOU CAN'T EVEN ACCOUNT FOR MORALITY AND RATIONALITY IN YOUR WORLDVIEW

In fact I can, but if you don't step up to your own challenge and meet me on an impartial forum then you might never get to hear what they are.




>Face it, your replies on my facebook page make the most irrational Muslim apologist sound coherent and intelligent

How ironic. I said something similar to you about your poor excuse for the verse in Numbers where women are selected to live or die based on whether or not they are young virgins - except I was far more polite and yet you lost your temper because you said I had been so rude :)


(continued)

Edward Woodward said...

>And since you talk about "telling the truth," can you explain to me why does truth matter according to your naturalstic, materialsitic worldview

I'll explain anything you like once we are an a 3rd partial impartial forum. Would you like the link again?
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17449



>Add these to my list of questions to you.
4 words "Impartial 3rd party forum"
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17449



>Moreover, after we finish our debate here you can then save all our replies and post them wherever you like, so you have no excuse to begin replying to my questions here.

Must I repeat myself? I will not debate on the comments section of someone's blog. I prefer a...wait for it...impartial 3rd party forum.

The question is, why WON'T you debate on a forum that is independent and impartial? It's not like the people reading the comments here will miss it, I have posted the link enough times. Here it is again
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17449



>So here is your chance to prove that all I am capable of doing is to "insult you." Here is where you can finally put me in my place by displaying your wonderful logic as you proceed to decimate my arguments.

I don't believe I said that ALL you are capable of doing is insulting me, even though you do tend to do it far too often. I am happy to address and and all questions/arguments that you have on a 3rd party impartial forum. I shan't repeat the link but I shall repeat my question because I expect you are avoiding it due to not having a suitable answer.

Why are you so set against debating with me on a 3rd party impartial forum? Do you somehow think that a neutral forum is unfair?



>SO NOW FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR GOD AND RELIGION, STOP WITH YOUR EXCUSES AND GET THIS DEBATE UNDERWAY.

1: Talked to you in emails, ignored.
2: Tried to talk to you on youtube, you threatened to block me.
3: Tried to talk to you on facebook, you blocked me and deleted my comments.

And now you want me to debate with you on your friend's blog? I think not. After the way you have behaved to date I think it is more than reasonable that I demand a 3rd party impartial forum.

So, stop making excuses, get over there and debate with me.



>From now on, I will only start responding to you when you muster the courage to answer the questions I raised in respect to your criticisms of my video on OT violence that I posted here again for all to read.

Go and post them on the debating forum and I will more than happily discuss them with you. In fact, I would *love* to discuss them with you. So stop pretending you are trying to debate with me, and come and debate with me on a neutral platform.



>Ok, inconsistent irrationalist. Time to put up OR SHUT UP.

Oh look, an insult :) Sam, you aren't making yourself look good. It is me that has consistently tried to get you to meet the challenge that you laid down to me, it is you that resorts to personal attacks, blocking, and censorship.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that a 3rd party impartial forum is in any way unfair to either of us. So, let's get on a debating forum that is fair and impartial where others cannot interrupt and we can have this debate that you keep pretending you want yet keep making excuses to avoid.

Unless of course you can give me a good reason that a 3rd party impartial forum in some way puts you at an unfair disadvantage? Or is it the case that you only feel "safe" if someone you know has control over the posts?

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17449

*OR* the ultimate impartial forum would be a one-on-one on Skype. It takes 5 minutes to download and install - then you can stop me immediately whenever you think I am "tap dancing" around your questions.

That would be far more fun, don't you think?

What exactly is it that you are trying to avoid?

neurofunk said...

This debate sounds interesting but why does Sam want to have it in the comments section of someone's blog? Come on guys, stop bitching and just have the debate on the thread Edward linked to!

Sam said...

Here comes Edward's fellow coreligionists, trying to bully people. Neurofunk is telling us "to stop bitching." But of course, your heiness/highness, anything to appease thee!

Sam said...

TO EDWARD. It is amazing that you have time to respond to everything BUT MY QUESTIONS, WHICH YOU STILL HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS.

If you have time to answer irrelevant posts THEN YOU DEFINITELY HAVE TIME TO STAR THIS DEBATE RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CAME HERE RUNNING YOUR MOUTH.

EDWARD, STOP THE STALLING AND START THE DEBATE ROLLING. TIME TO PUT UP SO I CAN SHUT YOU UP.

LET ME REPEAT: WILL ONLY RESPOND TO YOUR ATTEMPTS OF ANSWERING MY CHALLENGES TO YOUR WORLDVIEW. DO I NEED TO REPOST THOSE CHALLENGES AGAIN JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT? DO LET ME KNOW.

David Wood said...

Edward,

If you're only willing to defend your worldview online, how about a YouTube debate on the existence of God (vs. me)? We could lay down some kind of format, e.g. one person posts a 20-minute opening statement, then the other has three days to post his opening statement, then on to rebuttals, back and forth, until a full debate has been posted.

Edward Woodward said...

At no point have I claimed not to have time to answer your questions, you do appear to imagine things and then believe they are real.

I said I will debate with you and I will answer your questions, but that I will only do it on a 3rd party impartial forum.

Why are you so adverse to using a neutral platform, can you explain that to myself and the other people here who are wondering the same thing?

Simple yes/no answer please. Are you willing to debate with me on a NEUTRAL platform?

Edward Woodward said...

David.

I enjoy discussing religion/life values etc and would find that very enjoyable. I feel that formal (x minutes each) debates are more about impressing audiences than honest dialogue simply because there is no opportunity for the other person to object to a premise etc at the start of a point.

If you are willing to have a skype video dialogue with me where we just talk to each other as two human beings with very different world views trying to understand each other and to be understood then I would enjoy it immensely.

Would you be up for that?

Bfoali said...

My goodness, this is just getting pathetic. Edward, I know you won’t do this, but I recommend you just ignore Sam. It seems every time Sam responds he manipulates your position, threatens to shut your mouth, and calls you a liar. There is no point in even debating with someone like him.
The e-mails speak for themselves, the blog comments on here speak for themselves, and Caps lock speak for Sam.

Sam said...

Bfoali, keep up the great job of exposing your true colors and intentions. It was only a matter of time.

BTW, do you still want my email in light of your slander and accusations? Do let me know.

curly said...

@ Sam,
First, I am christian. I am very curious. Why not you can do what Edward ask? If me, I will do it. You know Edward REFUSE to do your request very obviously. Then do ahead to do what Edward request. Why you have a concern about Edward's request? I am just curious.

CharlesMartel said...

Sam, I recommend you just ignore Edward and his cheerleaders.

As far as worldviews are concerned, atheism is a non-starter. Atheists can't justify or account for rationality, the laws of logic, induction, causality, personal identity through change, categories, laws, concepts, similarity relations, mathematics, ethical norms, values or how and why any of these things apply to the realm of contingent human experience. Indeed, Edward hasn't even tried to do the first thing to get us to at least entertain the possibility that atheists can even begin to give an answer to such things, much less whether they can sustain such answers in the face of critical analysis, though of couse Edward has spent a lot of time debating on this blog about whether or not you guys should debate on someone else's blog because it is just wrong to debate here (unless of course the debate is about whether or not to debate here).

And besides all that, it is pathetic how some professing Christians on here were so quick to align themselves with an uncircumcised, unwashed Philistine who is an outspoken enemy of the faith and the Lord Jesus Christ. And it is getting even more nauseating to watch as this continues.

So for the love of God and for the Jonathans of the world, let this would-be Goliath be done with the arguments you have already thrown and leveled him with, and leave the likes of Saul and his men to their own devices.

Bfoali said...

Sam,

Actually, yes, I would still like to have it, if you don't mind.

Sam said...

Charles, I couldn't have said it any better!

Sam said...

Bfoali, after siding with a militant atheist and coming after me the way you did, you still have the nerve to ask me for my email? What can I say?

Bfoali said...

You can say ‘’here it is, feel free to contact me.’’ And I would reply ‘’well, why thank you Sam.’’

Edward Woodward said...

@bfoali

Note "Bfoali, after siding with a militant atheist and coming after me the way you did, you still have the nerve to ask me for my email? What can I say?"

You haven't even got as far as obtaining his email address and he is already stalling.

My warning to you is this. If you talk with Sam in private or on a forum where he can block you then you are wasting your time.

You might exchange a few emails but he will keep giving you "one last chance" to answer his question in a way that satisfies him before he blocks/ignores you - and he is never satisfied.

It seems to be his approach.
1: Threaten humiliation
2: If you aren't scared away, be insulting and rude.
3: If you put up with abuse then ignore you.

As you can see from this exchange with me, you are wasting your time.

I note he still won't explain why he is adverse to debating on a 3rd party impartial one-on-one forum.

CharlesMartel said...

I note that Edward is still open to debating the impropriety of debating on someone else's forum. ho hum...

I would also note that Edward didn't say anything about when he was going to get the pieces of silver to Bfoali.

That reminds me, Bfoali, there is a field on sale down the street. I hear you might be interested in purchasing one in the near future. Let me know.

Edward Woodward said...

PS: Being outspoken is not being militant.

Militant: active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause.

1: I do not try to make people atheists.
2: I am not aggressive.

Now, is there anyone we have seen lately who *does* fit the above description I wonder? :)

CharlesMartel said...

Edward, can we consider that your closing statement on why you won't debate the issue here where you brought it all up?

Perhaps you can move on to debating David on whether or not the long-standing tradition of formal academic debate, which not only gives people a chance to fully explain their position and the proof/evidence they have for it, but also allows for cross-examination and cutting people off, is in fact a good way of dealing with these issues rather than the more rigorous and professional "Skype-method" that allows for, well, cutting people off. You can also hash out with David whether a well layed out case to kick things off as one finds in a formal debate is better than the soundbite method that you seem to want (even though you complained about such an approach earlier when you skirted Sam's question about moral norms).

Just think of some of the benefits of this for your godless cause: 1) debating David about debating after having already debated Sam about debating will give some people another chance to lift up their heal against a brother, which no doubt will make Screwtape decidedly happy; and 2) since nothing says "become an atheist" so you can be "rational" like debating about debating does, if you debate David about debating it will allow for a second illustration of this, which is bound to add to the persuasive power of your case for atheism. This can be a cumulative argument of sorts if done rightly and well.

Please consider...

Sam said...

CharlesMartel, isn't it hilarious that Edward has time to run off his mouth here, complaining about my alleged tactics or mo, but doesn't bother answering my questions in this very forum where he ran his mouth off? So he has plenty of time to post irrelevant nonsense here, which he doesn't mind doing. Yet when it comes to actually responding to my challenges, well now that it's a horse of a different color!

Like you said, this charlatan would rather debate me on why he doesn't want to debate here, but debate me somewhere else, instead of answering my questions on the very forum where he ran his mouth off about me. And yet he wastes his time and everyone else's by constantly harping about my mo.

You would think that a guy who doesn't want to debate me here would stop writing posts that address everything but my challenges to his inconsistent, irrational religious beliefs. But such are the tactics of charlatans and militant atheists. Too bad, since I would have enjoyed shutting his mouth here for all to see.

What's sad Charles is that this poor little attention-monger actually thought that his militant tactics would work with me.

Edward Woodward said...

@CharlesMartel

>And besides all that, it is pathetic how some professing Christians on here were so quick to align themselves with an uncircumcised, unwashed Philistine

I will be most disappointed if they do not chastise you for implying that I am in some way sub-human.

It is certainly evident that one can be well mannered without god, and bad mannered with.

curly said...

@Edward,
I do like to contact you. How I can reach you? I m interesting to hear from your experience. Let you know that you and I cannot use skype because you do not know sign language and I do not know how to read lip and use voice.

Edward Woodward said...

I will debate you on a 3rd party impartial forum, which is fair.

Why won't you debate with me on an impartial forum Sam?

la theos said...

Edward
maybe if you "run off" your mouth in a third party forum, that would get him to respond to you there....that's what the logic seems to be :p

Sam said...

I will be most disappointed if they do not chastise you for implying that I am in some way sub-human.

It is certainly evident that one can be well mannered without god, and bad mannered with.


You see Charles, there he goes exposing his inconsistency again!

In the first place, in light of his methodological naturalism and atheistic worldview, why in the world would it bother him that he is being treated as sub-human? If he is nothing more than an animal who hasn't really evolved or progressed any higher than his cousins in the zoo, then who cares how other animals decide to treat him?

This leads me to my next. Why should an atheist act well mannered if, again, we are nothing more than animals who are acting in accord with the instincts and propensities which evolution has endowed us with?

So Charles, do you think that Edward, a.k.a. the inconsistent irrationalist, will ever get around to answering why he or any other human being should be treated kindly or any better than other animals treat each other? Do you think he can explain what makes him deserving of any kind of respect when such things as respect, dignity, value, ethics etc. are meaningless human constructs that don't have any basis in objective reality according to his atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic worldview?

For a minute there, this godless atheist sounded like a theist by presupposing that he, as a human being, somehow has some intrinsic value that makes him worthy of respect. Gee, I wonder he got that idea from? (cf. Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-2; 9:4-6).

Anthony Rogers said...

Edward,

Since you ventured out of your comfort zone here of "debating about debating" to make the following comment to someone other than Sam (or to one of your supporters),

"I will be most disappointed if they do not chastise you for implying that I am in some way sub-human."

I am sure you will be consistent and allow me to say something about it in reply.

First, the statement may grate on you but it does not imply that you are sub-human. But take comfort, for it implies something far more tragic: it implies that you are an uncovenanted (or perhaps even a covenant-breaking) individual, and that you are a stranger to the covenants and the promises, without hope and with God in the world.

Second, if any professing Christian does follow your dictates and issues the rebuke you are calling for, they will only end up disagreeing with the Bible, for it is in the Bible that a distinction is drawn between those who have God's mark and seal upon them and those who do not (Judges 14:3; 1 Samuel 17:26; et. al). Worse still, they will only end up disagreeing with God and fighting against reality, for it was God Himself who imposed this antithesis after the fall (Gen. 3:15) and repeated it again when He came in the flesh (John 8:42-47).

Third, it seems to me you are not being epistemologically self-conscious here; i.e. you are not living up to your own presuppositions. On your worldview men and women were not made in the image of God and consequently have no inherent dignity or value apart from what we arbitrarily assign to them. As atheist philosopher James Rachel’s said:

"After Darwin, we can no longer think of ourselves as occupying a special place in creation – instead, we must realize that we are products of the same evolutionary forces, working blindly and without purpose, that shaped the rest of the animal kingdom. And this, it is commonly said, has deep philosophical significance….Darwinism undermines both the idea that man is made in the image of God and the idea that man is a uniquely rational being. Furthermore, if Darwinism is correct, it is unlikely that any other support for the idea of human dignity will be found. The idea of human dignity turns out, therefore, to be the moral effluvium of a discredited metaphysics." Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 1, 5

And so from the Christian perspective whenever you call somebody “human”, you are, because you are an atheist, implying that they are sub-human, i.e. something less than image-bearers of God.

And so to the extent that you assume something about man than cannot by good and necessary consequence be derived from your own God-denying and truth suppressing assumptions, you are actually presupposing a worldview that you reject and suppress in unrighteousness.

Accordingly, if rebukes should be issued to someone who implies that another person is sub-human, then everyone should hold you to your own assumptions and freely start sending rebukes your way for believing and defending a view that entails that human dignity is “the moral effluvium of a discredited metaphysic” because man is nothing more than an ape who happened to evolve to wear trousers.

Consider this my rebuke. I will be interested to see who will do likewise.

Sam said...

La theos, speaking of logic, can you account for it in your atheistic worldview? Is logic a metaphysical reality which exists independently from our minds and existence? Or is it merely a human construct created by us primates?

Sam said...

Charles, notice once again how the inconsistent irrationalist writes another irrelevant post about wanting to debate me somewhere else!

So Charles, you hit it spot on the nail when you said this guy would rather debate me on why he won't debate me here, and debate me on why debating em somewhere else is better.

Like you said Charles, it is best to ignore this attention-monger. Poor chap seems not to be getting enough attention at home, from his wife and kids, which is affecting his self esteem. And so he is forced to seek approval elsewhere, running into the arms of others who may give him the notoriety he so desperately craves.

Sam said...

Anthony, haven't you learned anything from Edward's tactics? He won't answering anything, but will waste everyone's time on debating you on the topic of why he won't debate you here. He will spend countless posts debating you on why it is better to debate you somewhere else!

You should follow Charle's advice and ignore this attention-monger.

Edward Woodward said...

Sam, this is not a debate it is a petty squabble.

1: You ignored me in emails.
2: Despite repeated requests you refused to send me the details I need fir your show.
3: You threatened to block me on YouTube.
4: You DID block me on Facebook and deleted my comments.

And now you expect me to debate with you anywhere other then on a NEUTRAL platform? You must be mistaking me for a fool :)

You pretend it is me doing the dodging, but the evidence clearly shows the exact opposite to be true.

So I repeat, why do you object to using a NEUTRAL 3rd party forum? It's just an excuse to avoid me, just as you did in emails, on YouTube, and on Facebook.

There is not a single excuse for not debating on a neutral forum, so why don't you stop stalling and come and explain the morality of the genocide and infanticide committed on behalf of the monster you call "lord"?

Anthony Rogers said...

Edward said: "I will be most disappointed if they do not chastise you for implying that I am in some way sub-human"

Edward said: "...come and explain the morality of the genocide and infanticide committed on behalf of the monster you call "lord"?

@Edward

I will be most disappointed if they do not chastise you for asserting that God is in some way sub-human like you thought you were accused of being.

curly said...

Wow, Sam and Edward kept pressed the button each other! It seems Sam and Edward do not know how to ignore each other. LOL...

@Edward,
Please you answer my question?

Anthony Rogers said...

What is there to explain, Edward?

On your worldview, infanticide and genocide are just something that evolved animals do from time to time. Sometimes they do it in the name of a god, and other times they do it in the name of some version or another of atheism. No big deal; get over it. It isn't like there is anything truly tragic here. After all, that would assume that man is something more than a bi-pedal carbon unit made up mostly of water.

On the Christian worldview, even though Israel was called by God to execute His vengeance on people who rejected and/or thought of Him as a sub-human idol, the deaths of those who were under the ban, having stored up wrath for themselves over the course of several centuries, a fact that shows the long-suffering and forebearance of God, is still tragic. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

If you don't believe me, just try it.

Oh, silly me, I guess you do plan on it.

Good luck with that.

Sam said...

Anthony, do you see just how inconsistent this militant God-hating atheist truly is? Do you see just how repulsive his hypocrisy is? He wants me to justify the so-called genocide and infanticide of my God WHEN HE CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN WHY KILLING CHILDREN AND HUMAN BEINGS IS MORALLY WRONG ACCORDING TO HIS ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW!!!!

Anthony, don't hold your breath waiting for Edward to explain how he knows that killing children is OBJECTIVELY evil when his worldview can't account for morality. Nor can his worldview explain why killing human beings is any worse than killing animals when humans, according to his atheistic worldview, have no intrinsic value, and therefore are no better than any other animal.

Also notice, Anthony, how this coward exposes his true intentions in wanting to have me debate somewhere else. He has no intentions in answering any of my objections, but simply wants to get away with criticizing my beliefs without defending his own religious beliefs.

You see, it was a matter of time before Edward exposed his true intentions. He is nothing more than an inconsistent, repulsive hypocrite, a God-hating charlatan who pretends to be decent and intelligent. The fact of the matter is that Edward actually makes Muhammad and Allah look morally upright and intelligent by comparison.

Edward Woodward said...

Sam, give one good reason why you won't debate with me an a neutral forum.

Edward Woodward said...

Tell you what Sam. Seeing as for some reason you are only willing to discuss the issue with me here I shall agree as long as David agrees to three conditions.

1: He creates a new blog post we comment on so that we start without anyone else's comments already present.
2: He only approves comments from us two so that we are not interrupted by others.
3: He will never delete or modify anything that gets posted.

These are for the purpose of conducive communication and integrity and are the reasons I wanted a 3rd party neutral forum, but if David is willing to give his word then I am willing to meet your demands and do it on this blog instead.

So, you now have what you wanted, as soon as David creates the debate entry we can get started. I look forward to it. David, please send a link to therationaliser@gmail.com to notify me of the URL when it is created.

BizzareGeneral said...

Hello All,
I am also an atheist and I am interested in this debate since my views are also being challenged here.Just spoke with Edward and I came to know about his offer of debating Sam here on a new blog entry created by David where only Sam and he would be allowed to post . It would also be great if we have a separate thread/blog entry for comments. Hoping of the best..

DOWNEAST DOORYARD said...

Obama is re-writing U.S. history. His latest version can be found in http://downeastdooryard.blogspot.com/

Sam said...

Wow Anthony!!! Did you see that? Instead of being man enough to defend his views here Edward runs to the arms of one of his religious cohorts to entice me to debate him on another blog!!!!

And now he wants Wood to create another blog just for little ole him so I can humiliate him somewhere else, instead of right here where he started running his repulsive, inconsistent mouth off.

Anthony, this guy is an attention-monger whose personality comes close to being narcissistic since he is full of himself, among other things. :-)

Edward really does remind me of Allah and his messenger.

To BIZARREGENERAL, since Edward didn't take me up on my offer to answer my questions right here in the very forum where he ran his mouth off, nor has he accepted David Wood's challenge to do a youtube debate, I was wondering if you are willing to accept Wood's challenge to debate Wood on the existence of God. If so let us know.

Anyway folks, it was nice wasting time here and giving Edward the attention that his ego craves, but I am off to better things.

I hope that when we do the live show Edward will be man enough to call in so I can shut his mouth up and expose his inconsistent, irrational religious beliefs for all to see and hear. We'll see how far he gets with criticizing other religions for what he perceives to be moral evils and irrational beliefs when in his religious worldview he can't account for either reasoning or morality. Neither his god, e.g. science, nor his religion, i.e. methodological naturalism, nor his prophets, e.g. Darwin, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc., will be able to save this narcissist.

Bfoali said...

It is over. Sam has been exposed. Look how he stalls and stalls and stalls. Let us quickly summarize the chain of events.

Sam stops answering Edwards’s e-mails. Edward brings it up. Sam goes on a tantrum. Sam demands Edward has a debate on the comment section of a blog. Edward says no, after days of understandable objection, he accepts the debate, under one condition: that the debate takes place on a separate comment section, with only him and Sam participating. Sam claims victory and says Edwards’s mannerisms are narcissistic.

Oh, wait, I forgot a few things. Mainly this: Edward challenged Sam, on numerous occasions, to debate him on a neutral platform. Sam rejects over and over again.

Oh, one more thing. Sam claims he would expose Edward with the e-mail story; Edward in turn publishes the e-mails and exposes Sam.

Oh, wait, sorry everyone, one more thing. Sam cannot stop yelling and attacking Edward throughout this entire process.

Bfoali said...

Question to Anthony: Do you accept Evolution as a scientific fact? I don’t care whether you believe God helped the process along; I just care whether you generally accept the fact.

Edward Woodward said...

Sam, to request a forum where one cannot be heckled by the audience is not unreasonable.

But seeing as you refuse to honour your demand to debate with me on the comments section of a blog I shall agree to your latest demand instead.

Send me a date/time to call into your show, give me the skype ID I need o call, and then you and I can have a one-on-one discussion there. Please keep in mind I am in the GMT time zone so as not yo send me an unreasonable time.

You can post the details here so that everyone can see you weren't just "shooting off your mouth"

Sam said...

Bfoali, for your information I already talked to David Wood about doing a blog post debate in November just between Edward and me so I can expose him once and for all.

However, in light of your utter lust for atheists and hatred for Christians I am going to make it a condition that you be banned from ever posting on any of the threads that has to do with me.

Moreover, have you even read those emails to see how Edward again ducked tail and refused to answer my objections to his attacking Craig? Like a coward he can only attack Craig behind his back. But now Edward has his chance to prove he is a man since Craig will be doing a speaking tour of the UK, exposing the god of atheism and its prophets. Since Edaward likes to talk tough maybe he can go to one of those meetings and put Craig in his place, since Edward's prophets like Dawkin are too scared to face Craig.

Anyway, Bfoali I will ask Wood to ban you from posting on any of my threads since you too are another repulsive, cowardly slime. Now instead of hding behind Edward, why don't you step up to the plate and answer my questions? Stop being a little coward and stand up for your own beliefs for a change. If you do have the courage to respond then I will gladly tell Wood to allow you to keep barking all you want since that will give me the opportunity to muzzle you.

Sam said...

BTW Bfoali, do you still want my email? :-)


I am sure a rat like you wouldn't hesitate to say yes.

Edward Woodward said...

@David: Did you see my response to your query regarding you and I discussing the existence of God?

BizzareGeneral said...

Hello Sam,
David Wood suggested an audio debate on youtube. I don't do audio debates and hence I would be happy if we do a written debate on the topic that David proposes i.e. existence of God.

hugh watt said...

Sam, Anthony, David etc. Would you challenge one of the atheists on Ray Comfort's blog to a debate, one of the main guys like "Steven J", "Whateverman", "RykUnderground", "Wait What", perhaps?

htpp://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2011/09/heart-failure-and-atheist.html

Sam said...

Edward, I have spoken to David and he agrees to start another blog post so you can finally get around to answering my objections so we can finally see how far you get or how long you last. He has also agreed to have a "discussion" with you via skype, your idol of choice. However, these exchanges will only take place sometime in November. Right now, he and I are both in California doing more productive things than spending our time feeding the cravings of an ego-crazed atheist who is dying for attention and notoriety. Besides, we have given you enough attention for now to satisfy your ego till November.
Wood will fill you in on the details when he has a chance.
Until then, run your mouth somewhere else and find other individuals to give you the attention that you haven't been getting at home. And do make sure to run to your atheist friends to help you prepare answers for my objections, so you are going to need all the help you can get to defend your false god and false religion.

Edward Woodward said...

@David, I am looking forward to it and expect it will be a pleasant experience.

@Sam, I can only say that I am looking forward to it :)

David Wood said...

Edward said: "@David: Did you see my response to your query regarding you and I discussing the existence of God?"

Yes, I was thinking we could do something on Skype in November (since my schedule is full this month and next month).

However, I'm having second thoughts. I've noticed over the years that many Muslims like to start arguments with Christians, get the Christians angry, and then use the Christians' angry responses as ammunition against them. Muslims do this all the time with Sam and other apologists.

But now I see atheists arguing with Sam and using his responses in an attempt to cause division (just as Muslims have been doing for years). Seriously, I can't imagine why a critic of Islam (atheist or not) would ever want to distract Sam from doing what he does best, but that's what I see. And now you're sending out emails condemning Sam and attempting to turn Christians against him. Why in the world would I want to get involved in a Skype discussion with you? Are you hoping that if you insult my beliefs enough I'll get angry, and then you can send out emails to other Christians, saying, "Do you see how David Wood responds to the kind, gentle atheists? Don't you want to avoid apologists like David?"

Sam doesn't pull punches when he talks to you because he assumes, based on the way you ridicule both Christians and Muslims, that you have thick skin and can take as much as you dish out. Strangely, as soon as he gets aggressive, you act like your feelings are hurt.

If I want to play games, I've got a chess board and a deck of cards.

Edward Woodward said...

David, I wrote to you to give you my honest opinion. Sam loses his temper quickly, gets aggressive, and then launches personal attacks such as calling people rats.

If you think I have deliberately made Sam angry in this exchange then please do point out where, because as far as I recall Sam has been very abusive towards me and to other people on this blog without provocation.

The only reason I wrote to you was to tell you that Sam's behaviour is very anti-social, and that it might reflect badly on those who associate with him. It was supposed to be a private matter between you, Nabeel, Sam, and myself so that if you chose to ignore the advice then no more needed to be said about it. I have had messages in emails and via YouTube from a couple of Christians who have said that they thought Sam was acting inappropriately and I appreciated them greatly.

I am well mannered, I doubt very much that I will even upset you, let alone make you angry so it is pretty safe to assume your concerns are not well founded. Besides, if I am making you angry there is an "end call" button you can press.

I am not into angry debates as you will see if you watch the video on my channel where I debate with some Muslims, for me these skype video calls are an enjoyable experience where people of differing world views chat with each other in a friendly way in order to try to understand each other's positions.

Sam said...

Edward, let me point out where you started with me so that you don't mispresent the facts as you are wont to do. You came here claiming that I am somehow tryingto avoid you and that I am hoping that you never existed. You even came on my facebook page harping about how terrible my defense of the violence in the OT is, in an obvious attempt to egg me on. To top it off you just recently called the God that I worshiped, the One who created you and whose revealed truths you are constantly presupposing in order to undermine his very existence, is a monster. And you expect Christians not to get angry when you run your mouth off like this?

Fact is you are lying when you try to play all innocent since you are anything but innocent. And your comaplaint about me giving you a taste of your own medicine is simply an excuse, no more no less. If you can't hanle someone putting you in your place and giving you a taste of your own medicine then don't run your mouth off and don't insult their God. You can disagree with others without insulting people's gods, or accusing them of wishing you never existed.

So Edward, STOP WITH YOUR CHEAP TRICKS AND APPEAL TO SYMPATHY, since it ain't going to get you far with any of us.

THIS IS TO DAVID WOOD. I am fed up with this guy's smoke and mirrors and attempts of trying to make me look bad for treating him as he deserves for running off his mouth. I am through with posting on this particular section of the blog anymore. If anyone else wants to give him the attention he so deseperately craves then be my quest.

To think, he could have actually used all this wasted time and energy to actually reply to my challenges in order to get this "debate" underway. Instead, he spent most of his time debating mysel and others on why we shouldn't debate here, and debating why we should debate somewhere else.

Edward Woodward said...

>You came here claiming that I am somehow tryingto avoid you and that I am hoping that you never existed

Okay, assuming you genuinely believe in the Bible and that you are not permitted to bear false testimony.

THIS HERE is the most important part of the post, if you reply at all then this is the part to reply to:

Please testify
"I Swear on my eternal soul, in the name of Jesus, that TheRationalizer is lying when he says that after he accepted my challenge via email to call into my TV show I did not reply to his numerous email requests for the details he needed to call in."

In case your memory needs jogging I have previously attached a copy of the emails.


> You even came on my facebook page harping about how terrible my defense of the violence in the OT is

Just because I am a stickler for details...I criticised your defence of a single part of the old testament, I haven't heard you defend anything else that I recall.


>in an obvious attempt to egg me on
I can assure you that you are being paranoid if that is what you thought. I commented on your video because someone sent me a link or I saw a link on another forum (I don't recall which) and I commented on it exactly the same way as I would have done if a 3rd party had uploaded it on youtube.

I merely pointed out that to me your excuses sounded exactly the same as those I hear from Muslims who excuse atrocities in the Quran..."Allah knows best."


> To top it off you just recently called the God that I worshiped...a monster

I see no reason not to conclude that the character described in the OT to be fictitious, and his characteristics reflect the morality of a time long gone. I do see that character as a monster, just as YOU see the man made god of the Quran as a monster.

However to say that you were only rude to me (and bfoali) because I called your god a monster is a misrepresentation of the facts. You behaved in this way from the offset, and in fact this post of mine was the closest you got me to speaking out of anger - and even then I was only mildly annoyed.

Unless you are claiming you can see the future your reference to "monster" is irrelevant.


> And your comaplaint about me giving you a taste of your own medicine is simply an excuse

No, it's not. It's only an excuse if I use it to pretend it is the cause of me not doing something, such as debating. Considering I have not used it to excuse myself from anything it cannot possibly therefore be an excuse.


>STOP WITH YOUR CHEAP TRICKS AND APPEAL TO SYMPATHY

I didn't appeal to sympathy. I didn't say you hurt my feelings or anything of the like.


> I am fed up with this guy's smoke and mirrors...

You see, *this* is an example of an excuse.

You take something, blow it out of proportion, and then pretend it makes honouring your word impossible. That way you excuse yourself from a debate you have been desperately trying to avoid whilst claiming publicly that you were completely reasonable in doing so.

It's funny how when before accepted your renewed challenge to phone into your show there was no chance of us speaking in a moderated one-on-one thread. After I accepted the live call-in you announced you would do the one-on-one text debate instead.

Now that you have a somewhat lame excuse you are backing out of that too I presume, or do you still intend to honour your word?

BizzareGeneral said...

Hello Sam,
I just wanted to clarify somethings. Edwards didn't run into me for asking for help as you think. It was I who approached him after I read his interaction with you here because I was equally interested in a debate just like him. Both of us are self sufficient to make our own case and we don't need Hitchens, Dawkins or anyone to teach us how to argue. To be honest I haven't even read what Dawkins, Harris etc have to say regarding atheism. I see that both David and yourself have agreed to debate Edwards in the month of November as it seems you two are busy at the moment. Let's hope for a great debate and let's hope that we learn something out of it. Now I have accepted the offer of debating David on the topic of existence of God but the only condition that I have is it should be written.Now finally it depends on David whether to accept or reject a written debate with me say in the month of November if you two are busy at this moment.

curly said...

@ Sam and David,
I dunno what history is between Sam and Edward before. Obivously, this email, Edward SEEMS well manner. Edward's action caused Sam's reputation looked bad. I quote from David Wood:
David said " I've noticed over the years that many Muslims like to start arguments with Christians, get the Christians angry, and then use the Christians' angry responses as ammunition against them...".
I dunno if Edward play on the game on the purpose for sympathy, but it is NOT matter to us. I know it is NOT very easily for christian is very patience with them. It can be very annoy! At least, christian is very human. Christian make many mistake. I grateful Jesus Christ for his faithful to forgive us for our mistake. Unfortunately, He command us to humble ourselves
in the public like Jesus Christ died naked on the cross in the public.
I know ONE thing is Christian must persist through many attack from Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic like Eph 6:12-16. They will mock you. Maybe, sometime you have lost the debate with them sometime because you are just off! We have to persist to doing good for evil like Paul told Roman "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" Roman 12: 21. Sometime I choke from the challenged question, but I was just accept. I do not have answer for everything.
I agree Apostle Peter what he said "Keeping a clear conscience , so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:16-17). We serve Jesus Christ that we have persisted GOOD for evil. If Edward play with you or me, but he would realized he is wrong. Someday he will RESPECT us because we faithfully follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. That is my thoughtful

Sam said...

I want to apologize to the folks here since I said I wouldn't comment anymore. However, I can't let Edward keep posting his lies and half truths. It is obvious that he has to get the last word but I won't let him, especially when he can't stop lying.

First, he asks me if I genuinely believe in the Bible and if he then wants me to swear by my Lord Jesus Christ. The irony here is that BECAUSE I believe in the Bible I WILL NOT AND CANNOT SWEAR BY MY LORD JESUS:

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; ANYTHING BEYOND THIS IS FROM THE EVIL ONE." Matthew 5:33-37

And this is the gnetleman that wants to have a "disucssion" about the text and meaning of of Genesis 1-2!!!

Secondly, here is my email for all of you who want me to forward the emails that I have saved from my exchanges with Edward: sam_shmn@hotmail.com

I will send them to you and let you see for yourself who is lying through his teeth and who is telling the truth.

Sam said...

This is for curly. I am sorry brother thhat you feel the way you do. Hiwever, I must correct you in love and respect. You are mistaken if you think that we have no authority to ridicule or mock blasphemeers and liars who seek to undermine the Holy Bible or the existence of the true God revealed therein. Nor would you be correct

Sam said...

This is to curly. I am sorry brother that you feel the way you do, whoever you are not entirely correct and are in fact (unintetionally) mispresenting what the Holy Bible teaches concerning the treament of persistent rebels and blasphemers. It is not the case that ridiculing and belittling a liar and blasphemer like Edwards is unchristlike.

If you want a more complete picture of what the Holy Bible really teaches concerning this issue of how to treat liars and blasphemeres like Edward, then please go here: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm

And scroll down till you get to the section on the Bible's teaching concerning mocking and sharply rebuking persistent blasphemers and enemies of the Gospel.

curly said...

@Sam,
Oh, it is very new to me. Maybe I can be wrong. I check the link which is very very long essay!!! You can tell me where I need to look? Up, middle, bottom of the essay, so that will save my time so much ! I will respond you this Sunday or Monday.

Anthony Rogers said...

Eddie Munster said: "I see no reason not to conclude that the character described in the OT to be fictitious, and his characteristics reflect the morality of a time long gone. I do see that character as a monster, just as YOU see the man made god of the Quran as a monster."

Given the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical failures of atheism, which reduces belief in the laws of logic, the human mind, and moral norms to the level of some people's belief in invisible pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, and the Great Pumpkin, it makes no objective sense to say you have no "reason" not to conclude something, and it makes even less sense, if such a thing is even possible, for you to conclude that God (or anyone else) is a monster.

That you can't account for morality is openly exposed by your dismissal of the ethics of the Bible as primitive. Apparently, ethical norms are in a state of flux just like everything else in your worldview. You can't step into the same river twice, as primitives like Heraclitus taught.

What you overlook, Eddie, besides the fact that views like yours have their primitive antecedents, is that to "Future Man", for whom values will have moved on just like they (allegedly) did for you, even though you don't appear to have gotten past various pagan philosophers in your philosophical outlook, it will be another "been there, done that" story, and your argument against God will have moved downstream.

That you can't account for logic follows hard upon the heels of the above. If morality is in a state of flux, then so is the idea that we *ought* to infer conclusions that follow from true premises in an argument that has a valid form. Maybe people in the past *should* have done so, but this is 2011. We no longer consider it a shirking of our epistemic *duties* to reason in the way that people of your ilk proffer. This kind of thinking went the way of all the earth with primtives like Aristotle. Try and keep up with the times, Eddie.

Given the above, it would be a most curious fact that a man as hostile to God as you obviously are, a fact that belies any claim of neutrality and objectivity on your part, would condemn God for judging people in the OT who were hostile to Him (just like you are hostile to Him today), as if God, the judge of all the earth, was guilty of violating some fixed standard of morality. But that is just it, isn't it? God-hostile atheists and idolaters don't like an atheist-hostile God anymore than judge-hating criminals like criminal-hating judges. Kind of funny how that works, don't you think?

To wrap this up, the only thing fictitious here, Eddie, are norms and standards in your worldview, the very things you have to presuppose (but cannot account for) in order to make a case against God. The fact that you do presuppose such things even though you have a worldview that renders such things impossible shows that far from being the rational person you think (and boast) you are, you are more like a walking contradiction. More than that, the very fact that you cannot escape presupposing things that do not comport with your underlying assumptions about reality, shows that at some level you know the world is a very different place than you tell yourself (and others) that it is.

Perhaps this is what the apostle Paul meant when he spoke of people who know the truth about God because God has revealed Himself to all men through the created order and the internal disposition of man, but suppress this truth in unrighteousness?? And perhaps the resulting futility of your attempts to reason and make moral judgments without God is what the apostle meant when he said that such people's thinking becomes futile and their foolish hearts are darkened??

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

The fool has said in his heart "there is no God."

Edward Woodward said...

>Secondly, here is my email for all of you who want me to forward the emails that I have saved from my exchanges with Edward: sam_shmn@hotmail.com
>
>I will send them to you and let you see for yourself who is lying through his teeth and who is telling the truth.

I have not lied once, I think that even if I won a point it would be worthless if I won it through lies.

Please upload them to scribd and publish the URL - I too would like to see what you are giving to people.

For the record, are you saying that the emails I published regarding me asking for details for your show and you not replying are in some way falsified?

Edward Woodward said...

Sam, it's not about me wanting the last word, it's that I cannot stand misrepresentation of the facts (which is why I make videos about Islam.)

You keep calling me a liar. Rather than just libelling me repeatedly I would like you to show what I lied about.

Edward Woodward said...

Sam, here is explicitly where you called me a liar

"Here is what he wrote:

Anyone who thinks they can scientifically marry Genesis 1 to reality is welcome to talk to me. Sam Shamoun challenged me to have a skype debate with him on this very subject AND THEN LATER DECIDED IT WOULD BE BETTER TO PRETEND I DIDN'T EXIST.

Did you bother reading this lie and slander of my person? If so why didn't you call him out on it?"


Here is a copy of our email exchange from the point where you challenged me to call into your show, how you said you would provide me with a date/time and skype details so that I could do a skype video call where you would explain how Genesis is scientifically correct and in addition you wanted to challenge me on my world view.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63910602/SamAndI

If you read it your last email to me is on May 5th.
One week later on the 12th of May I wrote a re-requested the details, you did not reply.
On May 25th I wrote again, you did not reply.
On June 14th I wrote again, you did not reply.

The facts are evident
1: You challenged me
2: Once I accepted you ignored me and did not send the appointment that you said you would.

Now, in light of the evidence to the contrary I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me a liar, and I look forward to you explaining to me how Genesis 1 is scientifically correct in November and additionally answering any questions you may have about my world view - in accordance to your latest challenge

Bfoali said...

Sam,
Did you watch this video? I thought you might like to see it. In all honesty, I thought you were brilliant (did you even know this exists?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtpGTb4sc8A

OptimisticCynic715 said...

Kim, were you just trolling?

Did you ever find that miraculous Quran verse explaining time zones?

I know some claim the Bible eludes to time zones (Luke 17:34-35), but I never see a verse given for the Quran.

Of course, the Quran does say the night swiftly follows the day (7
:54, and doesn't appear to know the Sun is a star) which seems ignorant of the polar regions 6 month long days. Islam's sunset schedules also seem ignorant of that.

The Quran more than once compares the orbit of the Sun to the Moon in the context of night and day (21:33, 31:29, 36:40, 39:5), with Quran 75:9 telling us the Sun and Moon will COME TOGETHER on the Last Day.

And then there's the Abu Dharr sunset hadith, which describes the Sun orbiting the Earth.

Looks like you got scammed by those Quran Miracle sites.

Edward Woodward said...

>I know some claim the Bible eludes to time zones (Luke 17:34-35), but I never see a verse given for the Quran.

"I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left."

Have you cited the wrong references, or is there something here I am missing?

Wy Doesitmatter said...

Any geologist would know that land spreads out along tectonic plates. The Earth did not just materialise in its present form from space dust particles. The Author of this video has just put his own spin on it and shows his ignorance.

Edward Woodward said...

"Spreads" is an ongoing process. The verbs used in the Quran are perfect verbs which means that the spreading in question ended.

asghar binibrahim said...

No doubt, it seems awesomely rather very difficult to prove that The Retionalizer's attempt to refute the truthfulness of The Holy Quran, revealed on to the Ending Prophet, Muammad-ur-Rasulullah sal over 1400 years ago, is nothing but a vile attempt. I firmly believe, he has not studied the Holy Quran meticulously. It matters me nothing if he is atheist or one of the Peoples of the Scriptures as of old. Dear Readers! Only one verse shall satisfy you all in reply to the blasphemous attempt. Surah / Chapter 55 vv 17. Please tell me how many The Easts and The Wests a Flat thing has. Undeniably, only A Roundal from every side has innumerable EASTS & WESTS. Regret for the inconvenience thus caused to you. binibrahim www.facebook.com/osamawithpen/

asghar binibrahim said...

Please read Surah / Chapter Ar-Rehman 55 vv 17 "Lord of the Easts and Lord of the Wests" and 18 and tell me how many Easts and how many Wests a Flat thing has - Undeniably, only a ROUNDAL from every side has innumerable EASTS and WESTS. Regret for the inconvenience thus caused to the valued Readers. www.Facebook.com/osamawithpen/