Is Islam a religion of peace?

Blackflag: I think you two should have a debate on this one day.

admin: No, but if the argument is literally a series of unconnected points that don't make sense, then it does indeed.

Try to explain his argument. You can't do it, because it literally is incohesive.

Blackflag: Well, I for one can understand arguments that have errors in them, much like how when I read code that has a bug in it, I can still understand what the code was probably meant to do or how it was supposed to work.

admin: There isn't just errors to his argument. It is literally the most incohesive and unorganized argument to have been made in the history of Edeb8.

Try to explain it! Like I said, you can't do it. You were lying.

Blackflag: Sure, here's how I'd summarize it.

Logic requires a basis.
The best explanation for that basis is found in the Christian God.
Therefore it is most likely that the Christian God exists.

Blackflag: Your entire argument is derived from the bible. You were asked to prove the legitimacy of the bible as a source of supreme knowledge and truth, and you quoted the bible to achieve that ends.
Yes, and the Bible is the ultimate standard for knowing knowledge. Everyone has to have an ultimate standard for epistemology. An ultimate standard always has to refer back to itself for support; that's just the nature of it. Let's say you know "a" because of "b". Well, how do you know "b"? You could say, "because of 'c'". How do you know "c"? Because of "d". And it just goes on. Well, the stairs can't go on forever. There is an ultimate standard. Let's say, for this example, that the ultimate standard is "t". Well how do you know "t"? At this point, you have no choice but to say "because of 't'". Every ultimate standard has to resort to circular reasoning. But this circular reasoning isn't fallacious. It's only fallacious when you can have another presupposition to go on. But eventually, the stairs end somewhere. The only other option is an infinite regress - an logical impossibility. So there has to be an ultimate standard. And that ultimate standard is the Bible because it alone provides the foundation for the laws of logic, the standard for all reasoning.

So using the Bible to prove the Bible is not fallacious. Take this argument for example:

1. If there are no laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
2. We can make an argument.
3. Therefore, the laws of logic exist.

This is a valid and sound argument, but it is in fact circular reasoning because we are assuming the laws of logic to prove that they exist. So even though it is circular reasoning, it is perfectly fine in a case like this.

Does this mean that that the laws of logic are the ultimate standard? Not exactly; we have to have a reason to believe the laws of logic. And that reason is the Bible. The laws of logic and the biblical God are interestingly synonymous. The laws of logic are immaterial, unchanging, and are universal. Interestingly, these are the characteristics of God.

So when you use the laws of logic, you are assuming Biblical presuppositions.

Blackflag: And yes, the non-christian does have a basis. The Christian basis is the bible, but Atheists often reach conclusions based on other material and aids.
You haven't explained how a non-Christian has a foundation for the laws of logic. You basically said "they have other stuff". That isn't a good answer.

What of the Quran?
What about it? The god of Islam/Koran has no basis for the laws of logic. According to the Islamic doctrine of tanzih, it says in Sura 42:11, "Allah is so superior that nothing in human experience is comparable to him". Well, laws of logic are part of the human experience. So according to the Koran, laws of logic cannot relate to Allah and cannot be a reflection of the way he thinks. So the Quran cannot provide the preconditions for intelligibility (which is the laws of logic).

Krazy: A while back, it was seen as morally acceptable to give women inequal rights and no job opportunity. In modern day terms, such a thing would be considered sexist, that's one. A while ago, slavery against blacks was also seen as okay.

genesis01: Yes, people committed evil back then (as they do now). But how does that prove that morality is relative to culture?

Besides, you never answered my other question. How am I sexist, as you claim?

Krazy: And the wife should submit and obey her husband in everything

Krazy: Are you serious? Different cultures have different morality. What was considered training kids to be tough and strong in ancient Sparta is considered barbaric nowadays. And around the world, theres still cultural differences. In europe, nudity isn't as frowned upon as america for example. it's even more frowned upon in east asia, just giving one example.

my point is that Catholics are just more scientific and modernly thinking Christians, as opposed to bible literalists. The bible was an old book, and it wasn't directly written by god.

genesis01: This is why I am an anarchist. I am sick of having to deal with people like Krazy expressing their self-righteous bullshit by shoving their morals down my throat.

Blackflag: Anarchy seems pretty radical...

genesis01: If morality is relative to culture, then how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture's morality. Murder is wrong, regardless of culture. The fact that they had their "own morality" does not change that.

Everyone knows instinctively what is right and what is wrong (Romans 2:15).

You never answered my question of why you claimed I was sexist. You quoted a Bible verse on wifely submission, but how is that sexist? It's just a clear recognition of husband and wife roles. Wives are to submit to their husbands. It also says that the husband is to die for his wife everyday (Ephesians 5). See, the wife doesn't have to do that for her husband. Perhaps you would like to explain how that is sexist towards women.

Blackflag: You can't come to a debate website and then complain that people are trying to persuade you or express their beliefs. And there is no reason to be rude.

Krazy: What I meant was that morality changes over time, so the people who wrote the Bible have ancient morality. Modern day morality is superior and gives a more stable society. Gender roles are sexist, gender roles say that women are supposed to submissive to there husband. Why should it be like that, why can't women and men have equal recgonition of potential? why should women stay at home, and why should men work in the office?

genesis01: What I meant was that morality changes over time, so the people who wrote the Bible have ancient morality. Modern day morality is superior and gives a more stable society.
If morals change with time, then murder, lying, and stealing were once okay; or soon will be. You say that modern morality is superior to past morality (of course it's that way; not the other way around) but that is completely arbitrary. Murder, lying, and stealing are always wrong, no matter what time it is. If morality changes as time goes by, then I could argue that murder, for now, is not wrong for me, so I can go kill somebody. But after that occurs, then morality will change and murder will be wrong again; so that I'm never held accountable for my actions. That is insane. How does morality change with time? Is it the amount of people? Does majority rule in terms of right and wrong?

Gender roles are sexist, gender roles say that women are supposed to submissive to there husband.
Just to be clear, the Bible never says that women are to submit to men. It says that they are to submit to their husband, not to men in general. Gender roles aren't sexist, they're just roles. Men and women are obviously different. In general, men are tougher and stronger, while women are more weak and delicate (both physically and emotionally). Sexism can be appropriately defined as a belief that one gender is superior to another. The Bible does not teach that, but it does acknowledge the obvious differences between men and women and prescribes the right roles for each sex.

Why should it be like that, why can't women and men have equal recgonition of potential? why should women stay at home, and why should men work in the office?
The Bible doesn't say that women have lesser recognition to potential, it just says that the primary focus of wives is to take care of the home. While wives can work outside the home (Proverbs 31), their primary focus is to take care of the house (Titus 2:5).

genesis01: It isn't sexist when the Bible claims that wives are to submit. The Bible also says that husbands must be willing to die for his wife and love her as his own body (Ephesians 5:25). The wife doesn't have to do that for her husband. But the husband has to do that for his wife. Some people could argue that the Bible is being sexist towards men. But that isn't true either. It's not being sexist at all. They're just husband and wife roles based on the obvious differences of men and women.

Krazy: *prescribes the right marriage roles for each sex.*