Well Who is better more powerfull all around better?

Muhammad Ali defeated the former professional boxer and future Pope with a four round TKO back in '64.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/muhammed_ali.jpg

Muhammad Ali defeated the former professional boxer and future Pope with a four round TKO back in '64.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/muhammed_ali.jpg

Are you joking or do you know what im talking about?

Hahahahaah wow...
um..

The Pope doesn't have all that much power.
Muhammad.

Deathly serious.
















Of course I'm joking, man. It's a bit of weird comparison, considering Muhammad is a centuries-dead religious prophet and the Pope is a former Nazi who likes to wear dresses and fancy hats. Who's winning on the map? It's like a game of Stratego.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-religion-map.jpg
Hmmm, but they're not all Catholics. This is going to take some further calculations...

haha sorry dude i have never been in the religious section before i never knew how many jokes fly I just thought it was all seriousl....wow im releaved!!

Deathly serious.
















Of course I'm joking, man. It's a bit of weird comparison, considering Muhammad is a centuries-dead religious prophet and the Pope is a former Nazi who likes to wear dresses and fancy hats. Who's winning on the map? It's like a game of Stratego.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-religion-map.jpg
Hmmm, but they're not all Catholics. This is going to take some further calculations...


WARNING!:
My opinion follows.
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/Berishman/world-religion-map.jpg
Antarctica is one of the most sane places in the world,

NOJ beat me to it. now I'm bitter and hate this thread.


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:RVO8IITX6xiXvM:http://www.mortgageratesreport.com/m/blogs/brianbrady/lock.png

??

haha sorry dude i have never been in the religious section before i never knew how many jokes fly I just thought it was all seriousl....wow im releaved!!

Wait wait, this thread isn't a joke? You actually wonder who would win?

Well, I think the Pope. Just cos he can shoot force lightning though.

I would win because I'm the only true genius in the whole f*cking business.

Muhammad has more letters in his name sooooooo.....

Muhammad has more letters in his name sooooooo.....

Muhammad is also the most common name in the world

Which Pope?

Is it all Popes vs the one Muhammad?

Does it matter?, they both worship the same god, from a different POV.

Which Pope?

Is it all Popes vs the one Muhammad?

Does it matter?, they both worship the same god, from a different POV.

any pope dude

Muhammed influenced more people and had more power...unfortunately he had a, what was it, 9 year old wife in the process?

^Meh, the Pope right doesn't exactly have a squeaky record either.

Berishman, you're a tool.
I can understand your want to be like Razz and thus attack religion at every turn, but you might want to think about what exactly it is you're posting before you post it, because you just chalked up a ton of believes as lies, believes i'm willing to bet you know absolutely nothing about other than "man, they're religious in nature. I want to bash christianity."

Berishman, you're a tool.
I can understand your want to be like Razz and thus attack religion at every turn, but you might want to think about what exactly it is you're posting before you post it, because you just chalked up a ton of believes as lies, believes i'm willing to bet you know absolutely nothing about other than "man, they're religious in nature. I want to bash christianity."

When I saw you were the last poster I figured you would have something like that to say, and hey, thats your opinion, but I have to make a few points in my defense:

1. My second thread here at the cafe was one debating christianity and the beliefs of its followers, this was before I even knew razz existed, so I've always been willing to post my opinion. Razz and I disagree on a lot of stuff anyway.

2. I have actually made a point of studying more religions than just Christianity and Catholicism.. and Judaism. Even the stuff that I find to be completely bogus. I'm not saying I've studied up on every religion, but I can tell you Christianity is not the only one.

3. That was just me stating my opinion. You've stated yours, and thats fine, but again, I have nothing against Christians as people, and I have tried to make that very clear in all of my Christianity-based posts.

yet you call taoism, buddhism, sikkism, and hinduism, hell, even multireligion or 'Other' lies.
back that assertion up.
you already said it, support it now.


you say in your signature nothing you say is meant to be offensive, only all in spirit of a good debate. explain to me how a baseless attack such as that is ' a good debate'?

yet you call taoism, buddhism, sikkism, and hinduism, hell, even multireligion or 'Other' lies.
back that assertion up.
you already said it, support it now.


you say in your signature nothing you say is meant to be offensive, only all in spirit of a good debate. explain to me how a baseless attack such as that is ' a good debate'?

oh haha wow I just thought he did this in my treads but if he does this in every thread im happy now haha!

yet you call taoism, buddhism, sikkism, and hinduism, hell, even multireligion or 'Other' lies.
back that assertion up.
you already said it, support it now.


you say in your signature nothing you say is meant to be offensive, only all in spirit of a good debate. explain to me how a baseless attack such as that is ' a good debate'?

They are lies, not to mention...the onus is on them to prove it, not us to disprove it. And I don't think anyone would've jumped on berishman had he called pink unicorns, green leprechauns, or fairies at the bottom of the sea "ridiculous" and "lies"

We've grown up in a culture that asks us to give religion undue respect, respect it doesn't deserve...after all, their scriptures tell me I'm going to hell...why? For the horrendous crime of not believing...why the hell should I respect that? It's like asking a Jew to respect the beliefs or the Third Reich.

I never said he had to respect it. I never said he couldn't question it.
There is a difference between doing something, and doing something rudely.
Just because something is given undue respect does not mean one should go out of their way to disrespect it.
That's simply immature.

Simply put, he says it's all in spirit of a good debate. Find anything that exemplifies a good debate rather than a direct, immature, attack.

Also, why is it any more on religion to 'prove it' than anything else? That makes no sense whatsoever; both sides (theism and atheism) are unproven.
Regardless, humor me.
Explain to me how Taoism and Buddhism are lies.

Also, why is it any more on religion to 'prove it' than anything else? That makes no sense whatsoever; both sides (theism and atheism) are unproven.
Regardless, humor me.

It makes no sense? Are you kidding me? I thought you'd know this, it's an obvious logical fallacy called the burden of proof

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

In other words, the onus is on the one's making the claim. 'A' says that "my religion is true", B asks to "prove it", therefore, A must provide evidence for it's claim.

To assume that it's 50/50 is just intellectually dishonest.

Explain to me how Taoism and Buddhism are lies.

I guess that Taoism and Buddhism are just ways of life, not really Theistic religions, however I was just responding to the list you were making. My point remains the same, if someone tells you that in hypothetical India there are hypothetical Genies that come out and grant random people 3 wishes, the onus is on them to prove it.

If they can't prove it, why believe it?

It is good to see you focused on the afterthought of my post, instead of the fist section, which was my main point and basis for calling out Berishman.

I believe you missed the point of me calling him out. IT was that he was randomly attacking on subjects he knew nothing about - namely Taoism and Buddhism. Simply the fact that he called them lies, which they cannot be, shows he was doing nothing more than blindly and rudely trying to be offensive. I have no problem with questioning or attacking even, religion, but there is a difference between that and what Berishman did.

I can concede I was wrong about the Burden of Proof bit, but that does not make my main points any less valid. Your point may remain the same, it may remain valid, but it doesn't unnecessarily relate to this. I called out Berishman on his immaturity, which, by the way, had absolutely no relation to the topic. Maybe if it had held relevance or was in context, it would be acceptable, but as it stands, he was doing nothing but being a ****.

In my opinion, this comparison isn't very fair. Considering that the position of being Pope isn't eternal...lol.

However, Muhammad is a historical figure who does not lose his title ever so often. :icon_yes:

Umm...I'll just leave out what I really think of them...:tongue:

Berishman, what really was the point in calling all religion lies? How do you know if its a lie until you've died? You don't. Someday we will all see what the truth is, whether it is theism or atheism, but please, until then, don't go calling what many people believe to be true as lies. Its blatantly disrespectful and just goes to show that you do many things you say you hate when religious people do them.

Berishman, what really was the point in calling all religion lies? How do you know if its a lie until you've died? You don't. Someday we will all see what the truth is, whether it is theism or atheism, but please, until then, don't go calling what many people believe to be true as lies. Its blatantly disrespectful and just goes to show that you do many things you say you hate when religious people do them.

Only problem is. You won't see it when you die. Because then you are dead. You know what dead is? Not living that's what it is.

Imagine a nothingness of nothing. Actually it's impossible to imagine how it will be like to be dead. Your brain doesn't work anymore then. And you can't imagine the brain not working while it's working.

How about we all just stop. This isn't even a debate, it's an argument.
Berishman posted his opinions based on what he knows, so...isn't that what forums are about?

If he would have done it in a respectful manner, then it is o.k, but he didn't. Also, McCrank, tell me how you know exactly that there is just nothingness? How do you know there is no heaven 100%? I can't say there is heaven 100%, so why can you say that there isn't 100%? As Razz has said to me before, its ignorant to assume that you are 100% percent correct or something as touchy as religion or atheism. Also, you'll know if you aren't seeing heaven that religion isn't real, you may not know it consciously, but you'll know.

If he would have done it in a respectful manner, then it is o.k, but he didn't. Also, McCrank, tell me how you know exactly that there is just nothingness? How do you know there is no heaven 100%? I can't say there is heaven 100%, so why can you say that there isn't 100%? As Razz has said to me before, its ignorant to assume that you are 100% percent correct or something as touchy as religion or atheism. Also, you'll know if you aren't seeing heaven that religion isn't real, you may not know it consciously, but you'll know.

Obviously I can't be 100% sure.

What makes me think the whole after life deal is a whole lot of crap is that people by nature are afraid of death or wonder what's after death. So they made sh*t up to feel comfortable or just gain power.("Look here folks if you listen to me. When you die you will go to paradise.")

After life is obvious man made BS stories to comfort people/gain power.

If anything I would want the Norse mythology after life to be true. Fight all day eat and drink all night. That would be so awesome.

I am perfectly fine with a nothingness. What is wrong with nothingness? Really you are not aware of anything ever again. You are dead then. Does it matter? So why even bother with heaven/hell?

omg...wow most have you got off subject seriously stick to muhammad vs pope who is most powerful please don't get off topic seriously.

Its the religion/politics section, we always get off topic. ^

There really is nothing wrong with nothingness. I'm not afraid to die, and never have been. I do not want to die right now, but if I live a nice life, then if its nothingness, great, I'm fine with that. Its just you sound so certain of yourself, as if there you know you are right. Anyways, lets just leave it at that, and get this back on topic. :icon_bigg

I think the reason we always go off topic is because the original topics of the threads are often pretty strange...

The pope would win, hands down. He might be 200 years old, but there's nothing but muscle underneath his papal gown.