Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheist's Misconceptions in Islam
Comments
-
I trust everyone remembers the charter. Also the posters are not on trial here (muslim or not).0
-
Here are some verses about the sun and moon in the Qur'an:I’ve done no more than browsed through the Penguin translation. Yet it seems to me pretty clear that the stuff about the Sun not passing out the Moon and going to a resting place basically mean geocentric. There’s nothing strange about that, as there was no particular reason to think otherwise at the time.Can I suggest we both could probably list the passages concerned. You could very likely list a few more that I don’t know about.
'The sun and moon follow courses exactly computed.' (Surah 55, ayah 5);
'...and Allah made the sun and the moon subservient to you; each one pursues its course to an appointed time; He regulates the affair, making clear the signs that you may be certain of meeting your Lord.' (S 13, a 2);
'And among his signs are the night and the day and the sun and the moon; do not make obeisance to the sun nor to the moon.' (S 41, a 37);
'He draws the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, all governed by laws under his command.' (S 7, a 54);
'He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one runs on to an assigned term.' (S 39, a 5);
'And a sign for them is the night: We withdraw there from the day, and behold they are plunged in darkness; and the sun runs its course for a period determined for it; that is the decree of (him), the exalted in might, the all-knowing. And the moon-we have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old (and withered) Lower part of a date stalk. It is not permitted to the sun to catch up the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to law).' (Surah 36: ayat 37-40);
SURAH 21:33 "He it is who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; ALL ORBS travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.' (Surah 21, ayah 33);
"God causes the sun to rise from the east." (Surah 2, ayah 258)
And then there's the misunderstood one in Surat-al-Kahf (S 18: a 58) 'and he (Dhul-Qarnain) came near a place where the sun set he found it as if it is in muddy waters, and found by it a people...' which is explained perfectly in the the thread: 'Why do you believe Muhammed'
OK, now, most of these ayat staet that the SUN AND THE MOON ARE ORBITING, ROTATING, OR HAVE A LIFE SPAN WITHOUT THE USUAL TANDEM OF WORDS that are included in many descriptions of the sun and the moon in the Quran. For example, the Quran constantly discusses aspects of the sun and moon (i.e. rotation, orbit or life) BUT it often includes the following words: "the night and the day and the sun and the moon." Unfortunately, many people often ACCIDENTALLY MAKE A CAUSAL CONNECTION between the description (I.E ROTATION, ORBIT OR LIFE) that the verse describes with the phenomenon of day or night. WHEN THE QURAN TALKS ABOUT "DAY AND NIGHT" WHILE ALSO INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION ABOUT THE SUN OR MOON (i.e. rotation, orbit or life), IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE DESCRIPTION (i.e. rotation, orbit or life) IS CONNECTED to the phenomenon of day or night also discussed in the verse. Since there is an abundance of information regarding the sun and the moon spread out among many different verses, we must view ALL the information IN ITS ENTIRETY. Most of the verses in the Qur'an (concerning the sun & moon) prove that the Quran clearly acknowledges that the sun and moon have their own ROTATION, ORBIT AND LIFE SPAN without necessarily CONNECTING it to the phenomenon of day or night.
The Arabic verb "sabaha" (yasbahuna) means rotation on its own axis. The Arabic word "falak" used for planets and planets' movements in Verse 21:33 can mean movement in its own "celestial sphere." Therefore, the Quran states that ALL celestial bodies including the earth rotate on their own axis or in their "celestial sphere." If one wants to connect the phenomenon of night and day to the rotation of all celestial planets than this verse PROVES that the Quran CORRECTLY STATES that day and night is the result of the EARTH’S ROTATION!
Verses 13-18. The following verses 13-18 illustrate how the Quran states that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West albeit through the earth’s rotation. I find no problem with these verses since we say the sun rises in the East and sets in the West in present day language. Moreover, we still use expressions such as the sun set into the sea, as is used in verse 18:86.
The sun is at an early stage in its existence; it should last about another 5.5 billion years. During this period hydrogen transforms into helium, with the resulting expansion of its external layers and the cooling of the sun. In the final stage, its light is greatly diminished and density considerably increased. This is to be observed in the type of star known as a white dwarf. Verse 36:38 clearly establishes the end of the sun’s life when we see that this verse is connected by the word "and" to the words "old" and "returns" in verse 36:39. These words "old" and "returns" seem to suggest an elapsed period of time that is very long. Moreover, the translation for verse 36:38 is a "period determined" or the word "mustaqarr" which means a final end. The word "Mustaqarr" used in verse 36:38 is different from the word "Ajaleen Mossama" or "appointed time" used in verses 13:2, 31:29, 39:5 and 35:13 (which could relate to orbit or rotation or life span.) The above dates are only of interest in as far as they give a rough estimate of the time factor involved, what is worth remembering and is really the main point of the above, is the notion of an evolution. Modern data allow us to predict that, in a few billion years, the conditions prevailing in the solar system will not be the same as they are today. Like other stars whose transformations have been recorded until they reached their final stage, it is possible to predict an end to the Sun.
The sun and moon have their own orbits in the universe. Verse 36:40 clearly establishes the existence of the Sun’s and Moon’s orbit by stating that the sun will not "catch" (Yusaf Ali) or "overtake" (M.H. Shakir) the moon: i.e. the "sun," "moon," "day" and "night" will remain separate phenomenon since the sun and moon travel in their own orbits and hence will never collide. If the sun and moon were not in their own "exact" orbits (55:5), the phenomenon of "day" and "night" would most certainly be affected. The moon orbits around the earth every 29.5 days while it also is orbiting the sun along with the earth. The sun orbits the galaxy; to complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and Sun take roughly 250 million years. The sun travels at roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this.
The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 25,000 miles. The Earth rotates in about 24 hours. Therefore, if you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or just over 1000 miles per hour. The earth is also orbiting around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour; it takes the earth one year to complete its orbit around the sun. The earth tilts at different angles to the sun, as it revolves in orbit around the sun, causing the 4 seasons (spring, summer, fall, winter.) When the earth's north polar axis is tilted most toward the sun, it's summer in the northern hemisphere, tilted furthest away, winter. Verse 21:33 clearly establishes these facts:
SURAH 21:33 " "It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: ALL (the celestial bodies) rotate (yasbahuna), each in their orbit/celestial sphere (falak)." Yusaf Ali, M.H. Shakir
Here an essential fact is clearly stated: the existence of orbits and rotation for all celestial bodies. This clearly describes what is happening to the earth as it rotates every 24 hours while it also orbits around the sun during a year’s time.
Sorry to overburden you with a proper understanding of the sun, moon and earth's orbits in the universe from the ALL of teh Qur'anic ayat; but if you need more information to understand it just let me know. I will try to explain a bit better and give you a reference.
I'll explain this later, as this post has gone for too long ... and I also got a warning (for some reason) that I have to check!!!And then, of course, we also have hermaphrodites.0 -
-
Where exactly are your sources for Islam being spread by the sword? I'll clear this one for you quickly insha-Allah with proper understanding and context. Islam was actually spread by example, believe it or not.
That's the whole point of an atheist web site: to collect all of the misconceptions in a religion, out of context, and lay them in front of ignorant fools to take in without proper verification/research!
My sources? Well, I posted my source it the last thread. Don't you believe in links to sources? How can you possibly deny Islam was spread by the sword when Mohammad and Abu Bakir and their sucessors created a vast empire from India to Spain? They walked up with no armies and asked people to join a state controlled from Mecca? I'd say I don't believe you're that niave, but you appear to be a fanatic.
And how exactly do you "put into context" quotes which say it is ok to murder non-Muslims and make holy war against Infidels? No, seriously, please explain these in context. If you can do this without sounding like militant zealot, I'll be so impressed I'll issue a apology to Mohammad and yourself for being so harsh.0 -
I dont have time to go through evrything you have posted here, so I will just mention one or two things:'And a sign for them is the night: We withdraw there from the day, and behold they are plunged in darkness; and the sun runs its course for a period determined for it; that is the decree of (him), the exalted in might, the all-knowing. And the moon-we have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old (and withered) Lower part of a date stalk. It is not permitted to the sun to catch up the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to law).' (Surah 36: ayat 37-40);
Here is a video of an eclipse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCHGOiJKsZY&feature=related Looks like night outstripping day to me.The sun is at an early stage in its existence; it should last about another 5.5 billion years. During this period hydrogen transforms into helium, with the resulting expansion of its external layers and the cooling of the sun. In the final stage, its light is greatly diminished and density considerably increased. This is to be observed in the type of star known as a white dwarf. Verse 36:38 clearly establishes the end of the sun’s life when we see that this verse is connected by the word "and" to the words "old" and "returns" in verse 36:39. These words "old" and "returns" seem to suggest an elapsed period of time that is very long. Moreover, the translation for verse 36:38 is a "period determined" or the word "mustaqarr" which means a final end.
Verse 36:38 is talking about the sun, however, verse 36:39 is talking about the moon:
So, in fact, there is no mention of the suns end, only the moons end.And the Moon,- We have measured for her mansions (to traverse) till she returns like the old (and withered) lower part of a date-stalk.
Also if the translation for mustaqarr is "final end", why is it translated as "period determined" in the surah?The sun and moon have their own orbits in the universe. Verse 36:40 clearly establishes the existence of the Sun’s and Moon’s orbit by stating that the sun will not "catch" (Yusaf Ali) or "overtake" (M.H. Shakir) the moon: i.e. the "sun," "moon," "day" and "night" will remain separate phenomenon since the sun and moon travel in their own orbits and hence will never collide. If the sun and moon were not in their own "exact" orbits (55:5), the phenomenon of "day" and "night" would most certainly be affected.
Its possible, though, to interpret this as meaning that the sun and the moon each have a geocentrical orbit, but are at opposite sides to the planet. Nothing in the surahs you have quoted indicates that the sun and moon orbit around different centres.The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 25,000 miles. The Earth rotates in about 24 hours. Therefore, if you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or just over 1000 miles per hour. The earth is also orbiting around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour; it takes the earth one year to complete its orbit around the sun. The earth tilts at different angles to the sun, as it revolves in orbit around the sun, causing the 4 seasons (spring, summer, fall, winter.) When the earth's north polar axis is tilted most toward the sun, it's summer in the northern hemisphere, tilted furthest away, winter. Verse 21:33 clearly establishes these facts:
SURAH 21:33 " "It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: ALL (the celestial bodies) rotate (yasbahuna), each in their orbit/celestial sphere (falak)." Yusaf Ali, M.H. Shakir
Here an essential fact is clearly stated: the existence of orbits and rotation for all celestial bodies. This clearly describes what is happening to the earth as it rotates every 24 hours while it also orbits around the sun during a year’s time.
Surah 21:33 mentions nothing of the earths axial tilt influencing the seasons, how fast the earth rotates, how long the earths,moon and suns orbits are.Sorry to overburden you with a proper understanding of the sun, moon and earth's orbits in the universe from the ALL of teh Qur'anic ayat; but if you need more information to understand it just let me know. I will try to explain a bit better and give you a reference.
Maybe next time use you own words and dont just copy and past from the first link you get in google (this looks very similar doesnt it
) 0 -
Advertisement
-
I am not sure if it is cut and pasted from that site but people posting from answering-islam get banned, so I will probably extend it to this site in future. Especially when I went to the root page my anti-virus software said attempted exploit executed.
Also straight out cut+paste is not allowed. Please review the charter in regards to quoting other sites.0 -
I've actually used a book. This stuff is taken out of a book I read a while back. It's one interpretation of these verses so it wouldn't be uncommon to see them on other Islamic web sites to refute the question about the sun revolving around the earth. Yes it does look familiar; but not the same: Maybe we copied and pasted from the same web site. But in the end it's from a book and instead of writing it I think it's faster to copy & paste!!rocksteady wrote: »Maybe next time use you own words and dont just copy and past from the first link you get in google (this looks very similar doesnt it)
This another question now. The whole point of the previous post was to prove that the sun and moon don't revolve around the earth. Are we clear on that and going onto another topic now (interpretation of ayah concerning sun's end?)??Here is a video of an eclipse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCHGOiJKsZY&feature=related Looks like night outstripping day to me. Verse 36:38 is talking about the sun, however, verse 36:39 is talking about the moon:
So, in fact, there is no mention of the suns end, only the moons end.
Also if the translation for mustaqarr is "final end", why is it translated as "period determined" in the surah?
Nothing is mentioned about the sun and moon revolving around earth. That's my point. That's from a scientist's book which you will probably disagree with, even though it makes sense!Its possible, though, to interpret this as meaning that the sun and the moon each have a geocentrical orbit, but are at opposite sides to the planet. Nothing in the surahs you have quoted indicates that the sun and moon orbit around different centres.
Surah 21:33 mentions nothing of the earths axial tilt influencing the seasons, how fast the earth rotates, how long the earths,moon and suns orbits are.
He goes by the name of Maurice Bucaille (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science)!!!0 -
Where did you get your initial views about Islam, Muhammed (p) and Abu Bakr from exactly?? I'm just curious...ChocolateSauce wrote: »My sources? Well, I posted my source it the last thread. Don't you believe in links to sources? How can you possibly deny Islam was spread by the sword when Mohammad and Abu Bakir and their sucessors created a vast empire from India to Spain? They walked up with no armies and asked people to join a state controlled from Mecca? I'd say I don't believe you're that niave, but you appear to be a fanatic.
The quotes are taken out of context because some ayat applied to the Muslims who were being attacked by the idolaters in Mecca at the time (they were about to be wiped out). Some sort of strategy needed to be thought up quickly. The Muslims were not going to just sit there (turn the other cheek) and let themselves be totally wiped out. Some ayat where as a result of treaties being broken and pre-emptive actions (do you think America, israel, UK are the saviours nowadays!) Islam protected its citizens at the time and didn't act as aggressively as you may think. Provide a good reference. Read a good seerah (biography) of the Prophet (p) and you will understand the situation better. There's a good book called 'Understanding Jihad' by David Cook:And how exactly do you "put into context" quotes which say it is ok to murder non-Muslims and make holy war against Infidels? No, seriously, please explain these in context. If you can do this without sounding like militant zealot, I'll be so impressed I'll issue a apology to Mohammad and yourself for being so harsh.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10213/10213.ch01.php
Yes, the Muslims under the Prophet (p) had to take some tough decisions at the time (just like any army would do including Britain, America, etc.) except the Qur'an points out that the Muslims should not be unjust to people (they shouldn't wrong anybody even if they're unbelievers), they shouldn't kill innocents (children, women, old people) or anybody not involved in battle, they shouldn't do things purely for materialistic gains. This is very clear if you read the Qur'an fully and with a clear mind. I don't think you've even read the Qur'an. Could you list every verse about Jihad in the Qur'an (in full), i.e.:
'Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers) who are fighting them (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory.'
'...Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said:"Our Lord is Allah." (Surah 22, ayat 39,40).
'Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (2:190-192)
etc.
Could you list the verses that mention killing of innocents, destroying of temples, synagogues, or being merciful towards prisoner of war, etc. (in hadith & Qur'an). That's what I mean by context. You put down the negative and ignore the positive aspects of the Qur'an. You haven't even read a history of the Islamic conquests from an Islamic perspective yet you make your conclusions... Look at it from both perspectives at least. Listen to both sides of the story (don't worry there are some bad things that happened, but I don't attribute it to the true Islam, the Qur'an or the Prophet (p)).
Muslims believe in their hearts that Lying is one of the biggest sins. And the Qur'an is strong against any leader who is unjust. The books have been written, and analysis with truthfulness has been delicately laid out. There was no need for the Muslims to lie. The people in countries that have believed whole-heartedly are proof of the non-violent, just nature of the Muslim leaders (Indonesia, Malaysia, Omar & Jerusalem, parts of Spain, Salahudin and the crusaders, etc.)0 -
Where did you get your initial views about Islam, Muhammed (p) and Abu Bakr from exactly?? I'm just curious...
To begin with, it is a religion and so is automatically grouped in the "superstition" category (a much lengthier answer would require the question "where did I get my inital views about atheism"). This is innocent enough, there are plently of religions which I have almost no problem with. Around the time I turned 14 I started reading extensively about the way society worked in Islamic countries and was utterly appalled (stonings, oppression of women, flogging of homosexuals, stultification of children, demonisation of the west). I made the connection with Islam, started learning about it and the rest as they say is history.
I know you find it very hard to believe, but it is not my ignorance of Islam that leads me to hate it, it is my knowledge. I believe you honestly think that if I learned more I'd come around, but the more I learn, the more I dislike it. I remember the Islam society in my college held an expo two years ago to banish misconceptions of Islam. It was a big event and I attended, because at that time I was open to the possibility that I had it wrong. I engaged with the young, moderate Muslims for hours, read their literature and Koran passages, and learned that not only were my inital reservations justified, but that I had been under the misconception that Islam was a force for good which had been corrupted. That day I learned more about Islam than I had in the previous 19 years, and I realised that most people don't know enough about it; if they did they would resist it (except for multicultural flip-floppers who are too busy giving away our rights to realise they're being bullied).The quotes are taken out of context because some ayat applied to the Muslims who were being attacked by the idolaters in Mecca at the time (they were about to be wiped out). Some sort of strategy needed to be thought up quickly. The Muslims were not going to just sit there (turn the other cheek) and let themselves be totally wiped out. Some ayat where as a result of treaties being broken and pre-emptive actions (do you think America, israel, UK are the saviours nowadays!) Islam protected its citizens at the time and didn't act as aggressively as you may think. Provide a good reference. Read a good seerah (biography) of the Prophet (p) and you will understand the situation better. There's a good book called 'Understanding Jihad' by David Cook:
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10213/10213.ch01.php
I do agree that the people who attacked the Muslims back then were barbarians, but most people were back then were barbarians. While I agree that they had the right to fight back to defend themselves, I do not find convincing evidence that all the people they went to war with represented a threat. For the record, I do not support pre-emptive military action and have been a constant critic of the US and Israel. I have read enough on Mohammad to know he was either mentally ill or a very good charlatan (I personally believe the latter). I do not believe he heard those voices in that cave in Arabia, and I think the liklihood of me being correct is substantially higher than that of him being a genuine receptical for divine revelation.Yes, the Muslims under the Prophet (p) had to take some tough decisions at the time (just like any army would do including Britain, America, etc.) except the Qur'an points out that the Muslims should not be unjust to people (they shouldn't wrong anybody even if they're unbelievers), they shouldn't kill innocents (children, women, old people) or anybody not involved in battle, they shouldn't do things purely for materialistic gains. This is very clear if you read the Qur'an fully and with a clear mind. I don't think you've even read the Qur'an. Could you list every verse about Jihad in the Qur'an (in full), i.e.:
'Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers) who are fighting them (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory.'
'...Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said:"Our Lord is Allah." (Surah 22, ayat 39,40).
'Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (2:190-192)
etc.
Could you list the verses that mention killing of innocents, destroying of temples, synagogues, or being merciful towards prisoner of war, etc. (in hadith & Qur'an). That's what I mean by context. You put down the negative and ignore the positive aspects of the Qur'an. You haven't even read a history of the Islamic conquests from an Islamic perspective yet you make your conclusions... Look at it from both perspectives at least. Listen to both sides of the story (don't worry there are some bad things that happened, but I don't attribute it to the true Islam, the Qur'an or the Prophet (p)).
Muslims believe in their hearts that Lying is one of the biggest sins. And the Qur'an is strong against any leader who is unjust. The books have been written, and analysis with truthfulness has been delicately laid out. There was no need for the Muslims to lie. The people in countries that have believed whole-heartedly are proof of the non-violent, just nature of the Muslim leaders (Indonesia, Malaysia, Omar & Jerusalem, parts of Spain, Salahudin and the crusaders, etc.)
I'm well aware that the the Qur'an (like the Bible) has many verses which are kind and good, but also like the Bible, it has many which are violent and indefensible. You cannot pick and choose. Either it is the word of god and every part of it must be accepted, or it is not, and there is no point to any of it.
I'm also well aware that the Christians commited many unprovoked atrocities against Muslims and I speak against christanity very strongly as well.
As for non-violent and just nature, I might point out that many, many non-Muslim leaders thoughout history and geography and up to the modern day have also been non-violent and just. Suggesting all that is good comes from Islam is very silly indeed. In fact, nothing that is good which comes from Islam (or other religions) couldn't come from somewhere else. On the other hand, many things which are bad can only come from religion.
"In a secular world, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion."0 -
I've actually used a book. This stuff is taken out of a book I read a while back. It's one interpretation of these verses so it wouldn't be uncommon to see them on other Islamic web sites to refute the question about the sun revolving around the earth. Yes it does look familiar; but not the same: Maybe we copied and pasted from the same web site. But in the end it's from a book and instead of writing it I think it's faster to copy & paste!!
So what you wrote in post 33, was taken from a book, but also copied and pasted from a website, but also copied and pasted from a book?
Everything in post 33 (bar the last few lines) is word for word the same as the article on that website, which according to that website, was written by someone called "Frank"Yes it does look familiar; but not the sameThis another question now. The whole point of the previous post was to prove that the sun and moon don't revolve around the earth. Are we clear on that and going onto another topic now (interpretation of ayah concerning sun's end?)??
I thought you said we need to consider all the verses about the sun and moon at the same time? (you know, the part where you said :"Since there is an abundance of information regarding the sun and the moon spread out among many different verses, we must view ALL the information IN ITS ENTIRETY."). Also the moon does revolve around the earth.Nothing is mentioned about the sun and moon revolving around earth. That's my point.
Nothing is mentioned about the sun and moon not orbiting the earth either, thats my point. You are approaching allegorical and metaphorical language in terms of modern science and facts and interpreting them knowing that the moon goes around the earth and the earth around the sun. Thing is, to show that the Qur'an was the first source of this scientific knowledge, you must interpret the verses in terms of someone who doesn't know that the moon goes around the earth and the earth around the sun. Someone who approaches these verses believing that the sun and moon both orbit the earth is not going to find anything to contradict themselves.He goes by the name of Maurice Bucaille (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science)!!!
I don't care, Im talking to you. Use someone elses arguments if you must, be well sure you understand them and can argue them yourself. Copy-and-pasting from other sources is not a proper discussion.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're wrong about that. Look at the articles side by side and you'll notice a whole lot of differences. But that's not the point. So what if it's written somewhere else. Most of your atheist questions and misconceptions are written somewhere else (that's where you got them from); The ORIGINAL evidence that was cited by the Muslims in the Qur'an (if you can remember the eight pieces of evidence) was: The Sun is in an orbit. Why have we gone off on a tangent: arguing about earth, moon, copying & pasting, what's orbiting what!); It was Schuhart who brought up the discussion about the sun orbiting earth even though there's no mention of it. So is there any reason to go on about this?rocksteady wrote: »So what you wrote in post 33, was taken from a book, but also copied and pasted from a website, but also copied and pasted from a book?
Everything in post 33 (bar the last few lines) is word for word the same as the article on that website, which according to that website,...
Doesn't matter what revolves around what. The whole idea is Muhammed (p) after mentioning numerous verses about the sun and moon's orbits didn't once fall into the trap of the error (that every atheist seems to see)!I thought you said we need to consider all the verses about the sun and moon at the same time? Also the moon does revolve around the earth ... Nothing is mentioned about the sun and moon not orbiting the earth either,...
Was that another coincidence?? Many people before him made the mistakes. Why didn't he? count the number of times they're mentioned in the Qur'an. Why was that not mentioned? Is there a specific reason??
I agree with you; the Qur'an was not revealed for the purpose I'm using it for (I don't think so anyway), but it demonstrates accuracy in a natural way, i.e. explaining the functions of the universe to an ignorant people (without distracting while trying to get the main message across to them). Maybe it was meant to be used to prove Muhammed's authenticity. The Noble Qur'an, if recited in Arabic merges over 20 years of work as if it was written in one night (no change in tone or theme the whole way through it); nothing seems out of place or changes rhythm. That's why some people think it's a strange read (in English). The miracle is in Arabic. I think everybody should invest three weeks of their lives or so to learn even the basics of Arabic, just to experience that amazing theme, rhythm and accuracy (English doesn't do justice to the ayat mentioned in these posts). These are all my words by the way!You are approaching allegorical and metaphorical language in terms of modern science and facts and interpreting them knowing that the moon goes around the earth and the earth around the sun...0 -
Where did you get your initial views about atheism??ChocolateSauce wrote: »To begin with, it is a religion and so is automatically grouped in the "superstition" category (a much lengthier answer would require the question "where did I get my inital views about atheism").
Do you understand the concept of God in Islam? Superstition is the reason why Allah sent many Messengers to mankind. Superstition is what happens if you leave people without a notion of God for a while. Superstition was destroyed by the final revelation (Al-Qur'an al-Kareem) and the final Prophet Muhammed (p).
Obviously you didn't start learning about it; because there are educated people with the same misconceptions as you (Cat Stevens, Yvonne Ridley, Daniel Moore, etc.) and after studying Islam properly came to realize the truth. Yvonne Ridley actually went to Afghanistan and saw with her own eyes the mistreatments, stonings, and was captured by the Taliban, but se what she has to say about Islam. Brainwashed?!? I don't think so. Yusuf Islam, like many others (Preachers, strict Jews, Scientists, Missionaries) read the Qur'an properly with an open mind and came to realize the truth. The difference between these people and you is they never had a problem with Islam before they even started. They were honest, tolerant, educated & professional in their decisions.This is innocent enough, there are plently of religions which I have almost no problem with. Around the time I turned 14 I started reading extensively about the way society worked in Islamic countries and was utterly appalled (stonings, oppression of women, flogging of homosexuals, stultification of children, demonisation of the west). I made the connection with Islam, started learning about it and the rest as they say is history.
Do you want me to name more educated adults and you can even meet and speak to them yourself (yes even cat stevens, he'd be happy to explain the peace inside he's felt since realizing Guidance). It's hard to explain this 'Guidance' - it's real and natural, and the reality is 'Atheism' is the delusion in this life (not religion).I know you find it very hard to believe, but it is not my ignorance of Islam that leads me to hate it, it is my knowledge. I believe you honestly think that if I learned more I'd come around, but the more I learn, the more I dislike it. I remember the Islam society in my college held an expo two years ago to banish misconceptions of Islam. It was a big event and I attended, because at that time I was open to the possibility that I had it wrong. I engaged with the young, moderate Muslims for hours, read their literature and Koran passages, and learned that not only were my inital reservations justified, but that I had been under the misconception that Islam was a force for good which had been corrupted. That day I learned more about Islam than I had in the previous 19 years, and I realised that most people don't know enough about it; if they did they would resist it (except for multicultural flip-floppers who are too busy giving away our rights to realise they're being bullied).
This is what you believe. No matter what you believe about Muhammed (p), it could be wrong, because you don't have proof of what exactly happened back then (just as we don't know what happened at the time of the big bang). But I am convinced of the Qur'an and the seerah of the prophet (p), and the 'Guidance'. You're entitled to believe in what ever you want, but don't insult my dead forefathers wrongfully because your angry about a misunderstood aspect of the religion.I do agree that the people who attacked the Muslims back then were barbarians, but most people were back then were barbarians. While I agree that they had the right to fight back to defend themselves, I do not find convincing evidence that all the people they went to war with represented a threat. For the record, I do not support pre-emptive military action and have been a constant critic of the US and Israel. I have read enough on Mohammad to know he was either mentally ill or a very good charlatan (I personally believe the latter). I do not believe he heard those voices in that cave in Arabia, and I think the liklihood of me being correct is substantially higher than that of him being a genuine receptical for divine revelation.
That doesn't make sense; Where did 'good' and 'evil' come from? Who's to say what's good and what's evil? Who??? Where does consciousness come from? Where does intuition come from?? emotion, love, longing... the list is endless (how did these develop?)? Can you not see your predicament: The whole idea of 'good' and 'bad' is from the Ultimate Source, God (The Creator).I'm well aware that the the Qur'an (like the Bible) has many verses which are kind and good, but also like the Bible, it has many which are violent and indefensible. You cannot pick and choose. Either it is the word of god and every part of it must be accepted, or it is not, and there is no point to any of it ... Suggesting all that is good comes from Islam is very silly indeed. In fact, nothing that is good which comes from Islam (or other religions) couldn't come from somewhere else. On the other hand, many things which are bad can only come from religion.
"In a secular world, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion."0 -
Where did you get your initial views about atheism??
Do you understand the concept of God in Islam? Superstition is the reason why Allah sent many Messengers to mankind. Superstition is what happens if you leave people without a notion of God for a while. Superstition was destroyed by the final revelation (Al-Qur'an al-Kareem) and the final Prophet Muhammed (p).
Simply put, I believe the final revalation is superstition, as is god and anything which requires faith.Obviously you didn't start learning about it; because there are educated people with the same misconceptions as you (Cat Stevens, Yvonne Ridley, Daniel Moore, etc.) and after studying Islam properly came to realize the truth. Yvonne Ridley actually went to Afghanistan and saw with her own eyes the mistreatments, stonings, and was captured by the Taliban, but se what she has to say about Islam. Brainwashed?!? I don't think so. Yusuf Islam, like many others (Preachers, strict Jews, Scientists, Missionaries) read the Qur'an properly with an open mind and came to realize the truth. The difference between these people and you is they never had a problem with Islam before they even started. They were honest, tolerant, educated & professional in their decisions.
And there are countless others who were Islamic and then stopped. The tide goes both ways. I'm honest, tolerant, educated and professional in my decision. I don't like Islam, but I tolerate it; I know enough about Islam to reject it on its own "virtues" and not simply because I already have a world view, and I have not lied about a single thing during our intercourse. Professional is a matter of opinion.Do you want me to name more educated adults and you can even meet and speak to them yourself (yes even cat stevens, he'd be happy to explain the peace inside he's felt since realizing Guidance). It's hard to explain this 'Guidance' - it's real and natural, and the reality is 'Atheism' is the delusion in this life (not religion).
Except atheism doesn't make any claims because it is by definition the absence of claims. [/quote]This is what you believe. No matter what you believe about Muhammed (p), it could be wrong, because you don't have proof of what exactly happened back then (just as we don't know what happened at the time of the big bang). But I am convinced of the Qur'an and the seerah of the prophet (p), and the 'Guidance'. You're entitled to believe in what ever you want, but don't insult my dead forefathers wrongfully because your angry about a misunderstood aspect of the religion.
Yes, I could be wrong, I'll be the first to admit that (which makes me more honest than those who claim they cannot be wrong); I simply do not believe I am. The onus of proof is on the claimant, not me. Islam must prove itself correct, I do not have to prove it wrong. As for insults, I'll insult anyone who I feel deserves it, famous/sacred or not. Take solace knowing it is nothing personal and that I have no problem with Muslims (as oposed to Islam).That doesn't make sense; Where did 'good' and 'evil' come from? Who's to say what's good and what's evil? Who??? Where does consciousness come from? Where does intuition come from?? emotion, love, longing... the list is endless (how did these develop?)? Can you not see your predicament: The whole idea of 'good' and 'bad' is from the Ultimate Source, God (The Creator).
First, good and evil are subjective terms. I do not believe evil exists. Second, everything else you listed there falls within the realm of biology, notably evolutionary biology, and does not require a supernatural explaination; the natural ones do quite nicely.0 -
You're wrong about that. Look at the articles side by side and you'll notice a whole lot of differences. But that's not the point. So what if it's written somewhere else. Most of your atheist questions and misconceptions are written somewhere else (that's where you got them from); The ORIGINAL evidence that was cited by the Muslims in the Qur'an (if you can remember the eight pieces of evidence) was: The Sun is in an orbit. Why have we gone off on a tangent: arguing about earth, moon, copying & pasting, what's orbiting what!); It was Schuhart who brought up the discussion about the sun orbiting earth even though there's no mention of it. So is there any reason to go on about this?
In post 33, everything from start to the third last paragraph is word for word the same as that link, even the words which are capitalised in the second paragraph in your post are capitalised in your post are capitalised in the link. Other people may have the same "misconceptions" I have, but I came to them myself and I argue using my own words and intelligence, I don't copy and paste.The ORIGINAL evidence that was cited by the Muslims in the Qur'an (if you can remember the eight pieces of evidence) was: The Sun is in an orbit. Why have we gone off on a tangent: arguing about earth, moon, copying & pasting, what's orbiting what!); It was Schuhart who brought up the discussion about the sun orbiting earth even though there's no mention of it. So is there any reason to go on about this?
You copied and pasted said "Since there is an abundance of information regarding the sun and the moon spread out among many different verses, we must view ALL the information IN ITS ENTIRETY.". Since the sun and moon are usually spoken of together in the verses, by your own posting we must consider them together. I am willing to drop the copying and pasting thing, it is a distraction, so lets get back to the sun and the moon.Doesn't matter what revolves around what. The whole idea is Muhammed (p) after mentioning numerous verses about the sun and moon's orbits didn't once fall into the trap of the error (that every atheist seems to see)!
You are either very niave or you are just ignoring the facts. What revolves around what is the issue here. The sun revolving around the Milky Way is correct, however the sun revolving around the earth is wrong, so in terms of the verses you have supplied, what they dont say is as important as what they do. I'll say it again: Someone who approaches these verses believing that the sun and moon both orbit the earth is not going to find anything to contradict themselves. You are assuming that no-one before the Qur'an understood that the earth revolved around the sun, and the sun revolved around the Milky Way. Well the common mistaken world view for people of antiquity is geocentricism, that the sun and moon revolve around the earth, and this isn't contradicted by anything given in those verses.Was that another coincidence?? Many people before him made the mistakes. Why didn't he? count the number of times they're mentioned in the Qur'an. Why was that not mentioned? Is there a specific reason??
And people before him claimed the earth revolved around the sun, such as Aristachus of Samos and Yajnavalkya of Mithila.0 -
Are you still talking about this... Is this some sort of crime that you have to prove your point in court. For a start the Qur'anic verses are not written the same way as post 33 (and you lied about that twice almost swearing every single bit is word for word bar last two paragraphs); secondly, it's out of Bucaille's book (so who cares where it's written); thirdly, it wasn't you who made the argument in the first place (it was Schuhart) so your using(copying) her argument and therefore not your words and intelligence!! THis is the way your arguing now (which is childish) ... can you not focus on the actual issue at hand instead of losing sleep over what's copied and what's not?!?rocksteady wrote: »In post 33, everything from start to the third last paragraph is word for word the same as that link, even the words which are capitalised in the second paragraph in your post are capitalised in your post are capitalised in the link. Other people may have the same "misconceptions" I have, but I came to them myself and I argue using my own words and intelligence, I don't copy and paste...
at last! you should be a lawyer?!Since the sun and moon are usually spoken of together in the verses, by your own posting we must consider them together. I am willing to drop the copying and pasting thing, it is a distraction, so lets get back to the sun and the moon.
I know there are people that got it correct before the Qur'an. Did Muhammed (p) get it wrong? Answer the question without being stubborn; your saying maybe he didn't get it right (by not giving more details); but did he get it wrong (by not mentioning details)?? I'll say this again: There were many people before Muhammed (p) that weren't sure the sun was in an orbit (& got it wrong). There were a few who couldn't fully prove that it was in an orbit (but still got it right); and there were also people who said the sun revolved around the earth. Which group is Muhammed (p) in from the qur'an ayat?? I know you're going to say the 3rd group(because of your belief)!! But I'd say it's the 2nd group, i.e. Aristachus of Samos and Yajnavalkya of Mithila ... In the end it's 50-50 again and another coincidence (as I've said about 33 posts ago). Why you're still arguing about it I don't know!!You are either very niave or you are just ignoring the facts. What revolves around what is the issue here. The sun revolving around the Milky Way is correct, however the sun revolving around the earth is wrong, so in terms of the verses you have supplied, what they dont say is as important as what they do ... You are assuming that no-one before the Qur'an understood that the earth revolved around the sun, and the sun revolved around the Milky Way. Well the common mistaken world view for people of antiquity is geocentricism, that the sun and moon revolve around the earth, and this isn't contradicted by anything given in those verses.
*Are there anymore 'so-called' errors in the Qur'an or is that it!0 -
Well what you believe in requires faith: You don't know what happened before the big bang; you don't know what happened straight after the big bang; you don't know what happened on the primordial earth and how we came to exist. It's all based on taking somebody else's word for it & blind faith. What your saying about the Qur'an is mentioned in the Qur'an numerous times: '...Whenever a prophet comes to them with Truth they say these are only tales of the ancients...' As I said Islam came to destroy superstition (whatever your definition of it is?!)ChocolateSauce wrote: »Simply put, I believe the final revalation is superstition, as is god and anything which requires faith.
Of course atheism makes claims. Have you never read Dawkins, Hitchens, and Danniel Dennet's books. They all claim religion is a disease or a virus or some sort of evolution gone wrong. Could it not be the other way around!??- They're the ones that are wrong in a Spiritual light! Is what these angry guys are saying in their books not atheism's claims??????...Except atheism doesn't make any claims because it is by definition the absence of claims.
I've already told you that I'm convinced with the authenticity of the Qur'an and the Seerah. You're the one that's not, so you're the one that has to explain why they're not authentic. My proof is the perfection of Noble Qur'an and Prophet's Seerah.Yes, I could be wrong, I'll be the first to admit that (which makes me more honest than those who claim they cannot be wrong); I simply do not believe I am. The onus of proof is on the claimant, not me. Islam must prove itself correct, I do not have to prove it wrong. As for insults, I'll insult anyone who I feel deserves it, famous/sacred or not. Take solace knowing it is nothing personal and that I have no problem with Muslims (as oposed to Islam).
What do you mean they're subjective? Of course evil exists (Hitler, Stalin and the likes).First, good and evil are subjective terms. I do not believe evil exists. Second, everything else you listed there falls within the realm of biology, notably evolutionary biology, and does not require a supernatural explaination; the natural ones do quite nicely.
This stuff cannot be explained by biology. These subjects are a nightmare to an evolutionary biologist (it's more in the realm of Psychology or Neuroscience) Point me out what books you've been reading for the natural explanations of these please? Or are you just taking somebody elses words for them and following blindly (faith again!)0 -
Obviously you didn't start learning about it; because there are educated people with the same misconceptions as you (Cat Stevens, Yvonne Ridley, Daniel Moore, etc.) and after studying Islam properly came to realize the truth. Yvonne Ridley actually went to Afghanistan and saw with her own eyes the mistreatments, stonings, and was captured by the Taliban, but se what she has to say about Islam. Brainwashed?!? I don't think so. Yusuf Islam, like many others (Preachers, strict Jews, Scientists, Missionaries) read the Qur'an properly with an open mind and came to realize the truth. The difference between these people and you is they never had a problem with Islam before they even started. They were honest, tolerant, educated & professional in their decisions
Three interesting examples there. I find Daniel Moore the most convincing. Interesting also that in embracing Islam he thought he had to give up poetry, just like Cat Stevens thought music was evil for a few years. Also as a Sufi, I don't think Moore's interpretation would be very popular in some parts of Arabia.
Considering he worshipped UFOs in the mid '70s, I prefer Cat Stevens music to his theological insights.
Yvonne Ridley looks to me like a classic case of a slapper who wants to be a saint. The old saying: "there's none so pure, as a reformed hoor". Her change from a hard-drinking partying journo looks like she lives life at the extremes.0 -
I know there are people that got it correct before the Qur'an. Did Muhammed (p) get it wrong? Answer the question without being stubborn; your saying maybe he didn't get it right (by not giving more details); but did he get it wrong (by not mentioning details)?? I'll say this again: There were many people before Muhammed (p) that weren't sure the sun was in an orbit (& got it wrong). There were a few who couldn't fully prove that it was in an orbit (but still got it right); and there were also people who said the sun revolved around the earth. Which group is Muhammed (p) in from the qur'an ayat?? I know you're going to say the 3rd group(because of your belief)!! But I'd say it's the 2nd group, i.e. Aristachus of Samos and Yajnavalkya of Mithila ...
Still missing the point by a country mile....You cannot say which of your three "groups" Muhammed is in because he didn't give enough details. Its really easy to write allegorical and metaphorical prophetic poetry and avoid being tied down to any actual facts-ever hear of Nostradamus? Are you finally admitting that someone who believes that the sun orbits the earth will not find anything to contradict themselves when they read the Qur'an, ergo it has no actual scientific revelation concerning solar movements?In the end it's 50-50 again and another coincidence (as I've said about 33 posts ago). Why you're still arguing about it I don't know!!
Please dont tell me your entire argument is that the Qur'an is made up of a certain number of "facts", each with a 50/50 chance, therefore the odds of it getting all of them right is 1 in 2^(number of facts).0 -
Well what you believe in requires faith:
How does not believing in something require faith? This is a familiar and ridiculous argument that missed the point. Atheism, by its very definition, is a lack of faith It would take faith to say I know there is no god, but I do not say that; only that I suspect there is none.You don't know what happened before the big bang; you don't know what happened straight after the big bang; you don't know what happened on the primordial earth and how we came to exist. It's all based on taking somebody else's word for it & blind faith.
First, there is no "before" the big bang because time and space are known to be inextricably linked; no space, no time. It's basic physics. Although we don't know many things about the past, there are many things we do know, and what we know we know because there is evidence to support those ideas. Where there is no evidence, there is nothing but possibilities. Blind faith is the realm of the religious.What your saying about the Qur'an is mentioned in the Qur'an numerous times: '...Whenever a prophet comes to them with Truth they say these are only tales of the ancients...' As I said Islam came to destroy superstition (whatever your definition of it is?!)
Of course atheism makes claims. Have you never read Dawkins, Hitchens, and Danniel Dennet's books. They all claim religion is a disease or a virus or some sort of evolution gone wrong. Could it not be the other way around!??- They're the ones that are wrong in a Spiritual light! Is what these angry guys are saying in their books not atheism's claims??????
I've read The God Delusion and God Is Not Great, and atheism does not make such claims: (some) atheists do. Atheism does not make claims of any kind because it is by definition the absence of claims. Atheists certainly do make claims, but please do not mistake the concept for the practitioners; as long as you do you will be unable to effectively argue your position. Atheism is not a set of beliefs which a person follows, it is the sate a person exists in when they are not currently following a set of beliefs. Babies are atheists because they are too young to comprehend religion...do you think they have developed an "atheist creed"?I've already told you that I'm convinced with the authenticity of the Qur'an and the Seerah. You're the one that's not, so you're the one that has to explain why they're not authentic. My proof is the perfection of Noble Qur'an and Prophet's Seerah.
This is a stunning example of circular logic. Ok, you're convinced, I'm not. Convince me. You tried? And failed? Ok, since I am unaltered, I can go on my merry way without paying Islam another thought. It remains unproved. You can hold on to it, but you're making the claim, not me. I don't have to prove it is false to make it so, you have to prove it is true to make it so, and so far every theist has failed to prove their beliefs true. They claim victory, but come up with nothing of substance, nothing that isn't either wrong, dubious, unreproducible or better explained by other means.What do you mean they're subjective? Of course evil exists (Hitler, Stalin and the likes).
This stuff cannot be explained by biology. These subjects are a nightmare to an evolutionary biologist (it's more in the realm of Psychology or Neuroscience) Point me out what books you've been reading for the natural explanations of these please? Or are you just taking somebody elses words for them and following blindly (faith again!)
I think that evil is something which is "evil" for nothing, not even its own sake. Hitler and Stalin did evil things, but in their mind it was justified. Yes, utterly twisted logic, morally vacant and heinous, but to them they were doing what they thought they must. They found ways to ignore it, justify it or rationalise it, but they didn't do it for its own sake. This is why I do not believe in evil; it can always be explained by something going horribly wrong.
Taking the word of a scientist who has proven something does not equate to faith. If I had doubts, if I truly thought he couldn't be right, I could find out for myself by doing the exact thing he did and seeing if I got the same result. Indeed, this is how science works. A theory doesn't become a theory until it has be shown to be true by many different people.0 -
No, my entire argument is there are NO ERRORS in the Qur'an. And yes, if Muhammed (p) coincidentaly got hundreds of things right (even though they seem metaphoric to you), he did not get ONE thing wrong (your saying he didn't give enough details - there was no need for more detail - he wasn't a scientist - this is one of hundreds of more correct guesses (which are in a bit more detail) for an illiterate; and not single error in the Qur'an. That's my argument.rocksteady wrote: »Still missing the point by a country mile....You cannot say which of your three "groups" Muhammed is in because he didn't give enough details ...
Please dont tell me your entire argument is that the Qur'an is made up of a certain number of "facts", each with a 50/50 chance, therefore the odds of it getting all of them right is 1 in 2^(number of facts).0 -
Advertisement
-
No, my entire argument is there are NO ERRORS in the Qur'an.
There are no errors in the qur'an only because it doesnt contain definitive facts. Its written as poem and verse, and thus left open to the interpretation of the reader. The verses you have given on the sun, when interpretted in the ignorance of the day, do not point away from the idea of the sun orbitting the earth. The only reason to interpret them as saying the sun orbits the milky way, is if you already know that.(your saying he didn't give enough details - there was no need for more detail - he wasn't a scientist
You are trying to claim scientific fact in the Qur'an, so you need to present scientific detail to prove this. If there is not enough detail, then there is no scientific fact.And yes, if Muhammed (p) coincidentaly got hundreds of things right (even though they seem metaphoric to you), he did not get ONE thing wrong - this is one of hundreds of more correct guesses (which are in a bit more detail) for an illiterate; and not single error in the Qur'an. That's my argument.
He didn't get one thing wrong because most of the Qur'an can be interpreted in (sometimes wildly) different ways. Its very easy to never be wrong if you never make any definitive assertions -problem, you aren't really correct either.0 -
Why do atheist's always say this. Of course you believe in something. You believe that we came about by chance for example. You do believe that right?! You believe that there was nothing before the big bang and there is nothing after we die. These are beliefs (although not in the religious sense of the word) and they are followed blindly (faith, not in a religious sense - i.e. intuition)!!ChocolateSauce wrote: »How does not believing in something require faith?
Ok, let's look at your beliefs: You claim there is no "before" the big bang because time and space are known to be inextricably linked; no space, no time. It's basic physics (which scientist & which book did you get this from if you don't mind me asking); The big bang came from 'nothing' is that what you're trying to say?!! Just suddenly (out of the blue)?
Again, you keep looking at things from a religious point of view. clear your head of religion for a minute. Pretend there is no religion. Your belief and my belief are actually based on the same thing: I believe there is a God (because of the Messengers, Scriptures, History of mankind, Books); you believe that we came about by chance (because of people, books and speculation). Books like the 'origin of species' which is the basis of youir belief (I guess) are not evidence that there is no God. Yes, where there is no evidence, there are only possibilities - so there is a possibility of God, Yes??Although we don't know many things about the past, ... Where there is no evidence, there is nothing but possibilities. Blind faith is the realm of the religious.
If no, why not??
Again you are looking at things as if from religion's perspective. We're human there is no labels (no atheism, no Islam, no Christianity, etc.) Just beliefs (no labels): You must surly believe in something (I know it's not god but something)?? You're not a confused floater! Or your a baby (from your comments))?!Atheism is not a set of beliefs which a person follows, it is the sate a person exists in when they are not currently following a set of beliefs. Babies are atheists because they are too young to comprehend religion...do you think they have developed an "atheist creed"?
We (the label Muslims) believe that babies are born on a natural fitra (i.e. a state of 'recognizing that a Creator exists' if left to their own way, without going near books, people or society).
Again, I believe that the Qur'an is perfect and that Muhammed (p) was the final Prophet of Allah (The seal of the Messengers). You're the one that came into the Islamic forum. I'm not trying to convert or convince you. You're the one that's coming in here trying to convince me. I'm still not convinced of atheism (because there isn't proper evidence)!This is a stunning example of circular logic. Ok, you're convinced, I'm not. Convince me. You tried? And failed? Ok, since I am unaltered, I can go on my merry way without paying Islam another thought. It remains unproved. You can hold on to it, but you're making the claim, not me. I don't have to prove it is false to make it so, you have to prove it is true to make it so, and so far every theist has failed to prove their beliefs true. They claim victory, but come up with nothing of substance, nothing that isn't either wrong, dubious, unreproducible or better explained by other means.
Again, for the fifth time, don' look at it from a religious point of view (for a guy who tries to avoid religions you seem to use their views a lot!) Faith as in gut-feeling/intuition - There is no scientific proof for the FIRST cell/protein/DNA/RNA/human that came into existence. You're taking somebody elses word for it and following blindly...Taking the word of a scientist who has proven something does not equate to faith. If I had doubts, if I truly thought he couldn't be right, I could find out for myself by doing the exact thing he did and seeing if I got the same result. Indeed, this is how science works. A theory doesn't become a theory until it has be shown to be true by many different people.0 -
Why do atheist's always say this. Of course you believe in something. You believe that we came about by chance for example. You do believe that right?! You believe that there was nothing before the big bang and there is nothing after we die. These are beliefs (although not in the religious sense of the word) and they are followed blindly (faith, not in a religious sense - i.e. intuition)!!
They may be considered beliefs, but they are not blind. They are based on science-falsifiable hypotheses explored using models.Ok, let's look at your beliefs: You claim there is no "before" the big bang because time and space are known to be inextricably linked; no space, no time. It's basic physics (which scientist & which book did you get this from if you don't mind me asking); The big bang came from 'nothing' is that what you're trying to say?!! Just suddenly (out of the blue)?
You should read up on the big bang. It did not come from "nothing", it came from an intial "state" or "condition" that existed before space and time began. Its a very complicated idea to consider, so I'm not surprised you don't get it (few people do first time round).Again, you keep looking at things from a religious point of view. clear your head of religion for a minute. Pretend there is no religion. Your belief and my belief are actually based on the same thing: I believe there is a God (because of the Messengers, Scriptures, History of mankind, Books); you believe that we came about by chance (because of people, books and speculation).
We did not come around by chance. We came around by chemistry, physics and biology. There is certainly an element of chance to it, but to try to boil it all down to chance would be as wrong as claiming that rain only boils down to chance (and has nothing to with air pressure, moisture content, cloud cover, sunlight etc.)Books like the 'origin of species' which is the basis of youir belief (I guess) are not evidence that there is no God. Yes, where there is no evidence, there are only possibilities - so there is a possibility of God, Yes??
If no, why not??
"Origin of the Species" is only evidence for the creation of more types of creatures from fewer creatures (ie how different species are made). So you are correct in saying that this does not disprove the existence of god (it really only disproves a literal interpretation of a few parts of some holy texts, unfortunately the proponents of those holy texts see this as the same thing).
Note that while this leaves the possibility of a god (assuming you only think of the possibility of a god in terms of biological evolution), it says nothing about the likelyhood of god existing.Again you are looking at things as if from religion's perspective. We're human there is no labels (no atheism, no Islam, no Christianity, etc.) Just beliefs (no labels): You must surly believe in something (I know it's not god but something)?? You're not a confused floater! Or your a baby (from your comments))?!
This comes down to the definition of belief. In terms of your definition (involving "blind faith") I'd say ChocolateSauce probably doesn't believe in anything blindly(I know I don't), in terms of the normal definition of belief (ie you are convinced to believe something, and what convinces you is based on what you will take as evidence), then I'm sure ChocolateSauce (as myself) has been convinced of many things, however I would say it probably takes some actual evidence to so.We (the label Muslims) believe that babies are born on a natural fitra (i.e. a state of 'recognizing that a Creator exists' if left to their own way, without going near books, people or society).
You should test that, it would be interesting.I'm still not convinced of atheism (because there isn't proper evidence)!
Just out of curiousity, what sort of evidence would convince you?There is no scientific proof for the FIRST cell/protein/DNA/RNA/human that came into existence. You're taking somebody elses word for it and following blindly...
I'm not quite sure what you mean here- there had to be a first cell/DNA/RNA/human that came into existence, as they came into existence after the creation of space-time and therefore causality. (ie if no first cell/DNA etc., then how are there any now?)0 -
Why do atheist's always say this. Of course you believe in something. You believe that we came about by chance for example. You do believe that right?! You believe that there was nothing before the big bang and there is nothing after we die. These are beliefs (although not in the religious sense of the word) and they are followed blindly (faith, not in a religious sense - i.e. intuition)!!
But there is probable cause to believe these things. The universe is expanding, so logic (and experimental evidence) dictates that if you follow it backwards, it began at a single point. Once there was no life, today there is. Therefore, logic dictates that at some point it had to arise. We also understand in principle how life got here. These can be deduced as having happened, this is not faith or blind conviction.Ok, let's look at your beliefs: You claim there is no "before" the big bang because time and space are known to be inextricably linked; no space, no time. It's basic physics (which scientist & which book did you get this from if you don't mind me asking); The big bang came from 'nothing' is that what you're trying to say?!! Just suddenly (out of the blue)?
Einstein is the man who realised time and space are linked, and this has been proven by many means, notably with atomic clocks- take two clocks (accurate to within one second in 100,000,000 years) and put one on the ground, one in a fighter jet, fly one at great speed for several hours, then compare them, and the one in the air shows that less time passed for that one than for the stationary one. This was later developed by Niels Bohr (grand master of quantum physics) and countless other legendary scientists. If you think god as always existed, or just came into existence, why do you think it is impossible for the universe to have always existed, or just come into existence? It's a double standard.Again, you keep looking at things from a religious point of view. clear your head of religion for a minute. Pretend there is no religion. Your belief and my belief are actually based on the same thing: I believe there is a God (because of the Messengers, Scriptures, History of mankind, Books); you believe that we came about by chance (because of people, books and speculation). Books like the 'origin of species' which is the basis of youir belief (I guess) are not evidence that there is no God. Yes, where there is no evidence, there are only possibilities - so there is a possibility of God, Yes??
If no, why not??
It isn't impossible for there to be a god, but there is no evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And scientific works like The Origin of Species set out to to a task: To explain observations. Darwin observed nature and wondered why it was the way it was, so he collected data (evidence), thought about it, and postulated an idea to explain it. His idea was then tested again and again in thousands of ways by thousands of people over 150 years, and not one shred of new evidence has turned up which proves his idea wrong. Also, his idea works perfectly well without mentioning god.Again you are looking at things as if from religion's perspective. We're human there is no labels (no atheism, no Islam, no Christianity, etc.) Just beliefs (no labels): You must surly believe in something (I know it's not god but something)?? You're not a confused floater! Or your a baby (from your comments))?!
I suspect that the world is as we see it and no more. I suspect there are no gods, demons, ghosts, no afterlifes, nothing which cannot be explained by science. Now, we has humans (a poorly evolved mamalian species) may never be smart enough to discover everything, meaning there will always be blanks, but to posit that a vast magical being is responsible for things we can't explain just honestly seems silly to me.We (the label Muslims) believe that babies are born on a natural fitra (i.e. a state of 'recognizing that a Creator exists' if left to their own way, without going near books, people or society).
Is this view backed up by fact? No, if it were, tribal religions, paganism, polytheisms wouldn't exist. If you raise a child in the total, utter absence of any kind of religion (to the point that they don't know what religion is), and educate them about how the world works, they will not be religious.Again, I believe that the Qur'an is perfect and that Muhammed (p) was the final Prophet of Allah (The seal of the Messengers). You're the one that came into the Islamic forum. I'm not trying to convert or convince you. You're the one that's coming in here trying to convince me. I'm still not convinced of atheism (because there isn't proper evidence)!
You're right, there is no evidence of any kind, because god is unfalsifiable; that is he cannot be proven or disproven. I came in here to offer my reasoned opinions. Theists come into A&A to do the same.Again, for the fifth time, don' look at it from a religious point of view (for a guy who tries to avoid religions you seem to use their views a lot!) Faith as in gut-feeling/intuition - There is no scientific proof for the FIRST cell/protein/DNA/RNA/human that came into existence. You're taking somebody elses word for it and following blindly...
So you think that for me to prove evolution, I have to personally reproduce the entire body of evidence? That's like asking you to go back in time to make sure Mohammad actually heard those voices. You don't know what you're talking about, there was no "first" human or cell or DNA strand. They didn't just suddenly come into existence. They developed, ultimately from individual molecules which started making copies of themselves (because the very first one just happened to bump into another molecule, which combined with it into the first one to reproduce), in a series of randomly occuring, but non-random steps.
I'm not sure why you're accusing me of using the views of religion, but my closest guess is you're mistaking faith with reasonable assumption. I think god, who is unprovable, made the universe from nothing for inscrutable reasons which are guessed at in a book written by ancient nomads- Faith. I think evolution, which thousands of people (who's job it is to prove these things and are paid not only to do so, but because they do so) present evidence for, and who will, on demand, be able to show it me, is true- reasonable assumption.
It is a reasonable assumption to assume the sun will rise tomorrow- it has done so reliably for billions of years, why will tomorrow be any different? But by your definition, you take it on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.0 -
theological/philosophical opinions from a guy without a degree in philosophy or theology)
Just a quick note here from a guy that does have a degree in philosophy - they don't count for much. I actually know very little philosphy indeed, and yet I can vote in a Seanad election!
If you were to value my opinion on philosphy more so than the likes of Hitchens simply because I have a degree in the field and he doesn't, you would be making an error. It's what they say that counts, not the degree.0 -
On Koranic perfection, Agathon, how you square up this claim with the fact the it is almost totally plagerised (ineptly) from the old and new testaments?0
-
The Bible (Old & New Testaments) is full of contradictions, errors and man-made stories! The Qur'an does not contain one contradiction, not ONE ERROR (correcting the bible's errors at that) and confirming the Truth that came before it from zoroastrianism to Christianity. If a book is authored by a human it's bound to contain many errors; but the Qur'an is eloquent in it's style and tone; miraculous (especially in Arabic).ChocolateSauce wrote: »On Koranic perfection, Agathon, how you square up this claim with the fact the it is almost totally plagerised (ineptly) from the old and new testaments?
The degree gives normal, intelligent people a better understanding of a subject; gives them a chance to research properly in that field instead of waffling about it. In fact if you go to anybody with a Higher Diploma or Phd in these subjects they'd tell you Hitchens and Dawkins are wafflers of the highest order (deluding the masses with their garbage)!By Wacker: If you were to value my opinion on philosphy more so than the likes of Hitchens simply because I have a degree in the field and he doesn't, you would be making an error. It's what they say that counts, not the degree.
Tribal religions (and all the other beliefs you've mentioned) actually influences the child. I said if you leave a child without the influence of people or societies. Even education depends on people's beliefs, so that would influence the child even more. A person witnessing, experiencing, tasting is so dazzling that he would realize there was a Creator to all of this. You still haven't pointed me to a book where it says how emotions, intuition and consciousness evolved!??By ChocalateSauce: Is this view backed up by fact? No, if it were, tribal religions, paganism, polytheisms wouldn't exist. If you raise a child in the total, utter absence of any kind of religion (to the point that they don't know what religion is), and educate them about how the world works, they will not be religious.
Obviously there had to be a first cell/DNA etc. But that does not explain how it came about. You're not even answering a question here. You're just saying we're here so that means we came about by chance! I could say the exact same thing as your saying: We exist, therefore a Creator exists (to create the very FIRST Cell, DNA, Human, etc.) Your answer does not back up your beliefs.By rocksteady: ...ie if no first cell/DNA etc., then how are there any now?0 -
Do you even understand this paragraph?!? Basically what you're trying to say is they came about by 'chance' in Dawkin's gibberish (maybe scientific language, I dunno)!!!ChocolateSauce wrote: »... They developed, ultimately from individual molecules which started making copies of themselves (because the very first one just happened to bump into another molecule, which combined with it into the first one to reproduce), in a series of randomly occuring, but non-random steps. ...
What's that supposed to mean in normal human language: 'randomly occurring but non-random steps'
The very FIRST living cell had to have come into existence by chance/coincidence, just as evolution has produced you and me (every step afterward had to blindly create everything that is complex (there is no non-random steps). Nature does not have a purpose according to you! And probability is against this so-called 'accident' (the first protein molecule)0 -
Obviously there had to be a first cell/DNA etc. But that does not explain how it came about. You're not even answering a question here. You're just saying we're here so that means we came about by chance! I could say the exact same thing as your saying: We exist, therefore a Creator exists (to create the very FIRST Cell, DNA, Human, etc.) Your answer does not back up your beliefs.
My apologies on this, the way you worded the sentence ("There is no scientific proof for the FIRST cell/protein...") made me assume you were saying that there was no first cell/protein...Agathon wrote:Do you even understand this paragraph?!? Basically what you're trying to say is they came about by 'chance' in Dawkin's gibberish (maybe scientific language, I dunno)!!!
What's that supposed to mean in normal human language: 'randomly occurring but non-random steps'
Its very simple actually. That the steps occur is random, ie the two molecules coming together for a reaction is a random event. However, what they do and what you get out of it is not random.Agathon wrote:The very FIRST living cell had to have come into existence by chance/coincidence, just as evolution has produced you and me
Dont make the same mistake as every other creationist in history. The production of the first cell (abiogenesis) has nothing do with evolution. Evolution is just a term describing how that cell has diversified over time. How that first cell first came to be is irrelevent to how (and whether or not) evolution works.Agathon wrote:(every step afterward had to blindly create everything that is complex (there is no non-random steps).
You should actually do some reading on a subject before you completely misrepresent it. Evolution is very simple:
Enviroments have an effect on biological entities. These entities, through mutation, create variation in the individuals. Useful mutations mean that the entities are more likely to reproduce (either they can get more food, survive betty in the enviroment etc), and therefore pass on their useful mutation. This repeats and you have evolution. Evolution involves mutation, which by itself can be seen as being random, but coupling it with natural selection, which is not at all random, means that evolution is not a random process. Would you say gravity is a random process?Agathon wrote:And probability is against this so-called 'accident' (the first protein molecule)
Prove it.0 -
Advertisement
-
rocksteady wrote: »Prove it.*
You can think of Islam as a system of the Creator. A way of life and a Law designed by the Creator, like the laws designed for every single thing in the Universe.
Who created the first Living cell or the first atom?
Who made life so harmonious and consistent on Earth?
Who gave everything a law and order (evolution, or whatever you want to call it)?
OK, the first living cell was created, and then there was a natural law that took place for everything to exist. Gradually, the whole planet is covered with complex living things. Evolution is just a theory trying to explain these phenomena. Darwin is just a professor who envisioned or visualized this is what happened billions of years ago. Nobody is 100% certain.
Yes, science is coming up with evidence and is a tool; but why do you say it’s a tool for evolution? – This is a label (just like religion). Science is used wrongly if it is used against religion because science is supposed to be fact (not a belief). Science just proves that there is a law and order to this Universe. It doesn’t and can never prove that there is a Creator (because it is out of the realm of scientific procedures); its purpose is not to disprove a Creator but to prove that there is an order and law (designed for the Universe).
So, what can we say about evolution? Can you prove to me that it wasn’t designed to follow a more precise path (and to reach its objectives faster); Can you prove to me that the living cell came about by pure chance? – The answer is NO. So why do you argue about things that are not in your control??
Taken from my blog: http://islamic-empire.blogspot.com/
*Check out the link 'Islam Science Debate' and go to the very bottom of the page for proof on the probability of chance!0
Advertisement