Islam is a false religion per Quran itself.

[KWED]

When did I admit to that??? We know you have zero integrity, but don’t make it too obvious!! My reply is in the context of adultery. Here’s my full reply (in post #254) –
“Consensual sex between a couple who are not married to each other is wrong because it is immoral. It is immoral because the act can destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life. Any act that transgresses, ruins, brings unjust destruction, disruption, and disharmony to another family is a sin. Therefore, God rules that adultery is a sin”.

Next time, quote my full reply, don’t just cherry-pick a statement, and in doing so, intentionally or not, throw my response out of context!

I know you cannot understand what you read, but, others can see that I am responding in the context of adultery as I am referring to couples who are NOT married to each other!! Heck, even the word ‘adultery’ is mentioned in my reply!

Ok. I will type this really slowly so hopefully you can understand...

You claim that sex between unmarried people is immoral, a sin (we know this because you are a Muslim and the Quran says that it is).
So, why is consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, immoral?

Using contraception is a preventive measure against pregnancy, and using it is NOT an act of fornication or adultery.

Whuh?
You claimed that sex between unmarried people is immoral because it can lead to children (which itself is a meaningless argument). It contraception is used, there are no children, thereby removing your stated objection.

When an act is deemed as wrong/unlawful/immoral/sinful, then, that act is unconditionally wrong/immoral/sinful to one and for all.

Yes, I understand that you are just blindly following dogma. I was asking if you could provide any rational argument for that dogma.
It seems you can't.

If you are pulled over by a traffic cop for jumping the red lights, you cannot argue with the police officer that you are not in the wrong because your action did not cause an accident and you are actually a considerate and careful motorist. The Law is clear that if you jump the red lights, then, you ARE wrong and guilty of breaking the law, even if you did NOT cause an accident doing it. The same unconditional rule applies to the act of fornication/adultery.

There are rational, demonstrable, data-driven reasons for traffic laws.
What are the rational, demonstrable, data-driven reasons for prohibiting consensual sex between unmarried adults using contraception in a stable, monogamous relationship?

 

[JerryMyers]

Ok. I will type this really slowly so hopefully you can understand...
You claim that sex between unmarried people is immoral, a sin (we know this because you are a Muslim and the Quran says that it is).
So, why is consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, immoral?
Whuh?
You claimed that sex between unmarried people is immoral because it can lead to children (which itself is a meaningless argument). It contraception is used, there are no children, thereby removing your stated objection.
Yes, I understand that you are just blindly following dogma. I was asking if you could provide any rational argument for that dogma.
It seems you can't.
There are rational, demonstrable, data-driven reasons for traffic laws.
What are the rational, demonstrable, data-driven reasons for prohibiting consensual sex between unmarried adults using contraception in a stable, monogamous relationship?

You really cannot understand what you read, can you??? This is quite normal for someone who is ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally - something which you demonstrate over and over and over again.

Well, nothing much I can do about your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally, BUT, I will type this really slowly so hopefully, you can understand what you read -

I……said……if……you…. jump the red lights……you are in the wrong…… irrespective……. whether…… your action…. cause an accident or not. Likewise…… whether a child is born or not,………. you have sinned when you…… have sex (consensual or not)……….. with someone……. who is NOT your spouse.

So, this………. has nothing to do……. with rational data, demonstrable, data-driven reasons….. because…… this is about right or wrong. What is right and what is wrong……. has long been established.

Rational data, and demonstrable, data-driven evidence(s) are ONLY needed…… if you want to prove…….. that you are NOT....... actually committing……….. adultery/fornication with your partner.

Speaking of ‘evidence’, tell me what are your rational data, demonstrable, data-driven evidence(s) for the non-existence of God?? Or are you just blindly following ‘the crowd’ who think believing in God is NOT cool and hip, especially in the 21st century???

 

[KWED]

You really cannot understand what you read, can you??? This is quite normal for someone who is ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally - something which you demonstrate over and over and over again.

Well, nothing much I can do about your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally, BUT, I will type this really slowly so hopefully, you can understand what you read -

I……said……if……you…. jump the red lights……you are in the wrong…… irrespective……. whether…… your action…. cause an accident or not. Likewise…… whether a child is born or not,………. you have sinned when you…… have sex (consensual or not)……….. with someone……. who is NOT your spouse.

So, this………. has nothing to do……. with rational data, demonstrable, data-driven reasons….. because…… this is about right or wrong. What is right and what is wrong……. has long been established.

Rational data, and demonstrable, data-driven evidence(s) are ONLY needed…… if you want to prove…….. that you are NOT....... actually committing……….. adultery/fornication with your partner.

Speaking of ‘evidence’, tell me what are your rational data, demonstrable, data-driven evidence(s) for the non-existence of God?? Or are you just blindly following ‘the crowd’ who think believing in God is NOT cool and hip, especially in the 21st century???

I see that you are still avoiding the actual question here (not surprising though).
Here it is again...

Why is consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, immoral?

(Once again, I predict a slew of red herrings, ad homs and other fallacies)

 

[JerryMyers]

I see that you are still avoiding the actual question here (not surprising though).
Here it is again...

Why is consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, immoral?

(Once again, I predict a slew of red herrings, ad homs and other fallacies)

I ALREADY TOLD YOU!!
You need to read back my earlier posts on this subject. You probably STILL WILL NOT GET IT BECAUSE you JUST cannot understand what you read and that’s probably because you are such a simpleton who is also ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally!! (That’s NOT ad hom, that’s telling you the truth!) So, it’s not surprising that you keep asking the same question over and over again!!

AGAIN, tell me WHAT ARE YOUR ‘RATIONAL DATA, DEMONSTRABLE, DATA-DRIVEN’ EVIDENCE(S) FOR THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD??

I expect you to avoid answering this because you DO NOT have any ‘rational data, demonstrable, data-driven’ evidence(s) to support your claim of a non-existence God! GO AHEAD and PROVE ME RIGHT!!

 

[KWED]

I ALREADY TOLD YOU!!

You said that it was because it might produce "illegitimate" children, or because of the transient nature of such relationships.

1. Why are those things themselves "immoral"?
2. Why is consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, immoral?

You probably STILL WILL NOT GET IT BECAUSE you JUST cannot understand what you read and that’s probably because you are such a simpleton who is also ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally!! (That’s NOT ad hom, that’s telling you the truth!)

An "argument ad hominem" is where you dismiss someone's argument because of something about that person, rather than addressing the argument itself.
You repeatedly avoid addressing my actual arguments and instead keep going on about me being stupid and irrational.
So yes, they are ad homs. Perhaps you just didn't understand what the term means. It's quite a common mistake.

AGAIN, tell me WHAT ARE YOUR ‘RATIONAL DATA, DEMONSTRABLE, DATA-DRIVEN’ EVIDENCE(S) FOR THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD??

I gave you a specific example of an error in the Quran, which is evidence against the god of Islam. (It says that Allah created the earth before the stars, which is demonstrably wrong)
Unsurprisingly, you simply ignored it and kept up with your stream of red herrings, ad homs, etc.

But again, this is just a straw man as I never claimed to have "demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of god". That comment related to why there are laws against running a red light - which you compared to the Islamic law against fornication.
So ironically, it is you who needs to provide "demonstrable, data-driven evidence" for why consensual sex between adults is immoral. Which you obviously can't do. And of course, you will just avoid addressing this issue as well.

(BTW, I give you the benefit and assume that your approach is a deliberate obfuscation rather than a complete inability to follow even the simplest arguments.)

 

[JerryMyers]

You said that it was because it might produce "illegitimate" children, or because of the transient nature of such relationships.
1. Why are those things themselves "immoral"?
2. Why is consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, immoral?

As expected, you STILL cannot get it, can you??

Sexual activity outside of marriage will always be wrong and immoral, no matter how much you try to rewrite the rules and try make it “morally acceptable”.

Your question is your hypocrisy. Morality is about taking into consideration the consequences, being responsible, and being accountable for your actions.

You are NOT arguing about ‘morality’ here, you are arguing about your “right” to satiate and gratify sexual drive without consequences, responsibility, or accountability which is what fornication is all about.

An "argument ad hominem" is where you dismiss someone's argument because of something about that person, rather than addressing the argument itself.
You repeatedly avoid addressing my actual arguments and instead keep going on about me being stupid and irrational.
So yes, they are ad homs. Perhaps you just didn't understand what the term means. It's quite a common mistake.

Not really. Your comments are your thoughts and your thoughts represent you, and so, yes, your comments have a lot to do about you (as a person), your knowledge of the subject, and how you think.

I would NOT have called you ignorant if you have shown some genuine knowledge of Islam and I would NOT have said you are incapable to think logically and rationally if your ‘knowledge of Islamic Laws’ is not mainly the conjectures you picked from anti-Islam sites.

I gave you a specific example of an error in the Quran, which is evidence against the god of Islam. (It says that Allah created the earth before the stars, which is demonstrably wrong)
Unsurprisingly, you simply ignored it and kept up with your stream of red herrings, ad homs, etc.

Well, which Quranic verse(s) explicitly says ‘Allah created the earth before the stars’??? You need to back up what you said of the Quran. For your sake, I hope you don’t display your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally again.

But again, this is just a straw man as I never claimed to have "demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of god".

So, you admit that you don’t have any demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of God.

I thought you only believe in something ONLY IF there is demonstrable, data-driven evidence and yet you believe God does not exist when you just admit that you have no demonstrable, data-driven evidence to support that belief?? Are you on drugs???

That comment related to why there are laws against running a red light - which you compared to the Islamic law against fornication.

When did I compare ‘running a red light’ to the Islamic law against fornication?? You can’t follow even the simplest argument and when I said you are ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally, you want to accuse me of ‘ad hom’??? What a comedian!

So ironically, it is you who needs to provide "demonstrable, data-driven evidence" for why consensual sex between adults is immoral. Which you obviously can't do. And of course, you will just avoid addressing this issue as well. (BTW, I give you the benefit and assume that your approach is a deliberate obfuscation rather than a complete inability to follow even the simplest arguments.)

Ironically?? Don’t make me laugh!
You asking me ‘to provide "demonstrable, data-driven evidence" for why consensual sex between adults is immoral’ IS just another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally. Since when morality is determined by "demonstrable, data-driven evidence"???! You don’t need to compile cases of 'peeping Toms' as "demonstrable, data-driven” evidence to determine peeping at women taking their bath is immoral, do you??

BTW, I give you the benefit of doubt, but you keep proving how right I am about you, and that is you are such a simpleton who is ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally. Is that why you are unable to follow even the simplest arguments???

 

[KWED]

As expected, you STILL cannot get it, can you??

You just broke the needle on my ACME Irony-o-Meter™

Sexual activity outside of marriage will always be wrong and immoral, no matter how much you try to rewrite the rules and try make it “morally acceptable”.

And yet, despite repeated attempts, you are still completely unable to provide any cogent argument for why it is "immoral".

Morality is about taking into consideration the consequences, being responsible, and being accountable for your actions.

So what are the "consequences" of consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, that makes the act immoral?

You are NOT arguing about ‘morality’ here,

Of course we are. You claim that consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship is immoral. I claim that is not.

you are arguing about your “right” to satiate and gratify sexual drive

So married people do not have a sexual drive that they have a right to satisfy?

without consequences, responsibility, or accountability which is what fornication is all about

.

That description does not correspond to "consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship".
Basically, I am talking about a relationship that is no different to "marriage" in practical terms. The only difference is symbolic.
So, why is one "immoral" while the other isn't?

Well, which Quranic verse(s) explicitly says ‘Allah created the earth before the stars’??? You need to back up what you said of the Quran. For your sake, I hope you don’t display your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally again.

I already gave you the reference, but you ignored it. 41:9-12.
First he created the earth. Then he put stuff on the earth. Then he separated it from the heavens. Then he ordered the heavens into 7 levels. Then he put stars in the lowest heaven.

As I keep telling you, you really should read the Quran.

So, you admit that you don’t have any demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of God.

No. I said that I had never made that claim.
However, there is demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of the particular god of Islam. Every technical error in the Quran is such evidence (because the Quran says that its's god has not made any errors in the Quran).

I thought you only believe in something ONLY IF there is demonstrable, data-driven evidence and yet you believe God does not exist when you just admit that you have no demonstrable, data-driven evidence to support that belief?? Are you on drugs???

I don't "believe" anything. I hold positions based on evidence an rational argument. I accept that the god of Islam does not exist because that is what the evidence and rational argument points to. It is not a "belief".
If you have any evidence or rational argument that the god of Islam does exist, please present it.

When did I compare ‘running a red light’ to the Islamic law against fornication??

Oh dear. This is getting more and more embarrassing...

"The Law is clear that if you jump the red lights, then, you ARE wrong and guilty of breaking the law, even if you did NOT cause an accident doing it. The same unconditional rule applies to the act of fornication/adultery."

You can’t follow even the simplest argument and when I said you are ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally, you want to accuse me of ‘ad hom’??? What a comedian!

I'm starting to wonder if you are ok. Your responses go way beyond even the worst dogmatic apologist/troll.

You asking me ‘to provide "demonstrable, data-driven evidence" for why consensual sex between adults is immoral’ IS just another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally. Since when morality is determined by "demonstrable, data-driven evidence"???!

You keep claiming that consensual sex between unmarried adults is immoral as a fact, not an opinion. Presumably you have some hard evidence to support that claim. If you don't, just say so and we can agree that it is just your opinion based on the ideology you follow, and we can move on.

You don’t need to compile cases of 'peeping Toms' as "demonstrable, data-driven” evidence to determine peeping at women taking their bath is immoral, do you??

So you are comparing consensual adult sex to the legal offence of "voyeurism"?
That's pretty weird.
You may as well claim that because you don't need evidence for murder being wrong, that you don't need evidence for marriage being wrong. Your mind seems to work in a somewhat deranged manner.

 

[JerryMyers]

You just broke the needle on my ACME Irony-o-Meter™

Wow, is that what you’ve been using to measure your level of ‘intelligence’??? It must be very stressful for the meter that the needle broke!! LOL!!!

And yet, despite repeated attempts, you are still completely unable to provide any cogent argument for why it is "immoral".

Yup, and yet, despite repeated explanations, you are still completely unable to understand why it is "immoral".
(Hint: that has a lot to do with your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally)

So what are the "consequences" of consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, that makes the act immoral?

If this is really about morality and NOT about your “right” to satiate and gratify sexual drive without consequences, responsibility, or accountability, then, you would know the "consequences" of consensual sex between two unmarried adults, with or without contraption.

Of course we are. You claim that consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship is immoral. I claim that is not.

Of course not, at least not you. You are not arguing about morality, you are arguing about your “right” to satiate and gratify sexual drive without consequences, responsibility, or accountability which is what fornication is all about.

So married people do not have a sexual drive that they have a right to satisfy?

I believe I specifically mentioned ‘you’ in that statement – you really have problems understanding what you read, don’t you???

.That description does not correspond to "consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship".

Of course, it corresponds. Sex with a sex worker (obviously the couple is not married to each other), using contraception or not, is also a sexual relationship without consequences, responsibility, or accountability, which again, what fornication is all about.

Basically, I am talking about a relationship that is no different to "marriage" in practical terms. The only difference is symbolic. So, why is one "immoral" while the other isn't?

In practical terms, marriage is a relationship of love and commitments that also brings 2 different families together. On the other hand, fornication is a non-committal relationship of sexual lust that only lasts as long as the attraction and sexual desires for each other last.

So, guess which one is morally-acceptable and which one is not?? Only those who are raised with good morals will be able to figure this out correctly.

I already gave you the reference, but you ignored it. 41:9-12.

You have??? Which post is that???

First he created the earth. Then he put stuff on the earth. Then he separated it from the heavens. Then he ordered the heavens into 7 levels. Then he put stars in the lowest heaven.

Why don’t you post your selected translation of Quran Surah 41:9-12 here and I will show you why you are ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally. Go ahead, do it!

As I keep telling you, you really should read the Quran.

As I keep telling you, stop making a fool of yourself to the Muslims, but if that’s what you do best, then, please continue and keep us entertained!! LOL!! Should I SNAP my fingers or do you already know the drill by now???

No. I said that I had never made that claim.

And I never said you have made that claim.

I said you don’t have any demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of God!! Well, do you have any demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of God or not???

However, there is demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of the particular god of Islam. Every technical error in the Quran is such evidence (because the Quran says that its's god has not made any errors in the Quran).

And what are the ‘demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of the particular god of Islam errors’?? I think this is where you go back to those anti-Islam sites for your ‘evidence’.

I don't "believe" anything. I hold positions based on evidence an rational argument. I accept that the god of Islam does not exist because that is what the evidence and rational argument points to. It is not a "belief".

Of course, you don’t believe anything, you only believe your imagination… like your imaginative wife! LOL.

…AND what is “the evidence and rational argument” that points to that?? Again, I think this is where you go back to those anti-Islam sites for your ‘evidence’.

If you have any evidence or rational argument that the god of Islam does exist, please present it.

There IS ONLY ONE God, so, there’s no such thing as a god of Islam, the god of Christianity, and the god of what have you…

The logical evidence and rational argument that God exists is the fact that no one has come up with any ‘demonstrable, data-driven evidence’ for the non-existence of God. If you have, please present it.

Oh dear. This is getting more and more embarrassing...
"The Law is clear that if you jump the red lights, then, you ARE wrong and guilty of breaking the law, even if you did NOT cause an accident doing it. The same unconditional rule applies to the act of fornication/adultery."

How can I be said as making a comparison when I am not evaluating the two but rather giving you an analogy of one to explain the other.

Oh dear, you are right – your inability to think logically and rationally IS getting more and more embarrassing...

I'm starting to wonder if you are ok. Your responses go way beyond even the worst dogmatic apologist/troll.

Well, you can’t just ‘hide’ your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally by just saying, “Your responses go way beyond even the worst dogmatic apologist/troll”!! The truth will always remain true no matter what you said.

By the way, you are the one who is trolling here, not me. You are the one who enters here (in a religious forum that probably has more than two-thirds of its members believing in God) and you insist that there’s no God.
You persistently attack the Quran and the Prophet of Islam with the obvious intention to provoke the sentiments of the Muslim members here for reasons only you know. If that’s not trolling I don’t know what is.

You keep claiming that consensual sex between unmarried adults is immoral as a fact, not an opinion. Presumably you have some hard evidence to support that claim. If you don't, just say so and we can agree that it is just your opinion based on the ideology you follow, and we can move on.

How can a sexual relationship based on sexual lust, no commitment, no consequences, no responsibility, and no accountability be morally accepted?? So, saying ‘consensual sex between unmarried adults is morally accepted’ IS your opinion based on the ideology you follow. If we can agree on that, then we can move on.

So you are comparing consensual adult sex to the legal offence of "voyeurism"?
That's pretty weird. You may as well claim that because you don't need evidence for murder being wrong, that you don't need evidence for marriage being wrong. Your mind seems to work in a somewhat deranged manner.

You must be the simplest of the simpletons!!
You don’t need a murder to take place as evidence to know murder is wrong and it’s a crime, but you need evidence to accuse someone of murder or to defend yourself if you are the one being accused of committing a murder.

As I said before, you can’t even follow the simplest of arguments (is that why you are scratching your head and knee?)…. or is your mind working in a somewhat deranged manner (which explains why you have an imaginative wife)?? You are hilarious!!!

 

[KWED]

Wow, is that what you’ve been using to measure your level of ‘intelligence’??? It must be very stressful for the meter that the needle broke!! LOL!!!

Dear god! You simply can't resist shooting yourself in the foot, can you?
Why would an irony meter measure intelligence?
Do you also think your speedo measures engine revs?
Ironically, you have inadvertently illustrated your own level of intelligence there. And there goes the needle again!

Yup, and yet, despite repeated explanations, you are still completely unable to understand why it is "immoral".

You made some claims that related to specific circumstances. I am asking you about sex that is outside those circumstances. Let's try again...

Why is consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, immoral?

If this is really about morality and NOT about your “right” to satiate and gratify sexual drive without consequences, responsibility, or accountability, then, you would know the "consequences" of consensual sex between two unmarried adults, with or without contraption.

I don't see that there are necessarily any consequences, good or bad. That's why I keep asking you.
And you keep refusing to say what those "consequences" are.

You are not arguing about morality, you are arguing about your “right” to satiate and gratify sexual drive without consequences, responsibility, or accountability which is what fornication is all about.

Sex is an important part of any relationship.
You claim that even in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children - that sex is immoral. But you have been completely unable to explain why.
So, have a go now. Try and resist the urge to sling insults and red herrings. Just answer the question with a clear and rational explanation...

Why is sex between people in a stable, committed, permanent, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children, immoral?

I believe I specifically mentioned ‘you’ in that statement – you really have problems understanding what you read, don’t you???

So why is satisfying your sexual drive morally acceptable in a marriage, but not in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children?

Of course, it corresponds. Sex with a sex worker (obviously the couple is not married to each other), using contraception or not, is also a sexual relationship without consequences, responsibility, or accountability, which again, what fornication is all about.

How is sex with a sex worker comparable to sex between people in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children?

Also, why is consensual sex between two adults that is "without consequences, responsibility, or accountability", immoral? If two people meet, get on well, have great (protected) sex, and then move on with their lives with no lasting effect other than good memories, why is that "immoral"?

In practical terms, marriage is a relationship of love and commitments that also brings 2 different families together.

You do realise that there are millions of relationships that fit that description without being married?
And what if the married couple are adopted orphans with no family? Does that make the marriage "less moral" in some way?

On the other hand, fornication is a non-committal relationship of sexual lust that only lasts as long as the attraction and sexual desires for each other last.

Except for all those millions of unmarried people in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children. But you ignore those because you have no argument against them.

Why don’t you post your selected translation of Quran Surah 41:9-12 here and I will show you why you are ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally. Go ahead, do it!

I just gave you the reference and a summation. If you believe that it doesn't mean what it says, present your argument.

However, as usual I predict you will avoid addressing my actual point and will instead fling your usual assortment of fallacies.

I said you don’t have any demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of God!! Well, do you have any demonstrable, data-driven evidence for the non-existence of God or not???

I have already provided you with one example, but you don't seem keen on addressing it.

Of course, you don’t believe anything, you only believe your imagination… like your imaginative wife! LOL.

My wife is indeed extremely imaginative. But the as she is imaginary, she can be.

…AND what is “the evidence and rational argument” that points to that??

A couple of examples are the demonstrably false claims made in the Quran - like the great flood and Gog & Magog.
Then there are logical arguments, like the contradiction of a "most just" and "most merciful" being (if you don't understand that, let me know and I'll explain it).
And of course the little issue of the evidence from biology, geology, archeology, cosmology, etc removing the need for any god to explain what we observe in the universe.
There are many others...

Do you have any evidence or rational argument that points to the god of Islam actually existing?

There IS ONLY ONE God, so, there’s no such thing as a god of Islam, the god of Christianity, and the god of what have you…

So you claim, but you don't seem to be able to present any evidence or rational argument.

The logical evidence and rational argument that God exists is the fact that no one has come up with any ‘demonstrable, data-driven evidence’ for the non-existence of God. If you have, please present it.

Oh dear. You really did go down that road.
You therefore must accept that the FSM is real because you cannot come up with any ‘demonstrable, data-driven evidence’ for the non-existence of the FSM.

How can I be said as making a comparison when I am not evaluating the two but rather giving you an analogy of one to explain the other.

Oh dear...
Analogy: A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Oh dear, you are right – your inability to think logically and rationally IS getting more and more embarrassing...

How's the foot?

By the way, you are the one who is trolling here, not me. You are the one who enters here (in a religious forum that probably has more than two-thirds of its members believing in God) and you insist that there’s no God.
You persistently attack the Quran and the Prophet of Islam with the obvious intention to provoke the sentiments of the Muslim members here for reasons only you know. If that’s not trolling I don’t know what is.

With most people I would assume this is satire, but because it's you, I suspect you may really not understand what a "religious debate forum" involves.

How can a sexual relationship based on sexual lust, no commitment, no consequences, no responsibility, and no accountability be morally accepted?? So, saying ‘consensual sex between unmarried adults is morally accepted’ IS your opinion based on the ideology you follow. If we can agree on that, then we can move on.

1. You need to address the issue of the millions of unmarried people having sex within a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children.
2. Why is a brief sexual encounter that results in nothing but good memories "immoral"?

We can clearly see that you don't have any answer to these question. You are simply blindly parroting dogma. You believe it is immoral because god says it is immoral. You obviously haven't had to think about why before, and now you have, you have got yourself in a right old pickle.

You don’t need a murder to take place as evidence to know murder is wrong and it’s a crime,

But we know why murder is wrong. We can present rational arguments and evidence for it.
Murder isn't wrong simply because god says it is.
It seems you cannot do the same for unmarried sex. And it is no surprise that you can't. Because there is no rational argument for it.

 

[JerryMyers]

Dear god! You simply can't resist shooting yourself in the foot, can you?
Why would an irony meter measure intelligence?
Do you also think your speedo measures engine revs?
Ironically, you have inadvertently illustrated your own level of intelligence there. And there goes the needle again!

Dear God! Sometimes I forget that you ARE the simplest of all the simpletons and you simply can’t resist proving that you are!!! I supposed if I told you to ‘go and fly a kite’ you would think I am literally asking you to go and fly a kite, right? OK, let’s move on …. and I will try to remind myself that you are the simplest of the simpletons before responding to your comments.

You made some claims that related to specific circumstances. I am asking you about sex that is outside those circumstances. Let's try again...
Why is consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship, immoral?

I don't see that there are necessarily any consequences, good or bad. That's why I keep asking you.
And you keep refusing to say what those "consequences" are.

Oh, dear!! Then, tell me what is so moral about ‘consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship’ if that sexual relationship is WITHOUT consequences, responsibility, or accountability??

Sex is an important part of any relationship.
You claim that even in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children - that sex is immoral. But you have been completely unable to explain why.
So, have a go now. Try and resist the urge to sling insults and red herrings. Just answer the question with a clear and rational explanation...
Why is sex between people in a stable, committed, permanent, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children, immoral?

So why is satisfying your sexual drive morally acceptable in a marriage, but not in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children?

Except for all those millions of unmarried people in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children. But you ignore those because you have no argument against them.

It seems you cannot do the same for unmarried sex. And it is no surprise that you can't. Because there is no rational argument for it.

I have already told you but you just cannot understand what you read because of your inability to think logically and rationally.

This is about fornication and fornication is about sex WITHOUT consequences, responsibility, or accountability.

There’s NOTHING stable, committed, or permanent with fornication/adultery. If the intention of the involved parties is to have a stable, committed, and permanent relationship, then the couple should just get married!

 

[JerryMyers]

How is sex with a sex worker comparable to sex between people in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children?

Because sex with a sex worker is also an act of fornication and there’s nothing stable, committed, or permanent with fornication.

Also, why is consensual sex between two adults that is "without consequences, responsibility, or accountability", immoral? If two people meet, get on well, have great (protected) sex, and then move on with their lives with no lasting effect other than good memories, why is that "immoral"?

‘No lasting effect’??? To the man, maybe, but what about the woman?? You ‘keep’ her to satisfy your lust and then later just move on without any sense of responsibility and accountability and you ask me why is that ‘immoral’???

You do realise that there are millions of relationships that fit that description without being married?
And what if the married couple are adopted orphans with no family? Does that make the marriage "less moral" in some way?

If they are adopted orphans, then, they do have their respective adopted families, else how can they be adopted? Can you be adopted without anyone adopting you?? Another display of your inability to think logically and rationally??

And if they got married to each other, how can their marriage be ‘less moral in some way’???

I just gave you the reference and a summation. If you believe that it doesn't mean what it says, present your argument.
However, as usual I predict you will avoid addressing my actual point and will instead fling your usual assortment of fallacies.

The actual reason I asked you to quote that passage is that I want to know which translation you have selected to base your summation of that passage. All the translations I have seen of Quran 42:9-12 did NOT even come close to implying that Allah created the earth first before the heavens/stars. Is it that difficult for you to quote your selection of translation of that passage?? Or you just don’t know what nonsense you are talking about??

However, as usual, I predict you will avoid addressing my actual point and will instead fling your usual assortment of fallacies.

I have already provided you with one example, but you don't seem keen on addressing it.

An example that you cannot even understand and you want me to address that??!! LOL. You are one funny comedian, homie!

My wife is indeed extremely imaginative. But the as she is imaginary, she can be.

Right! A wife out of your imagination!!

A couple of examples are the demonstrably false claims made in the Quran - like the great flood and Gog & Magog.
Then there are logical arguments, like the contradiction of a "most just" and "most merciful" being (if you don't understand that, let me know and I'll explain it).
And of course the little issue of the evidence from biology, geology, archeology, cosmology, etc removing the need for any god to explain what we observe in the universe.
There are many others...

Do you mean examples that you picked up from those anti-Islam sites??? LOL.

Do you have any evidence or rational argument that points to the god of Islam actually existing?

Do you have any evidence or rational argument that points to God not actually existing? The fact that you (or anyone) are unable to provide any evidence/rational argument for the non-existence of God IS the rational argument that points to the existence of God!

So you claim, but you don't seem to be able to present any evidence or rational argument.

Yes, I claim that there’s ONLY ONE God. Are you saying you can prove there’s more than ONE God??? I thought you don’t believe in the existence of any God!! Make up your mind!! LOL.

Oh dear. You really did go down that road.
You therefore must accept that the FSM is real because you cannot come up with any ‘demonstrable, data-driven evidence’ for the non-existence of the FSM.

Oh, dear. You really have to go down that road again and display your ignorance and your inability to think logically and rationally!!
Let me say it again - if you believe in such nonsense as FSM, that’s your problem, not mine!!

Oh dear...
Analogy: A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Oh dear… aren’t you a simpleton??

When giving an analogy, you are not actually making a comparison between the two subjects, but you are looking at the relationship of resemblance and similarities between them. When you are making a comparison, you are actually evaluating the 2 subjects for differences and/or similarities.

“As nouns, the difference between comparison and analogy is that comparison is the act of comparing or the state or process of being compared while analogy is a relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation”.
Comparison vs Analogy - What's the difference?.

How's the foot?

The foot is fine as I did not shoot my own foot in the first place. You, however, shoot your own foot every time you display your inability to think logically and rationally.. which IS REALLY getting more and more embarrassing.

How’s the foot? LOL!

With most people I would assume this is satire, but because it's you, I suspect you may really not understand what a "religious debate forum" involves.

Huh?? A satire??
And I never said you have no right to comment in a "religious debate forum".

I suspect you may really not understand what a "troll" involves. Whatever your understanding of ‘trolling’, the fact is you are trolling and that makes you a troll here!

1. You need to address the issue of the millions of unmarried people having sex within a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children.

What’s there to address?? ‘Millions of unmarried people having sex within a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children’ do NOT change the fact that they committed fornication and there’s NOTHING stable and committed about fornication and the ‘successfully raised happy children’ will always be known as ‘bast*rds’ and that may have a long-lasting effect on the child. So, what’s so moral about that???

2. Why is a brief sexual encounter that results in nothing but good memories "immoral"?
We can clearly see that you don't have any answer to these question. You are simply blindly parroting dogma. You believe it is immoral because god says it is immoral. You obviously haven't had to think about why before, and now you have, you have got yourself in a right old pickle.

What’s so moral about keeping a woman just to satisfy your sexual desires, and doing so without any sense of responsibility, commitment, and any thought of consequences???

We can clearly see that you don't have any morals to be talking about morality!!

But we know why murder is wrong. We can present rational arguments and evidence for it.

Really??? Then, present it – what are the rational arguments and evidence for saying murder is wrong??

Murder isn't wrong simply because god says it is.

But murder is wrong simply because you say it is??? LOL. What a comedian!!!

 

[KWED]

Oh, dear!! Then, tell me what is so moral about ‘consensual sex between two unmarried adults, using contraception, in a long-term, monogamous relationship’ if that sexual relationship is WITHOUT consequences, responsibility, or accountability??

Do you want a hand with those goalposts? They look heavy.

So you have given up trying to come up with an explanation for why such sex is "immoral". Not surprising.
If an act is consensual, between adults, and has no consequences, brings pleasure to the participants but affects no one else in any way - why would it not be moral? The participants benefit and no one else is affected, why is not a good thing?

This is about fornication and fornication is about sex WITHOUT consequences, responsibility, or accountability.

There’s NOTHING stable, committed, or permanent with fornication/adultery.

Ok, so you have made your position clear.
It is only brief, irresponsible encounters of unprotected sex that you consider immoral.

You have no moral objection to sex between two unmarried people in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children.
Glad we finally sorted that out.

If the intention of the involved parties is to have a stable, committed, and permanent relationship, then the couple should just get married!

Why? What difference does it make?
We know that many married people are unfaithful, abusive, neglectful, get divorced, etc, so marriage is no guarantee of any sort of behaviour.

So why is a married relationship necessarily better than the unmarried one I keep describing?

The bottom line is that you are simply parroting religious dogma and you have no rational explanation for why it is reasonable or valid. You have repeatedly demonstrated this. You really have nowhere left to go on this issue. Maybe you could ask your imam - see what they have to say?

 

[KWED]

Because sex with a sex worker is also an act of fornication and there’s nothing stable, committed, or permanent with fornication.

Yes, so...How is sex with a sex worker comparable to sex between people in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children?

‘No lasting effect’??? To the man, maybe, but what about the woman?? You ‘keep’ her to satisfy your lust and then later just move on without any sense of responsibility and accountability and you ask me why is that ‘immoral’???

What are you on about? Why do you think that in a one-night-stand, the man "keeps" the woman? In some such encounters, it is the woman who instigates the intimacy.
You seem to have a very outdated idea about women. I wonder where you get that from?...

If they are adopted orphans, then, they do have their respective adopted families, else how can they be adopted? Can you be adopted without anyone adopting you?? Another display of your inability to think logically and rationally??

And if they got married to each other, how can their marriage be ‘less moral in some way’???

Sorry, meant "in care".
You claimed that the context of family is a factor in the morality of relationships. If neither of the participants have any family, does that affect the morality? If not, then why is it such an issue?

The actual reason I asked you to quote that passage is that I want to know which translation you have selected to base your summation of that passage. All the translations I have seen of Quran 42:9-12 did NOT even come close to implying that Allah created the earth first before the heavens/stars. Is it that difficult for you to quote your selection of translation of that passage?? Or you just don’t know what nonsense you are talking about??

It's 41:9-12. No wonder you didn't find the references!

In 41:9-10 it is talking about god creating the earth, and putting everything in it.
Then in 41:11 Muhammad says that then god separated the earth from the heavens. That is also an error because
1. The earth and the heavens were never one entity.
2. It means the earth existed as we know it now before the rest of the universe did, which is demonstrable nonsense.

Sahih International: Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."
Pickthall: Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.
Yusuf Ali: Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
Shakir: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.
Muhammad Sarwar: He established His dominance over the sky, which (for that time) was like smoke. Then He told the heavens and the earth, "Take your shape either willingly or by force" They said, "We willingly obey".
Mohsin Khan: Then He Istawa (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."
Arberry: Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly, or unwillingly!" They said, "We come willingly."

So we know that the heavens as they are now were created after the earth. So, when Allah hangs the stars in the nearest heaven (which is another problem as there is no "nearest" heaven. There is only "the universe, and there are stars throughout it, not just near the earth), he was doing it after the earth as we know it existed. That is categorically wrong. Thus disproving Islam. And if Islam is not true, its god does not exist. QED.

We also have the little issue of the stars (or meteors) being missiles thrown against naughty Jinn

An example that you cannot even understand and you want me to address that??!!

Erm, that's how it works. If a person doesn't understand something, the clever person who does understand it should explain it to them.

Do you mean examples that you picked up from those anti-Islam sites??? LOL.

This is where your ignorance of the Quran shows.
The stories of both the great flood and Gog & Magog are in the Quran.
Both those events did not happen. The Quran is wrong. Therefore Islam is false. QED.

Do you have any evidence or rational argument that points to God not actually existing?

Er,... the errors in the Quran, for one.
Then there is the fact that god is not required for any working explanation for anything.
And the problem of inconsistent revelation.

The fact that you (or anyone) are unable to provide any evidence/rational argument for the non-existence of God IS the rational argument that points to the existence of God!

And of course you don't seem to realise that your "argument for god" is also an argument for literally anything that can't be disproved.
Do you have any evidence that I didn't have sex with your mum? Obviously, I am not claiming that I did, but because you can't disprove it, you therefore accept it as true.

Yes, I claim that there’s ONLY ONE God. Are you saying you can prove there’s more than ONE God??? I thought you don’t believe in the existence of any God!! Make up your mind!! LOL.

Do you have any evidence that proves Brahma and Vishnu don't exist?
No.
Therefore by your own argument, they do exist.

What’s there to address?? ‘Millions of unmarried people having sex within a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children’ do NOT change the fact that they committed fornication and there’s NOTHING stable and committed about fornication

"There is nothing stable and committed about a stable and committed relationship".

and the ‘successfully raised happy children’ will always be known as ‘bast*rds’ and that may have a long-lasting effect on the child. So, what’s so moral about that???

No one calls them "********" in the real world anyone. Society has moved on from such bigotry.

What’s so moral about keeping a woman just to satisfy your sexual desires,

You mean like the sex slaves and concubines permitted by Islam? I agree there is nothing "moral" about it.
But a man in a long-term, stable, monogamous, committed, loving, equal relationship is not "keeping" his partner.
Neither is the man who has been picked up by the woman on a night out "keeping" her.
You strange, misogynistic ideas about women are somewhat disturbing.

Really??? Then, present it – what are the rational arguments and evidence for saying murder is wrong??

Because the victim's life is ended without consent. Because our innate empathy tells us we wouldn't want to be murdered (Golden Rule). Because people who depend on the victim in some way have been deprived.

Are you really saying that you only consider murder to be wrong because god says it is wrong? I guess for people like you, religion is important. Us civilised folks don't want you running around murdering, raping and stealing, willy nilly.

But murder is wrong simply because you say it is??? LOL. What a comedian!!!

You really have no idea what is going on here, do you?

 

[JerryMyers]

Do you want a hand with those goalposts? They look heavy.

Hmmm... I suppose you would know how heavy they are as you are an expert in moving goalposts!!

So you have given up trying to come up with an explanation for why such sex is "immoral". Not surprising.
If an act is consensual, between adults, and has no consequences, brings pleasure to the participants but affects no one else in any way - why would it not be moral? The participants benefit and no one else is affected, why is not a good thing?

Really?? Could it be you are saying that because you yourself are born out of fornication and you are trying to convince everyone you are not a bast*rd and fornication is NOT immoral?? Well, keep on trying! LOL.

Ok, so you have made your position clear.
It is only brief, irresponsible encounters of unprotected sex that you consider immoral.
You have no moral objection to sex between two unmarried people in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children.
Glad we finally sorted that out.

You really cannot understand what you read, can you??

If you are a man of integrity and a man of your words, then show me which part of my comments implied that I ‘have no moral objection to sex between two unmarried people’ and I consider ‘only brief, irresponsible encounters of unprotected sex’ is immoral????

Glad we have finally established that you have zero integrity and just cannot understand what you read. (Hint: it has a lot to do with your inability to think logically and rationally).

Why? What difference does it make?

Why is it not a surprise that you would not know the difference – how could you when you yourself have no morals??

We know that many married people are unfaithful, abusive, neglectful, get divorced, etc, so marriage is no guarantee of any sort of behaviour. So why is a married relationship necessarily better than the unmarried one I keep describing?
The bottom line is that you are simply parroting religious dogma and you have no rational explanation for why it is reasonable or valid. You have repeatedly demonstrated this. You really have nowhere left to go on this issue. Maybe you could ask your imam - see what they have to say?

What does marriage get to do with being unfaithful, abusive, or neglectful??

Only someone who’s incapable to think logically and rationally will say people become unfaithful, abusive, neglectful because …. hold it ….. wait for it…. drum roll …. here it comes….. BECAUSE THEY GOT MARRIED!!

That’s SO FUNNY!!! Why do you like to make a fool of yourself?? Must be something that comes naturally to you!! LOL!!!

 

[KWED]

Hmmm... I suppose you would know how heavy they are as you are an expert in moving goalposts!!

Show me one instance of me "moving the goalposts".
(You probably don't know what the expression means)

Really?? Could it be you are saying that because you yourself are born out of fornication and you are trying to convince everyone you are not a bast*rd and fornication is NOT immoral?? Well, keep on trying! LOL.

You just keep demonstrating that you haven't got any cogent argument for why adult, consensual sex outside of marriage is necessarily immoral. Whether it is two people in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous relationship, raising happy, successful children, or two adults who have consensual, protected sex on a one night stand and go their separate ways with no lasting effect but good memories.

If you think people are somehow ashamed of having unmarried parents these days, you as deluded are you seem to be about everything else. No one cares any more, because it doesn't matter. It makes no difference.

You really cannot understand what you read, can you??

With all due respect, it is you who does not seem to understand the implications of what you write.

If you are a man of integrity and a man of your words, then show me which part of my comments implied that I ‘have no moral objection to sex between two unmarried people’ and I consider ‘only brief, irresponsible encounters of unprotected sex’ is immoral????

Because the argument you presented for why sex outside marriage is immoral only applies to irresponsible, unprotected sex that leads to unwanted children or other such problems.

It's like you saying "I don't like green grapes because the of the colour". This implies that you are fine with red and black grapes.

If you have an argument for why either...
1. Sex between two people in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous relationship, raising happy, successful children,
or
2. Two adults who have consensual, protected sex on a one night stand and go their separate ways with no lasting effect but good memories.
is immoral, please present it. Thus far you have not because your argument only deals with consequences that do not arise from the two types of relationship I have cited.

Why is it not a surprise that you would not know the difference – how could you when you yourself have no morals??

As usual, you avoid addressing my point.
I asked why two people in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous relationship, raising happy, successful children is different in practical terms to two people in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous relationship, raising happy, successful children, with a marriage certificate.

You clearly can't show any practical difference or any reason why one is "moral" and the other is "immoral".

What does marriage get to do with being unfaithful, abusive, or neglectful??

I'm trying to find out why you think marriage is so important. Bering married doesn't mean a husband or wife will behave better to each other or their children than people in a comparable, unmarried relationship.
Surely it is the behaviour of the individuals that makes it moral or not, not simply having a piece of paper with some words on it.

Only someone who’s incapable to think logically and rationally will say people become unfaithful, abusive, neglectful because …. hold it ….. wait for it…. drum roll …. here it comes….. BECAUSE THEY GOT MARRIED!!

With anyone else I would dismiss this as a pathetic deliberate straw man, but with you, I suspect that you really might not have any idea what is going on.

 

[Jolly]

Salam

The Quran endorses Musa, Haroun... Isa.. in Bani-Israel. So how can it say Judaism and Christianity is false?

.

The Quran states clearly that these Faith's are not false.

1. [5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

There is a clear statement in this section that Jews who say Christian's are in a false religion or Christians that say Jews are in a false religion should not be befriended by Muslims.

It appears to me the Quarn critics those who would arrogantly proclaim they know the truth- and through their ignorance judge others.

 

[JerryMyers]

Yes, so...How is sex with a sex worker comparable to sex between people in a stable, committed, long-term, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children?

You really cannot understand what you read, can you??

They are comparable because as I have told you – “sex with a sex worker is also an act of fornication and there’s nothing stable, committed, or permanent with fornication”. Do you know what fornication is???

What are you on about? Why do you think that in a one-night-stand, the man "keeps" the woman? In some such encounters, it is the woman who instigates the intimacy.
You seem to have a very outdated idea about women. I wonder where you get that from?...

I am not referring to a ‘one-night-stand’. How could I be referring to ‘one-night-stand’ when this is the first time you mentioned ‘one-night-stand’. I am referring to ‘the people’ in your ‘why is sex between people in a stable, committed, permanent, monogamous relationship which has successfully raised happy children, immoral….’ (your post #269). Unless you are referring to people who are married to each other, then, yes, their relationship is not immoral.

Sorry, meant "in care".
You claimed that the context of family is a factor in the morality of relationships. If neither of the participants have any family, does that affect the morality? If not, then why is it such an issue?

Not having a family is not an issue of morality, the issue of morality is NOT having the commitment, responsibility, and accountability in a sexual relationship and that’s what fornication is all about.

It's 41:9-12. No wonder you didn't find the references!

Typo error - obviously a big deal to you like as if you never made any typo error…typical!

In 41:9-10 it is talking about god creating the earth, and putting everything in it.
Then in 41:11 Muhammad says that then god separated the earth from the heavens. That is also an error because
1. The earth and the heavens were never one entity.
2. It means the earth existed as we know it now before the rest of the universe did, which is demonstrable nonsense.
Sahih International: Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."
Pickthall: Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.
Yusuf Ali: Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
Shakir: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.
Muhammad Sarwar: He established His dominance over the sky, which (for that time) was like smoke. Then He told the heavens and the earth, "Take your shape either willingly or by force" They said, "We willingly obey".
Mohsin Khan: Then He Istawa (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."
Arberry: Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly, or unwillingly!" They said, "We come willingly."
So we know that the heavens as they are now were created after the earth. So, when Allah hangs the stars in the nearest heaven (which is another problem as there is no "nearest" heaven. There is only "the universe, and there are stars throughout it, not just near the earth), he was doing it after the earth as we know it existed. That is categorically wrong. Thus disproving Islam. And if Islam is not true, its god does not exist. QED.
We also have the little issue of the stars (or meteors) being missiles thrown against naughty Jinn

Erm, that's how it works. If a person doesn't understand something, the clever person who does understand it should explain it to them.

That’s so laughable!!
Anyway, let’s read Quran 41:9-12 as one continuous passage so that you can see the context (I hope) –

‘Say, "Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds." And He placed on the earth firmly set mountains over its surface, and He blessed it and determined therein its [creatures'] sustenance in four days without distinction - for [the information] of those who ask. Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly." And He completed them as seven heavens within two days and inspired in each heaven its command. And We adorned the nearest heaven with lamps and as protection. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing’.

In context, Allah is instructing Muhammad on what to say to the disbelievers who still doubted that He’s THE God, Lord of the worlds and that He has no equals. The passage is NOT implying God was creating the earth or the heaven first, it is to respond to the disbelievers as they still doubt Allah as their God and attribute equals to Him when it was Allah (One and Only) who created the earth and set mountains on its surface. After telling Muhammad that, He then 'turn to the heaven' to tell the disbelievers (through Muhammad), that it was also Him who creates and completes the heavens.

There’s NOTHING in the whole passage (if you can understand the context) that implies the earth was created first as the whole passage (Quran 41:9-12) was NOT about what was created first, it was about what Muhammad needed to say to the disbelievers who challenge Muhammad of his words about Allah. Heck, even the first word of Quran 41:9 is ‘Say’ which means all the words that follow are what Muhammad needs to say to the disbelievers.

Your ‘understanding’ that Quran 41:9-12 was implying earth was created first only reinforces what we both already know - that not only are you ignorant but you are also incapable to think logically and rationally… which is why, in trying to look ‘educated’ explaining the Quran, you are actually making a fool of yourself to the Muslims!!!

This is where your ignorance of the Quran shows.

That’s so funny! Never can stop making a fool of yourself to us Muslims, can you????

Er,... the errors in the Quran, for one.

Er…which are easily explained and dismissed as we know your ‘knowledge’ of the Quran came from your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

Then there is the fact that god is not required for any working explanation for anything.

Then, explain why you think the anatomy of a human being with its organ system, musculoskeletal system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, nervous system, digestive system, urinary system, and reproductive system IS NOT an intelligent design??

And the problem of inconsistent revelation.

Are you trying to say the only consistent here is your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally?? Yes, I agree.

And of course you don't seem to realise that your "argument for god" is also an argument for literally anything that can't be disproved.

Is that why the existence of God cannot be disproved???

Do you have any evidence that I didn't have sex with your mum? Obviously, I am not claiming that I did, but because you can't disprove it, you therefore accept it as true.

Well, you just said obviously, you are not claiming that you did, so why would I need to show evidence to prove you didn’t?? Or are you admitting that no one should trust what you said or wrote here?? BTW, my mom passed away a long time ago.

Do you have any evidence that proves Brahma and Vishnu don't exist? No. Therefore by your own argument, they do exist.

You mean like you don’t have any evidence that proves FSM exists, therefore by your own argument FSM exists??

No one calls them "********" in the real world anyone. Society has moved on from such bigotry.

You mean ‘…in the real world anymore’?? (and I thought English is your first language…. or is that a typo error?)

Maybe, but in the real world, the definition of a bast*rd is NOT going to change whether society has moved on or not. Not sure about your imaginary world.

You mean like the sex slaves and concubines permitted by Islam? I agree there is nothing "moral" about it.

Here we go again! You got real evidence (NOT ‘evidence’ from your ignorance or imagination) that Islam permits sex slaves???

But a man in a long-term, stable, monogamous, committed, loving, equal relationship is not "keeping" his partner.

Hmmm.. not ‘keeping her’, not married to her, then what is she ???

Neither is the man who has been picked up by the woman on a night out "keeping" her.
You strange, misogynistic ideas about women are somewhat disturbing.

Wait! Are you trying to tell me that you have been picked up by a woman on a night out before??? Is this another one of your imagination like your imaginary ‘wife’?? LOL.

Because the victim's life is ended without consent. Because our innate empathy tells us we wouldn't want to be murdered (Golden Rule). Because people who depend on the victim in some way have been deprived. Are you really saying that you only consider murder to be wrong because god says it is wrong? I guess for people like you, religion is important.

So that logic applies to you but not to God when He says murder is a sin and wrong??

Us civilised folks don't want you running around murdering, raping and stealing, willy nilly.

‘Us civilized folks’??? If ‘civilized’ means having non-committal, no responsibility, and no accountability consensual sex with random partners, then you are as ‘civilized’ as the animals because animals too live by the same sexual code. Do you ‘civilized folks’ also thump your chest repeatedly after every sex session??? LOL!

You really have no idea what is going on here, do you?

Of course I know what’s going on here!! You are a comedian who’s here to make a fool of yourself and entertain us Muslims!! You don’t know that?? Well, now you know, please go and do what you do best!!

 

[JerryMyers]

You just keep demonstrating that you haven't got any cogent argument for why adult, consensual sex outside of marriage is necessarily immoral. Whether it is two people in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous relationship, raising happy, successful children, or two adults who have consensual, protected sex on a one night stand and go their separate ways with no lasting effect but good memories.
If you think people are somehow ashamed of having unmarried parents these days, you as deluded are you seem to be about everything else. No one cares any more, because it doesn't matter. It makes no difference.

So, you admit you are a bast*rd??? OK, glad we sort that out.

With all due respect, it is you who does not seem to understand the implications of what you write.

So said you. But the fact is you cannot understand what you read, else you would not be repeating your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally again and again.

Because the argument you presented for why sex outside marriage is immoral only applies to irresponsible, unprotected sex that leads to unwanted children or other such problems.
It's like you saying "I don't like green grapes because the of the colour". This implies that you are fine with red and black grapes.

I said fornication is immoral. Maybe you don’t know what fornication is. Well, fornication means consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.

So now that you know what fornication means, now show me which part of my comments implied that I ‘have no moral objection to sex between two unmarried people’ and I consider ‘only brief, irresponsible encounters of unprotected sex’ is immoral???? Try to answer without displaying your inability to think logically and rationally.

If you have an argument for why either...
1. Sex between two people in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous relationship, raising happy, successful children,
or
2. Two adults who have consensual, protected sex on a one night stand and go their separate ways with no lasting effect but good memories.
is immoral, please present it. Thus far you have not because your argument only deals with consequences that do not arise from the two types of relationship I have cited.
As usual, you avoid addressing my point.

Fornication is immoral because it’s a relationship without commitment, responsibility, and accountability. In such a sexual relationship, the woman is the one who tends to get the bad end of the deal. I don’t expect you to understand that because commitment, responsibility, and accountability are traits that you don’t possess.

I asked why two people in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous relationship, raising happy, successful children is different in practical terms to two people in a committed, loving, long-term, monogamous relationship, raising happy, successful children, with a marriage certificate.
You clearly can't show any practical difference or any reason why one is "moral" and the other is "immoral".

I have already shown you the practical difference why one is "moral" and the other is "immoral", but as usual, you just cannot understand what you read. Here, it is again –
“In practical terms, marriage is a relationship of love and commitments that also brings 2 different families together. On the other hand, fornication is a non-committal relationship of sexual lust that only lasts as long as the attraction and sexual desires for each other last. So, guess which one is morally-acceptable and which one is not?? Only those who are raised with good morals will be able to figure this out correctly”.

Clearly, you are NOT raised with good moral values and that’s why you insist fornication is not immoral.

I'm trying to find out why you think marriage is so important. Bering married doesn't mean a husband or wife will behave better to each other or their children than people in a comparable, unmarried relationship.
Surely it is the behaviour of the individuals that makes it moral or not, not simply having a piece of paper with some words on it.

Yes, it’s the behavior of the individuals that makes it moral or not, so why do you think marriage got to do with being unfaithful, abusive, or neglectful??

BTW, that piece of paper with some words in it (as you put it) is a vow that reflects trust, commitment, responsibility, and accountability to the couple’s relationship. Then again, if commitment, responsibility, and accountability are something of no importance to you, then, yes, I can see why marriage is not important to you.

With anyone else I would dismiss this as a pathetic deliberate straw man, but with you, I suspect that you really might not have any idea what is going on.

And you who think marriage is what makes people become unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful have any idea what is going on??? LOL. What a joker!!!
Why do you have to make a FOOL of yourself again and again??? As I said it must be something that comes naturally to you and that’s why you will keep on making a fool of yourself!! This is FUN!!

 

[KWED]

So, you admit you are a bast*rd??? OK, glad we sort that out.

You seem particularly sensitive about this issue. Were you born out of wedlock? Are you so vehemently against unmarried sex because you feel shame over your own background?
It would explain a lot tbh.
You really need to understand that there is nothing to be ashamed of. People don't think less of you because of your origins. They think less of you because of your irrational, intolerant bigotry.

I said fornication is immoral. Maybe you don’t know what fornication is. Well, fornication means consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.

So now that you know what fornication means, now show me which part of my comments implied that I ‘have no moral objection to sex between two unmarried people’ and I consider ‘only brief, irresponsible encounters of unprotected sex’ is immoral???? Try to answer without displaying your inability to think logically and rationally.

You claimed that the reason fornication is immoral is because of the "undesirable" consequences like children with single parents.
However, in a stable, long-term, committed, loving, monogamous relationship which raises happy children to adulthood - there are no "undesirable consequences". Therefore the implication is that you don't find such relationships immoral. The fact that you are unable to provide any explanation as to why such a relationship is immoral merely confirms this.

If, as I suspected, your objection to such a relationship is simply "cuz god sez", then you should have said so in the first place, instead of pretending you had a rational explanation.

Fornication is immoral because it’s a relationship without commitment, responsibility, and accountability.

You are just going round in circles. I have describe an unmarried relationship that has commitment, responsibility, and accountability, so what objection do you have against it?

“In practical terms, marriage is a relationship of love and commitments that also brings 2 different families together.

There are many unmarried relationships that perfectly fit that description, so why is one moral and the other immoral? You seem incapable of explaining that.

Yes, it’s the behavior of the individuals that makes it moral or not, so why do you think marriage got to do with being unfaithful, abusive, or neglectful??

So you admit that the concept of marriage is not what makes a relationship good, healthy, worthy, etc. It is the behaviour of the people involved.

BTW, that piece of paper with some words in it (as you put it) is a vow that reflects trust, commitment, responsibility, and accountability to the couple’s relationship.

But married people are unfaithful, abusive, get divorced in huge numbers - so that "vow" is not worth the paper it's written on.
Once again you have just supported my argument, that it is the behaviour of the people that counts, not some archaic ritual or a legal certificate.

And you who think marriage is what makes people become unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful

I have never made that claim. And I have already explained your error. Not sure whether your repeating it is through stupidity or dishonesty.

 

[JerryMyers]

You seem particularly sensitive about this issue. Were you born out of wedlock? Are you so vehemently against unmarried sex because you feel shame over your own background? It would explain a lot tbh.
You really need to understand that there is nothing to be ashamed of. People don't think less of you because of your origins. They think less of you because of your irrational, intolerant bigotry.

So I take that as your admission that you are the result of the immoral act of your ‘father’ and mother and you are trying to convince everyone here that there’s nothing to be ashamed of being a bast*rd because fornication is not immoral. OK. Got it!

You claimed that the reason fornication is immoral is because of the "undesirable" consequences like children with single parents.
However, in a stable, long-term, committed, loving, monogamous relationship which raises happy children to adulthood - there are no "undesirable consequences". Therefore the implication is that you don't find such relationships immoral. The fact that you are unable to provide any explanation as to why such a relationship is immoral merely confirms this.

You really cannot understand what you read, can you?? Let me say it again - fornication is immoral because the consensual sexual relationship between two persons not married to each other is a relationship WITHOUT commitment, responsibility and accountability. The reason you cannot understand that and keep harping on it is that commitment, responsibility and accountability are traits you don’t possess and that’s why you insist fornication is not immoral.

If, as I suspected, your objection to such a relationship is simply "cuz god sez", then you should have said so in the first place, instead of pretending you had a rational explanation.
You are just going round in circles. I have describe an unmarried relationship that has commitment, responsibility, and accountability, so what objection do you have against it?

I am going in circles because I am responding to you and you are going in circles and the reason you are going in circles is because you just cannot understand what you read and the reason you cannot understand what you read is that you are incapable to think logically and rationally.

There are many unmarried relationships that perfectly fit that description, so why is one moral and the other immoral? You seem incapable of explaining that.

See what I mean when I said you are going in circles??? In an unmarried relationship, you are mistaking lust for love and there’s no such thing as commitment, responsibility and accountability in such a relationship.

So you admit that the concept of marriage is not what makes a relationship good, healthy, worthy, etc. It is the behaviour of the people involved.

So you admit that marriage is not what makes a person unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful but it is the behavior of the individuals??

But married people are unfaithful, abusive, get divorced in huge numbers - so that "vow" is not worth the paper it's written on. Once again you have just supported my argument, that it is the behaviour of the people that counts, not some archaic ritual or a legal certificate.

HUH??! So you are now saying marriage is what make people unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful and this has nothing to do with the behavior of the individuals???
Make up your mind – does marriage make people unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful, or being unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful is the reflection of one’s behavior and character???
Seems to me you have no clue, let alone understand what you are saying!!!

I have never made that claim. And I have already explained your error. Not sure whether your repeating it is through stupidity or dishonesty.

You have already explained my error???! That's so funny! In which post of yours is that??? The only thing you have ‘explained’ is why I am so right to say you are ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally… and that’s no error, that’s a fact!!