1730 replies to this topic

[Jake]

It is not a coincidence, religion has the ability to spread like wildfire, if you were to live in one area and move to another you would attempt to show your faith to other people. They also all have one common belief, they did not understand how the world operated and thus only had the option to refer to faith. Historians and the like were religious themselves, similar to history of battles, the 'winners' make the history, not the losers.

[Redemptionist]

I don't believe in god.

I think that God is just a figure in which links people together and gives them hope.
It doesn't exist.

I believe in myself more.

I agree so much with you

[TigerWoods]

It is not a coincidence, religion has the ability to spread like wildfire, if you were to live in one area and move to another you would attempt to show your faith to other people. They also all have one common belief, they did not understand how the world operated and thus only had the option to refer to faith. Historians and the like were religious themselves, similar to history of battles, the 'winners' make the history, not the losers.

so when the mongols destroyed Baghdad when it was flourishing in its economy, knowledge and power, what happened? anyways why quote me if u are going to ignore most of my post, at least address it

[SamTheMan]

Arguing about religion is almost impossible because people that believe a certain religion or dont are almost impossible to convince otherwise.

But I dont believe in "Jesus Christ", I mean it'd be cool if there was a world after death but who the fuck walks on water and heals people by touching them.

[artificial]

so when the mongols destroyed Baghdad when it was flourishing in its economy, knowledge and power, what happened? anyways why quote me if u are going to ignore most of my post, at least address it

There's nothing to address. There's two small paragraphs and a block of quotes from the Quran. Since I disagree with the teachings of Holy texts, I didn't bother reading the passages passages, as no good would come from it.

Do you see what you're doing in this thread? Arguing passionately to others in an attempt to justify your faith. While it could be argued that the atheists in this thread are doing the same, it is clear you are passionate about your religion. It is this raw emotion of blind faith that has historically led to the spread of organised religion; individuals preaching their ideas to others, preying on people's lack of understanding of the natural world and insecurities to spread their views.

Riddle me this: in a world before science, it seems natural to deduce that a less educated man/women would readily accept the notion of a God to explain the world around them, would you not agree?

[TigerWoods]

There's nothing to address. There's two small paragraphs and a block of quotes from the Quran. Since I disagree with the teachings of Holy texts, I didn't bother reading the passages passages, as no good would come from it.

Do you see what you're doing in this thread? Arguing passionately to others in an attempt to justify your faith. While it could be argued that the atheists in this thread are doing the same, it is clear you are passionate about your religion. It is this raw emotion of blind faith that has historically led to the spread of organised religion; individuals preaching their ideas to others, preying on people's lack of understanding of the natural world and insecurities to spread their views.

Riddle me this: in a world before science, it seems natural to deduce that a less educated man/women would readily accept the notion of a God to explain the world around them, would you not agree?

A Holy text that tells me this:
And do not follow what you have no knowledge of; surely the hearing, the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that. [Qur'an 17:36]


There's nothing to address with the texts that I've quoted? Sharing my views as a theists suddenly becomes an "an attempt to justify my faith" and puts me under the category of "blind faith" is seemingly unfair when I've simply provided to you verses of a holy text that are scientifically accurate. What is my proof?

Embryologist Keith Moore (a prominent embryologist with the credentials) has a 2 part discussion on Youtube where he discusses the accurate descriptions of Quranic scripture in regards to human beings in the womb (embryology). I've quoted a verse in reference to the honey of a bee and of its benefits of healing, again very accurate. I've quoted a verse in reference to the barrier between two mingling seas that was unknown any man before modern day oceanography

He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through. (Qur'an, 55:19-20)

"This property of the seas, that is, that they meet and yet do not intermix, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension," the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them. "

I've quoted a verse in regards to microscopic life, secure protection in the womb, the constant expansion of the universe (again all scientifically compatible)
It seems that you are blindly ignoring the religious perspective of a Muslim. A skeptic seeking truth would carefully consider anything at the very least with a neutral state of mind and put aside his/her biases. My religion forbids that I follow things blindly anyway:
And do not follow what you have no knowledge of; surely the hearing, the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that. [17:36]

Please don't make baseless claims without at least presenting an example. I'm assuming you believe there is no designer of this universe we are comfortably living in.

They said, "There is nothing but this worldly life; we die and we live and nothing destroys us except the passing of time!" They have no knowledge about this; they only conjecture/guess. [45:24]

keep in mind

..And conjecture/guesswork is no substitute for the truth. [53:28]

I wasn't arguing until you quoted me. I love discussion, just don't assume something about someone when you truly know nothing about them. That's all I'm asking. If you as a secular thinker choose to ignore the things I've presented, it just goes to show who is blindly following. but again, it's your choice, no ones forcing you to do so

Riddle me this: in a world before science, it seems natural to deduce that a less educated man/women would readily accept the notion of a God to explain the world around them, would you not agree?

I agree that there may have been individuals who did so, but I disagree with your implication that it is the only reason people accept the notion of a God. In my perspective if one reasons he can easily realize a designer of the universe, empirically. In Islam we call it 'fitra' the natural inclination every human being is endowed with. That is why this topic is so interesting for people (even for those who reject God). Our natural inclination to know our purpose.

Riddle me this: in a world after before science, how does an illiterate man (who claimed prophet-hood) living in a desert 1400 years ago obtain such information (and I can provide a lot more than what I've already presented) about this reality, oceanography, embryology, the solar system, historical knowledge of the past, and the ecosystem.

[Jake]

so when the mongols destroyed Baghdad when it was flourishing in its economy, knowledge and power, what happened? anyways why quote me if u are going to ignore most of my post, at least address it

Victory for the Mongols?

I did not ignore your post, as there wasn't anything else to address. The passages you quoted are just preachings of what some god has done. As a non ignorant atheist, I would be willing to accept the notion that multiple gods exist, or some form of spiritual beings, but it is just ludicrous to believe in one single god.

[emerkeng]

A Holy text that tells me this:
And do not follow what you have no knowledge of; surely the hearing, the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that. [Qur'an 17:36]


There's nothing to address with the texts that I've quoted? Sharing my views as a theists suddenly becomes an "an attempt to justify my faith" and puts me under the category of "blind faith" is seemingly unfair when I've simply provided to you verses of a holy text that are scientifically accurate. What is my proof?

Embryologist Keith Moore (a prominent embryologist with the credentials) has a 2 part discussion on Youtube where he discusses the accurate descriptions of Quranic scripture in regards to human beings in the womb (embryology). I've quoted a verse in reference to the honey of a bee and of its benefits of healing, again very accurate. I've quoted a verse in reference to the barrier between two mingling seas that was unknown any man before modern day oceanography



"This property of the seas, that is, that they meet and yet do not intermix, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension," the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them. "

I've quoted a verse in regards to microscopic life, secure protection in the womb, the constant expansion of the universe (again all scientifically compatible)
It seems that you are blindly ignoring the religious perspective of a Muslim. A skeptic seeking truth would carefully consider anything at the very least with a neutral state of mind and put aside his/her biases. My religion forbids that I follow things blindly anyway:
And do not follow what you have no knowledge of; surely the hearing, the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that. [17:36]

Please don't make baseless claims without at least presenting an example. I'm assuming you believe there is no designer of this universe we are comfortably living in.

They said, "There is nothing but this worldly life; we die and we live and nothing destroys us except the passing of time!" They have no knowledge about this; they only conjecture/guess. [45:24]

keep in mind

..And conjecture/guesswork is no substitute for the truth. [53:28]

I wasn't arguing until you quoted me. I love discussion, just don't assume something about someone when you truly know nothing about them. That's all I'm asking. If you as a secular thinker choose to ignore the things I've presented, it just goes to show who is blindly following. but again, it's your choice, no ones forcing you to do so



I agree that there may have been individuals who did so, but I disagree with your implication that it is the only reason people accept the notion of a God. In my perspective if one reasons he can easily realize a designer of the universe, empirically. In Islam we call it 'fitra' the natural inclination every human being is endowed with. That is why this topic is so interesting for people (even for those who reject God). Our natural inclination to know our purpose.

Riddle me this: in a world after before science, how does an illiterate man (who claimed prophet-hood) living in a desert 1400 years ago obtain such information (and I can provide a lot more than what I've already presented) about this reality, oceanography, embryology, the solar system, historical knowledge of the past, and the ecosystem.

I agree with some of your views of religion and love that you are probably the only other person on these forums that'll defend religion and the existence of a God. But all I can say is that it is a waste of time arguing with some of these athiests they just won't listen but you know what they say about athiests many do believe in a higher power so maybe eventually at least one person from these forums will accept God as their savior.

Edited by OriginalGin, 08 August 2010 - 09:49 PM.

[Elindoril]

I agree with some of your views of religion and love that you are probably the only other person on these forums that'll defend religion. But all I can say is that it is a waste of time arguing with some of these athiests they just won't listen but you know what they say about athiests many do believe in a higher power so maybe eventually at least one person from these forums will accept God as their savior.

Who needs God? We have Athe.

[TigerWoods]

Please post more . . . I'm not Muslim but I am Christian and I loved your post. You're like the only other person here that believes in a God. And you put together a better argument than I possibly could.

, Even though we have our differences, I respect Christians ( I came from a Christian family).

Here's what the Qur'an states in regards to our relationship.


And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not arrogant. (82) When they listen to that which hath been revealed unto the messengers, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the Truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us as among the witnesses. How should we not believe in Allah and that which hath come unto us of the Truth. And (how should we not) hope that our Lord will bring us in along with righteous folk?" (84) Allah hath rewarded them for that their saying - Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the reward of the good.
[Quran 5:82-83]

(23) Lo! We have sent thee with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner hath passed among them.

Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. [Quran 2:133]

Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms; (163) [4:163]

Here is where we differ:

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. [4:171]

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";― but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.[4:157

“And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it." [Quran 5:48]"

Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allaah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allaah, and they were witnesses thereto." [Quran 5:44]

"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allaah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." [Quran 4:46]

Al = The
ilah = anything that is worshipped (lower case god)

Al-ilah ---> Allah = The One God

" Say: He is Allah the One and Only; (1) Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; (2) He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; (3) And there is none like unto Him. (4) "

The Most Compassionate,
The Beneficent
The Gracious ...see the rest of the attributes here: http://en.wikipedia....of_God_in_Islam


Understanding is key. it is the misconceptions that break us apart. It is good to know someone is defending their belief in God in a thread full of atheists . Don't worry I'm not trying to change your mind, I just know understanding will help us as individuals. Feel free to show me anything

i think you'll like these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clz1xJ8zbZM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20A8tg8ZlJM

[Sweeney]

"Scientific knowledge" in books is only useful if you can deduce its actual meaning without external reference. If you can find me one single person that predicted that your verse on the separation of waters was related to surface tension and density before the property was discovered by scientists, I'll be deeply impressed.

(Also, Embryology was not "ahead of time", the basic facts stated in the Koran were notified by the Greeks centuries earlier, and had probably been roughly understood for much longer.)

[Scot]

Oh my Dawkins, 40 pages! How far are you people willing to go just to troll?

[TigerWoods]

"Scientific knowledge" in books is only useful if you can deduce its actual meaning without external reference. If you can find me one single person that predicted that your verse on the separation of waters was related to surface tension and density before the property was discovered by scientists, I'll be deeply impressed.

(Also, Embryology was not "ahead of time", the basic facts stated in the Koran were notified by the Greeks centuries earlier, and had probably been roughly understood for much longer.)

sorry not scientific knowledge, knowledge that was scientifically accurate. thanks for addressing my post finally, lets stay away from semantics for now.
I dont think I can find one person among the Islamic scholars who predicted such a thing using the ayat, but if I do come across any I'll post again. The Quran makes claims and has a lot more of these accuracies if you would like me to provide more. The point is it was accurate.

"This is the Book (the Qur'ân), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqûn [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allâh much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allâh much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)]. [2:2] "

this is the claim. When you are done trying to argue the rest of the verses I've quoted, its on page 39 of this thread, don't hesitate to ask for more accuracies.

As for the embryologist topic, I already pointed out Keith Moore (and yes he does address why the Quran differs from the knowledge of the Greeks, Aristotle in particular)
here is part of the discussion on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx434UE3SYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKGurZJO3hM

Edit: forgot to mention that Muslims consider the Quran the direct word of God..word for word, not men inspired to write...it is recited by muslims like this:

Edited by TigerWoods, 08 August 2010 - 11:42 PM.

[emerkeng]

Oh my Dawkins, 40 pages! How far are you people willing to go just to troll?

Oh my ! How about you stop trolling and allow our Muslim friend to share his knowledge if you don't have anything better to say than a generic version of lol troll let the people that are educated on the topic do the talking

Edited by OriginalGin, 09 August 2010 - 12:44 AM.

[Scot]

Oh my ! How about you stop trolling and allow our Muslim friend to share his knowledge if you don't have anything better to say than a generic version of lol troll let the people that are educated on the topic do the talking

HAHAHAHAH

Educated
Religious

Pick one.

[emerkeng]

HAHAHAHAH

Educated
Religious

Pick one.

I love how every post of yours in this topic instead of being educated responses have been troll-like comments such as this one. Some very highly educated people were religious for example C.S. Lewis.

[Elindoril]

I love how every post of yours in this topic instead of being educated responses have been troll-like comments such as this one. Some very highly educated people were religious for example C.S. Lewis.

I love how you care so much about other people posting, it's not like anything is going to be done about it.

LolReligion.

[Scot]

Here, let me sum up religion

[emerkeng]

Here, let me sum up religion

Scott stop trolling and let the educated religious fellows do the talking peace.

[Scot]

this one is a classic

[TigerWoods]

THE MUSLIM INFLUENCE ON THE HISTORY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The early Islamic ages were a golden age for knowledge, and the history of the scientific method must pay a great deal of respect to some of the brilliant Muslim philosophers of Baghdad and Al-Andalus.They preserved the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, but also added to it, and were the catalyst for the formation of a scientific method recognizable to modern scientists and philosophers.

The first, and possibly greatest Islamic scholar, was Ibn al-Haytham, best known for his wonderful work on light and vision, called ‘The Book of Optics.’ He developed a scientific method very similar to our own:

• State an explicit problem, based upon observation and experimentation.
• Test or criticize a hypothesis through experimentation.
• Interpret the data and come to a conclusion, ideally using mathematics.
• Publish the findings

Ibn al-Haytham, brilliantly, understood that controlled and systematic experimentation and measurement were essential to discovering new knowledge, built upon existing knowledge.

His other additions were the idea that science is a quest for ultimate truth and that one of the only ways to reach that goal was through skepticism and questioning everything.

Other Muslim scholars further contributed to this scientific method, refining it and preserving it. Al-Biruni understood that measuring instruments and human observers were prone to error and bias, so proposed that experiments needed replication, many times, before a ‘common sense’ average was possible.

Al-Rahwi (851 – 934) was the first scholar to use a recognizable peer review process.

In his book, Ethics of the Physician, he developed peer review process to ensure that physicians documented their procedures and lay them open for scrutiny. Other physicians would review the processes and make a decision in cases of suspected malpractice.

Abu Jābir, known as Geber (721 - 815), an Islamic scientist often referred to as the father of chemistry, was the first scholar to introduce controlled experiments, and dragged alchemy away from the world of superstition into one of empirical measurement.

Ibn Sina (Avicenna), one of the titans in the history of science, proposed that there were two ways of arriving at the first principles of science, through induction and experimentation. Only through these methods could the first principles needed for deduction be discovered

Other Islamic scholars contributed the idea of consensus in science as a means of filtering out fringe science and allowing open reviews. These contributions to the scientific method, and to the tools required to follow them, made this into an Islamic Golden Age of science.

However, with the decline in the Islamic Houses of Knowledge, the history of the scientific method passed into Europe and the Renaissance.

See also:
Islamic Scholars and Biology
Islamic Ophthalmology
Islamic Alchemy
Islamic Medicine
Islamic Psychology

Source:
Read more: http://www.experimen...l#ixzz0w6K3mYOX

[Scot]

When you try to debate with educated religious people such as fellow forumer Tigerwoods it would be a pretty good idea to actually be educated in the subject and talk about something relevant instead of calling him a troll
Today, 03:58 AM

16 minutes ago
Lol Scot you don't know my wife/fiance . . . and Elindoril I don't think my GF likes to date skinny wimpy kids who still play D&D sorry =(.

Pathetic: I like how Tiger presents perfectly good evidence yet instead of refuting it you deride his beliefs elsewhere. Your arguments would hold more weight if you didn't resort to logical fallacies like ad hominems when your center of the world viewpoints are challenged. Your condescending tone only reveals your own logical weakness.

I'm sorry for the interruption, TigerWoods, please continue.

Edited by Scot, 09 August 2010 - 02:10 AM.

[emerkeng]

Pathetic: I like how Tiger presents perfectly good evidence yet instead of refuting it you deride his beliefs elsewhere. Your arguments would hold more weight if you didn't resort to logical fallacies like ad hominems when your center of the world viewpoints are challenged. Your condescending tone only reveals your own logical weakness.

I'm sorry for the interruption, TigerWoods, please continue.

Lol Scot? Guess what you're the one that called him a troll when his statements were very valid so I stated you should not be a troll I never derided his beliefs. And guess what How the fuck does what I posted towards Elindoril relate to this? Elindoril should learn to keep his fucking mouth shut about people's gfs. My condescending tone? Look at all the troll posts you've written about religion on here such your diagrams and bs all I've wrote was that you shouldn't call someone a troll when you have no good argument against him.

[SamTheMan]

Lol Scot? Guess what you're the one that called him a troll when his statements were very valid so I stated you should not be a troll I never derided his beliefs. And guess what How the fuck does what I posted towards Elindoril relate to this? Elindoril should learn to keep his fucking mouth shut about people's gfs. My condescending tone? Look at all the troll posts you've written about religion on here such your diagrams and bs all I've wrote was that you shouldn't call someone a troll when you have no good argument against him.

Yeah but Scot actually makes sense

[Scot]

*Sigh* Part of me says not to play into your little game but I believe the faster you get to 500, the better so here goes...

Lol Scot? Guess what you're the one that called him a troll when his statements were very valid so I stated you should not be a troll I never derided his beliefs.

No I was referring to you because as soon as he made his point you ran off to the chat thing and suggested he wasn't educated. You mentioned him by name.
"

When you try to debate with educated religious people such as fellow forumer Tigerwoods it would be a pretty good idea to actually be educated in the subject and talk about something relevant instead of calling him a troll"

And guess what How the fuck does what I posted towards Elindoril relate to this? Elindoril should learn to keep his fucking mouth shut about people's gfs.

Elindoril is just being Elindoril. FYI his comment about your gf was a reference from an episode of Seinfeld. Try not to rip people's heads off when they are obviously just kidding around.

My condescending tone? Look at all the troll posts you've written about religion on here such your diagrams and bs all I've wrote was that you shouldn't call someone a troll when you have no good argument against him.

Every comment you make reeks of elitism. Look at how many times you call people "uneducated" because they don't believe the same things you do. I guess not everyone is capable of the level of "big boy debate" you present.

Edit: As I am typing this, there you are at it again.

And Elin have fun in prison with the ruffies I heard gangsters love guys that try to date rape girls.

Please stop if you want to be taken seriously.