www.islam-watch.org

Hell is nonsense and a big bullshit just as 'heaven'. Ther is no hell or heaven and there is no "god" at all. All figment of imagination of deluded idiots or scheming rascals who want to exploit human insecurity and make a lot of moolah/ money to live comfortable out of it. And they also get tax exemption or cuts to carry on this immoral scam in the name of a nonexisting spooky creature called "god/Allah/Yahweh/Bhagwan,etc". It is all a big LIE. Absolute Bullshit.

Already 2000 years ago stoic thinkers revealed that there must be something wrong with the idea of hell. The body just cannot sustain so much pain. People would faint or die. Of course pain makes sense in order to survive and to take care of ones body.

The idea of punishment is a human invention to keep law and order and many other religions such as zoroastrism and buddhism teach that there is also an afterlife punishment for bad behaviour. BTW, in Buddhism, as far as I know, this is not vor ever, but only untli somebody has suffered enough.

In islam, however, hell is forever and not only for criminal acts, but also for just not believing in islam. On the other hand, criminal acts such as killing during a holy war might be honoured with paradise!

Islamic paradise, on the other hand, is as absurd as the islamic hell. People have sex with virgins, wear golden rings and rest on pillows made of silk. Are they imported from China? And where is the gold from and what is it good for? And why not a Rolex from Switzerland? Or no, I want an I-pad and a wireless Internet Flatrate for free! Is that available? Without it could be very boring ...

Hell is like sin, the pious have to have it...The pious do not want to go to hell, but they need it to threaten others with...
Sinners go to hell, unless they are saved, or convert to Islam...Hell is a recruiting tool to bring in the sheep (code word for 'guilty')...Guilty of what? Why sin of course...Birth=sin=guilt...The sinners mantra,'I was born a sinner, I have always been a sinner, and I will die a sinner'...But there is one more...Birth=sin=guilt=punishment...God will throw you into the boiling pit of sewage where you will spend eternity up to your lower lip in filth, hoping no one makes any waves, or if Allah gets you for your sins he will burn your skin off over and over...There is no evidence that God or Allah have any interests in your sins...Only men have that interest for rule and control purposes...There is profit in the guilt industry, sin and hell are it's main products...
Well, those and huge fancy buildings called Churches, Mosques, or temples...where the guilty sinners go to pay their dues...
The whole thing is a con job and a scam, preying on the weak minded...

I heard a song that sang;I swear there ain`t no heaven,but pray there ain`t no hell.

I have a feeling this English man real name was as plain as something like, Bob or bill ….
It is funny how Muslim convert choose their Muslim names , it tells of their real thinking behind their convergent to the most power hungry religion, Islam.
Abdullah, is no brainer ….
But, his last name, Andallosi makes me think of him thinking back, where the days where Muslims dominated Spain … of course we all know, they did it, by stealing, killing,enslaving,raping and just about devoured the culture of that beautiful nation … but he turns blind eye on that.
I think this man, named him self after Andalusia to, either try to attach him self to the time where Imayyien were in the highest Islamic power, I bit he thinks him self like Tariq bin Ziyad [lol] or his envision and hope of the power that Islam supposedly going to have in the coming years just like did in Spain for 800 hundred years … or both.
Either way … he thinks he owns that power Islam brings …. look at his expression how it changed when he talked about the power of Allah how we helpless under Allah dominate control ….

I despise men who thinks using power will get them anything …it is true they might get their way, but one thing they do not get is, love .

Living as a Muslim is so depressing .

I think the topic of whether hell is a just punishment one first needs to answer what hell really is. The Islamic version of being burned repeatedly ,and other such things (especially Allah's will being that he purposely created some people for hell ,and that they have no choice but to follow his will to end up there) is definitely unjust. Many people seem to have the idea that hell is being in some gloomy cave with a guy with a pitch fork ,lava ,fire ,and other methods of torture. The Bible doesn't give a detailed account of what hell is ,but makes it clear that hell is separation from God. If someone continually rejects God ,then isn't that fair? There are some who believe that the suffering in hell isn't so much physical as it is spiritual and emotional (such as shame ,disgrace ,regret ,sorrow etc.). Also has anyone considered what it might mean for someone who is a sinner to actually be in the presence of God? The Israelites were extremely afraid of being in God's presence on Mt. Sinai. Exodus 20:18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke ,they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance19 and said to Moses , "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."
These were the people who worshiped God ,and they were terribly afraid. What would it be like for an unrepentant sinner to be in the purely Holy presence of God? I think that it would be far worse. I think that God is actually just giving these people what they truly want ,complete separation from Him. Also try thinking like this. If you committed treason in the country in which you live don't you expect to pay a penalty for it? Sin is treason against God ,and is grounds for immediate punishment. This punishment would be eternal exile from His presence. God is merciful though ,and has provided a way for us to return to Him ,and that was through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Duh has a twisted view of both sin and hell. We are not born with an inherited sin ,but with a natural desire to sin. When we sin we are willfully pushing God away. God cannot allow sin in His presence ,and that's where hell comes in. Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined once to die ,and after that to face judgement, 28 So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time ,not to bear sin ,but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
John 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world ,but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Matthew 12:30 "Whoever is not with me is against me ,and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

Duh has a twisted view of both sin and hell.

LOL...Your getting loony...Who are you talking to ghosts? The ghost told me it was you who have a twisted view of sin and hell...He said there were no little devils in red suits with pitchforks torturing the sinful and guilty...He described Hell as being more like Las Vegas, Nevada USA...That's why some call it 'Sin City', and the Devils playground...where everyone is having fun...It's expensive on Earth, but in Hell they use play money...In Islam, Hell is perpetual warfare, with Christianity Hell means perpetual gambling. ..The reason that Hell is given bad advertising is to avoid overcrowding...If people knew what it was really like, they would just die to get in there...

The topic of the debate seems skewed automatically to a theological perspective. Not only that, but a strict Islamic theological interpretation. Quereshi has a hard time finding traction to counter the theological rants sloppily guised as profound philosophical argument of Al-Adalusi. Al-Andulusi continously presents his points in the style of 'how many angels on a pinhead', while Qureshi attempts to counter with a rationalist/humanist argument. The entire premise of the debate was bizarre at best, placing an agnostic against an avowed, dyed-in-wool Muslim. You cannot forge common grounds for a debate here, when one side has been given as a priori to start that 1) Hell is real 2) Hell is as exactly described in Islamic theology 3) Punishment in hell is as exactly prescribed per Quran/Hadiths/traditions. Also note that like all good Muslims, Mr Andalusi is firm that punishment for non-belief always is much more severe and permanent than the worst genocidal, amoral believer. All you have to do is profess Allah and be assured, no matter how much a prick and monster you've been in life, you always receive the 'Get Out of Jannah for Free' card. What a sick display of this cretins version of justice. Would that Christopher Hitchens was alive to debate this twit Andalusi, but i suppose he would not want to waste time with this small fry, piss-ant who has little input in current Islamic theological thoughts anyway.

......having to live as a Muslim.

It was a post directed towards anyone who would read it. Didn't have a specific name like I usually do so I just left the title blank. Does a post that's just supposed to be generally for anyone have to have a title on it?

Duh has a twisted view of both sin and hell.

Looks like a specific name to me...I guess you are just confused again...Does that happen a lot?

Where's uncle Reed when you need him?

The POST was directed to anyone willing to read it. I just happened to mention you in the post. It sounds like you're the one who is confused. Or maybe you just didn't read what I posted carefully enough ,that has been happening to a lot of my posts lately ,and from a lot of different people.

What proof is there that the smoke on the mountain was not created by Moses to make believe that he saw God and God told him what he wanted to say. What proof is there that the faith of the desert religions is only 4000 years old. Moses could have fabricated all that stuff like Mohammed did. Miracles don't prove anything but they are magic shows by the cunning.

It should read what proof is there for the faith of desert religions that human race is only 4000 years old. Just because one tribe believed that their ancestor was the first man to be thrown on earth by their god without even being aware that there are civilisations in the other parts of the world (which they did not even know) should the entire modern world believe it?

I just happened to mention you in the post. It sounds like you're the one who is confused. Or maybe you just didn't read what I posted carefully enough ,that has been happening to a lot of my posts l

Another lame excuse, you are sounding more and more like Uncle Reed...

Actually the number for the age of the human race would be around 6,000 years old ,and there are actually many evidences in support of this conclusion. Mitochondrial "Eve" (the one woman whom we are all related to) is aged at around 6,000 years old. Our species has gone through a genetic "bottleneck" in the recent past (Noah's Flood caused just such a "bottleneck" to happen). Dinosaurs bones found with soft tissue ,and blood vessels in them (this means that they can't be millions of years old). The fossil record shows evidence of not only the geologic layers being laid down by water (sedimentary rock forms these layers) ,but of rapid burial of the organisms (jellyfish fossils ,and fossils of trees that go up through several layers). Marine life for fossils found all over the world even on mountainous terrain. The salt ,and silt content of the oceans are far too small to be as old as they are taught to be. These are just a few of many examples of evidence that the universe is far younger than traditionally taught in schools. Now these things do not prove the Bible ,but they are certainly consistent with the Bible. If you are actually willing to look at some of the evidence in depth I suggest creation.com or answersingenesis.org
What if it can be proved that the miracle in question was an actual miracle ,and not some trickery by the person in question? How could Moses use magic show tools to cross the Red Sea? How could Jesus use magic show trickery to not only walk on water Himself ,but also get Peter to do the same? How could anyone use magic show trickery to raise someone who had been dead for almost a week (Lazarus in the Bible was raised to life by Jesus)? How could Jesus raise Himself from death ,unless His claims were true? Do you still think that miracles don't prove anything (especially one's like the above)?
In our modern world we have the tools to investigate the history in Bible. The Bible has NEVER been proven wrong. In fact the more we learn about history the more the Bible is validated. If a source is trustworthy on everyday matters ,then why not on matters that seem a little unusual? John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe ; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

9:49-”Hell shall encompass the unbelievers.”

3:10-”Those who disbelieve, neither their riches nor their children shall save them from Allah. They shall become the fuel of the fire.”

18:29-"For the wrongdoers We have prepared a fire which will encompass them like the walls of a pavilion. When they cry out for help they shall be showered with water as hot as molten brass, which will scald their faces. Evil shall be their drink, evil their resting-place."

22:19-"Garmens of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.
Whenever in their anguish, they try to escape from hell, they shall be dragged back, and told: Taste the torment of the Conflagration!"

98:6-”The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be for ever in the fire of gehenna (hell). They are the worst of all creatures.”

59:2-3-”It was he who expelled the unbelievers among the people of the book from their homes into the first exile. You did not think that they would go out, and they thought their fortresses would protect them from Allah. But Allah came upon them from where they did not expect, casting terror into their hearts that their homes were destroyed by their own hands as well as by the hands of the believers. Therefore, take heed you that have eyes. Had it been that Allah had not decreed that they should be dispersed, he would have surely punished them in this world. and in the everlasting life the punishment of the fire awaits them….”

40:70-"...when, with chains and shackles round their necks, they shall be dragged through scalding water and burnt in the fire of Hell."

What about Egyptian, Indian, Greek, civilisations all existed even before your 6000 years. It is the trickery of the west (Christians and Muslims) to have written history from the point of view of the nomadic desert tribes and their descendents. Where is the proof of all that bunkum of walking on water etc. Did you see any of them? You are believing what your forefathers told you. What is wrong in others believing what their forefathers told. The rich Harappan culture of Sindh valley could not have been there if human race was only 6000 years old. Change your mindset cerebrum. Every civilisation has created their Almighties and so did Jews,Christians and Muslims. You can't see the Earth as a ball unless you are out in space. Similarly you can't see the defects in your argument unless you come out of the attachment you have to your beLIEfs.

the proof of all that bunkum of walking on water

According to one researcher on the history of the monastery of Qumran, Jesus was a high priest who was in competition with the Highest priest named Johnathan...The monastery had an aqueduct running through the middle with a footbridge spanning it. During some rituals, the monks sat on one side of the aqueduct, and the priests on the other, at some point the Jesus crosses the aqueduct and blesses the monks...They actually called this 'walking on water'...Jesus was not supposed to do that, it was the job of Johnathan...The miracle was that Jonathan let Jesus get away with it...

A true story? I don't know, I wasn't there, but that is what was reported...

Other than radiocarbon dating what evidence is there that that particular culture is that old? The evidence points to humanity ,and the universe being much younger than the estimates by uniformitarians and evolutionists. C-14 dating can't even get a true date past 100,000 years ,and due to the massive amount of unproven and false assumptions that go into these dating methods you get even more greatly inflated dates for tested items than is possible with most dating methods.In fact most fossils and other items aren't even dated by these methods ,but by what geologic layer they are found in. Want to know how they dated these layers? By what fossils are found in them. Isn't that circular reasoning? There is no evidence (other than dates made with the faulty dating methods we have now) that shows these other cultures to be more than 6,000 years old. I believe the Bible because it has been proven to be trustworthy.

@ Duh
The word often translated as faith in the NT is pistis which is used in a technical rhetorical was to mean forensic proof. This word is also translated as assurance in Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day ,in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men ,in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Here the Bible is talking of Jesus being raised from the dead as proof that God will judge the world. I suggest you go to the Tektonics website and look up their article "What is Faith". It certainly shows that faith is not blind belief like you commonly claim. Too many people have come to understand that word in this way today ,but that is not how it should be understood in the Bible.

How daft can you get ? This is absolutely the nadir of stupidity to say that we are just 6,000 years old. The geology of this planet does not support your biblical muck. What scientific evidence are you talking about? Many civilisations predate this 6,000 years caper by several millennium like Indian,Chinese, European, American, even in the middle-east before the muck of fanatical monotheistic cult of Abraham poisoned it. Thje Chaldeans, Sumerians,etc predate your biblical nonsense of creation. Wake up ,cerebrum to truth and facts and tyrash all the bullshits in your socalled shits of 'holy books' supposed to be authored by some spook called "God" ,while actually it was authored by scumbags of deluded ,selfseeking scoundrels who conned the ir way to make a very comfortable living out of the gullible masses preying on their insecurities,fears and superstititions.

Proven to be trustworthy?
To whose satisfaction? To the people of a particular group called brain-washed Christians. Who in order to gain control over rest of the world resorted to "My God is God your God is DEVIL" attitude and wanted the entire world to be dyed in their paint like the Fox in Aesop's fables. The tribe whose IQ was not enough to remember history of more than a few generations, chose to stop efforts at backdating and stopped at ADAM and called him the first man not knowing that their existed many civilisations with more advanced culture.
Like a frog in the well they thought that the well was the world. Only thing is when they came out of the well they were strong bully frogs. They suppressed the history of other cultures an claimed they were the pioneers. That is a believable truth than just saying my religion is true and others Myth.

are just a tool to keep the masses in line and subservient

It certainly shows that faith is not blind belief like you commonly claim...

I go for the dictionary deffinition...Webster..

.b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Dictionary.com..'.belief that is not based on proof'

I have faith there really is a man in the moon, but I can't prove it...I have faith the Bible is 100% correct 100% of the time, but I can't prove it...This all adds up to 'blind belief'...It would not be blind if it can be proved...but you can never prove the existence of 'God', nor prove that he ever said or wrote anything...You have to take that on blind belief, because it is impossible to prove it...This means that you write incessantly about something you can't prove...If you can't prove it, you can't know it...But that does not stop you from writing reams of unproven material...

Cerebrum123,

U r deluded by ur Bible when it comes to finding d age of earth n d dawn of civilizations. U r retrofitting scientific findings to Biblical chronology. Biblical writers, who had a negative IQ, thought earth was few thousand years old. In fact, in medieval ages the church believed earth was created in 4004 BC. Mate, even in this scientific age, do u believe in d biblical myth? You either update your Bible or discard it.

Couple of years ago scientists found a mammoth of at least 18.000 years old. This surely doesn't fit in the 6000 years scale of the biblical earth. This should be enough to discard the bible as accurate and trustworthy when it comes to facts.

So you can bring down trex with rope.

1. What will be thickness of the rope as the t rex was big in size so u need a strong rope. How would you transport that rope around.
2. t rex had binocular vision and could see very well. Dont go by hollywood for thats not the accurate depiction.
3. T rex also had good sense of smell so unless you warap yourself in T Rex poo u will smell like a nice food morcel.
4. T rex moved and hunted in pairs so wha about other T Rex trying to make a meal out of you.

Go are read further and the rope trick fails.

And how do they know how old that mammoth is? Do they have written records of when the mammoth died? Again your relying on faulty dating methods for this date of 18,000 years.

@ Mozlem
I didn't say that a t-rex was as blind as in the movie, I said that if they WERE that blind than it would be very easy to lure them into a trap. I did say they would need a strong rope. People weren't nearly as stupid back in early human history as people tend to think. I fact Tubal-Cain was making bronze and iron tools pretty soon after the Fall. Making a strong cord or rope probably wouldn't be too hard for them. Besides it was a hypothetical situation anyway(it also doesn't need to be rope ,any fall would have been enough to kill one). The t-rex even if a carnivore would have to be very slow to minimize the risk of falling ,and this would make them much less of a threat. Also for a t-rex their roots on their teeth were very shallow ,and they likely couldn't have been eating on liv My main point was that they wouldn't have been the main threat against mankind ,and that mankind could survive even with t-rexes living at the same time. The idea of tripping one to kill it isn't my own idea either ,and here is where I got it. Dinosaur expert James Farlow ,of Indiana-Purdue University , now says that if you were attacked by a chargin T. Rex ,simply tripping it up or getting it's feet somehow tangled would have been enough to smash it into a lifeless heap. Elephants are big ,and actually can move fast ,but human hunters have been able to take them down with simple spears. Again I was only trying to make the point that humans could have lived at the same time as dinosaurs without being wiped out.

As for the hunting in pairs ,it's unlikely that they were hunters at all due to their teeth. The roots were very shallow ,and if they were to try and take a bite out of a living dinosaur would likely leave most of their teeth behind. It's more likely that they were scavengers.

T. rex's jaws were up to 4 feet (1.2 m) long and had 50 to 60 thick, conical, bone-crunching teeth that ranged in size from very small to over 9 inches (23 cm) long. Adult had a variety of sizes of teeth in their jaws at one time, as teeth were broken and new (smaller) ones grew in to replace them. One T. rex was found with some teeth up to 13 inch (33 cm) long. T. rex could eat up to 500 pounds (230 kg) of meat and bones in one bite!

Tyrannosaurus rex had a wrap-around overbite; when T. rex closed its mouth, the upper parts of the lower jaw's teeth fit inside the upper teeth.

It could chomp through bones ?

"Again your relying on faulty dating methods for this date of 18,000 years"

What correct scientific methods do you have for the dates fixed by the desert tribe? Only the word of a man who lit up a fire on the mountain and then said that he saw God and his followers who chronicled some MAGIC SHOWS?
If you see the Greek,Egyptian and Indian buildings their language etc, it should have taken 1000s of years to achieve such perfection. Banister Fletcher dates Egyptian civilisation to 3000B.C. If you look at Sanskrit, Its alphabet is so scientifically arranged with vowels as one group and consonants in various groups depending on from where the sound is generated, you would definitely need ages before.
.

that was cited in the Veda's that was there when they were written...no river exists there now, but when man went into space and saw a basin where the ancient texts said it was, studies began. They found at the mouth of this river Shiva Lingam that were 10,000 years old, but 123 doesn't believe in carbon dating, I do

And then there is the Enochian language, said to be older even than Sanskrit...

Carbon dating is riddled with assumptions ,and some of these assumptions have been proven to be FALSE. So if something is based on assumptions ,and some of them have been proven false ,then how can it give a correct date on anything?

@ non believer
I'm not using any type of scientific method other than simple math for the ages I have posted. We DO KNOW when certain events occurred ( I believe the best known one is when the Israelite's were conquered by Babylon ,but I will have to get back to you on that one). Then you take a look at the genealogies that are provided in the Bible. The Bible has pretty detailed genealogies so using them to go back and find an approximate date isn't that hard. Depending on the method used there have been dates making the earth to be about 10,000 years old ,but most people (Including Isaac Newton) get a date of around 4,000 B.C. for the creation date. Also why do people need so much time to perfect their language skills? They weren't idiots back then ,and were capable of so many amazing things (like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon ,and the Pyramids of Giza).

@ Mozlem
That is an interesting piece of information ,but unless these new teeth grew in extremely fast it's still unlikely for them to be hunters. They would have to grow new teeth after every meal. And it's not so much the teeth themselves that were small ,but their roots. Again my main point is that they wouldn't have been the kind of threat needed to wipe mankind off the face of the earth.

You really belong to the "dark ages" when you question radiocarbon dating and uphold the bullshits of the Bible and Quran. Next ,you may even say the geological ages like Carboniferous era, Permian era, Triassic era ,Jurassic era,etc never happened ,,since these eras have taken millions of years to happen. You really belong to the middle-ages of Europe or of any era of islam till date. Islamists will definitely make you the grand imam and I doubt christian churches would look your way except the crazy evangelical nuts who run their fieffdom in the USA and other countries. You surely would get the noble prize for lunacy.

Then take a look at genealogies of the east also. You would say they are myths. This is the problem with Christianity. It looks at the world from the pond of the desert and says world began here. The reason why Islam is so violent is because it is the brother of intolerant Christianity. The greatest religious wars are between these two religions. In the east God was not worship demanding. Each one could have his own God. He could worship many Gods and all could live peacefully But Cs and Ms wanted to rule the earth with their religion and hence use of muscle than brains. In the east debates were encouraged to solve religious disputes. But with Christians and Muslims it was my religion or no religion. East existed much before west Africa existed much before the desert. There were people on it much before your Adam. But it is your religions which prevents you from considering such thoughts much less accept.