*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...
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"
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.
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.
Please stop if you want to be taken seriously.
*Sigh* you don't know english I'm guessing. Here's what I said earlier you pretty much implied he was a troll. So that comment was against you 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" I never called him a troll you did. Honestly Scot, look at your diagrams and you should probably realize that you're being pretty stupid you're not debating you're just copy and pasting bs. Elitism? You act just as elite when it comes to bashing religion. I call people uneducated in the context of religion since many here consider religion bs. My level of "big boy debate?" Is still probably miles ahead of yours considering how you never post arguments and evidence and instead have called religious people trolls and post images of some random bs. Well sorry that I did not know Elindoril would try to be the most unfunny comic ever. Elin should stop the way he acts my motto is only joke with people you know Elin doesn't know me so it doesn't sound like a joke it just sounds offensive.
Elin should stop the way he acts my motto is only joke with people you know Elin doesn't know me so it doesn't sound like a joke it just sounds offensive.
*Sigh* you don't know english I'm guessing. Here's what I said earlier you pretty much implied he was a troll. So that comment was against you 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" I never called him a troll you did. Honestly Scot, look at your diagrams and you should probably realize that you're being pretty stupid you're not debating you're just copy and pasting bs. Elitism? You act just as elite when it comes to bashing religion. I call people uneducated in the context of religion since many here consider religion bs. My level of "big boy debate?" Is still probably miles ahead of yours considering how you never post arguments and evidence and instead have called religious people trolls and post images of some random bs. Well sorry that I did not know Elindoril would try to be the most unfunny comic ever.
Yes om nom nom nom. Keep the personal attacks coming bro. I have been communicating with you all this time and now I don't understand English. Is this your defense mechanism when someone challenges your views? You rationalize them as "trolls", "uneducated", and now they must not speak the same language as you because they haven't submitted to your overwhelming intellect? Keep changing the facts around you to make the world into as perfect a bubble as you see fit.
Sorry . . . If I've insulted you . . . I don't like people joking around with me If I don't know them well so I've actually taken some things that you've said offensively and it caused to be pretty condescending haha.
Sorry . . . If I've insulted you . . . I don't like people joking around with me If I don't know them well so I've actually taken some things that you've said offensively and it caused to be pretty condescending haha.
I don't take anything seriously on the internet, if anyone takes it to heart, then they need to leave ASAP.
Sorry . . . If I've insulted you . . . I don't like people joking around with me If I don't know them well so I've actually taken some things that you've said offensively and it caused to be pretty condescending haha.
Batshit to English translation:
Sorry if you were lame enough to be offended by those things I said which were designed to offend you.
Yes om nom nom nom. Keep the personal attacks coming bro. I have been communicating with you all this time and now I don't understand English. Is this your defense mechanism when someone challenges your views? You rationalize them as "trolls", "uneducated", and now they must not speak the same language as you because they haven't submitted to your overwhelming intellect? Keep changing the facts around you to make the world into as perfect a bubble as you see fit.
Hmm . . . you obviously don't understand english if you don't realize you first implied him as a troll. So I made a comment implying you shouldn't call him a troll and now you're trying to turn it around on me? You're hilarious. And no you call every religious person a troll so why should I not call you a troll look at your first post in the last 2 pages you implied him as a troll so I just called you out considering you never have evidence but instead copy and paste images and you call that a "debate." Yes you are obviously uneducated if you can't even understand simple english like my status comment. My overwhelming intellect? You're the one trying to act all high and mighty over religious believers I'm trying to defend religion you're just copy and pasting images over and over again and won't listen to what I say and copy and paste images that pretty much signify the same thing. And yes Scot keep changing your facts around you to make the world fit into as perfect a bubble as you see fit.
Hmm . . . you obviously don't understand english if you don't realize you first implied him as a troll. So I made a comment implying you shouldn't call him a troll and now you're trying to turn it around on me? You're hilarious. And no you call every religious person a troll so why should I not call you a troll look at your first post in the last 2 pages you implied him as a troll so I just called you out considering you never have evidence but instead copy and paste images and you call that a "debate." Yes you are obviously uneducated if you can't even understand simple english like my status comment. My overwhelming intellect? You're the one trying to act all high and mighty over religious believers I'm trying to defend religion you're just copy and pasting images over and over again and won't listen to what I say and copy and paste images that pretty much signify the same thing. And yes Scot keep changing your facts around you to make the world fit into as perfect a bubble as you see fit.
That entire paragraph could have been reduced to 2 sentences and would have gotten your point across anyways.
Scott stop trolling and let the educated religious fellows do the talking peace.
Btw, when you said this I hope you were excluding yourself because throughout this thread you've consistently failed to support any and all of your beliefs or statements other than saying "the bible is fact". You may well be religious but you certainly aren't educated.
Hmm . . . you obviously don't understand english if you don't realize you first implied him as a troll. So I made a comment implying you shouldn't call him a troll and now you're trying to turn it around on me? You're hilarious. And no you call every religious person a troll so why should I not call you a troll look at your first post in the last 2 pages you implied him as a troll so I just called you out considering you never have evidence but instead copy and paste images and you call that a "debate." Yes you are obviously uneducated if you can't even understand simple english like my status comment. My overwhelming intellect? You're the one trying to act all high and mighty over religious believers I'm trying to defend religion you're just copy and pasting images over and over again and won't listen to what I say and copy and paste images that pretty much signify the same thing. And yes Scot keep changing your facts around you to make the world fit into as perfect a bubble as you see fit.
Strong damage control there. I would respond to this but all your entire paragraph is a c/p of what I said with the names replaced. I am no elitist and I respect Tiger's views because he backs up his arguments with evidence. I'm sorry you keep trying to paint me as calling him a troll but I never did. I think what you are experiencing is called Confirmation Bias because you keep looking for ways to appear like the victim and ignore my facts when it doesn't suit yours. I have done nothing but try to defend TigerWoods and Elindoril against your verbal barrage. Who is the elitist here?
Strong damage control there. I would respond to this but all your entire paragraph is a c/p of what I said with the names replaced. I am no elitist and I respect Tiger's views because he backs up his arguments with evidence. I'm sorry you keep trying to paint me as calling him a troll but I never did. I think what you are experiencing is called Confirmation Bias because you keep looking for ways to appear like the victim and ignore my facts when it doesn't suit yours. I have done nothing but try to defend TigerWoods and Elindoril against your verbal barrage. Who is the elitist here?
Really now I also respect Tiger's views since he is more faithful than I and can piece together arguments better than I ever could. But you wrote: Oh my Dawkins, 40 pages! How far are you people willing to go just to troll? In that case I believed you were referring to "you people" as the religious people in this thread considering this was right around the 3rd or 4th post of Tiger's. It's not confirmation bias read what you wrote and tell me how it might not sound like it might imply that you called Tiger a troll when you yourself are so against religion and when I told you that you shouldn't call Tiger a troll I was referring to that post. And all you showed was some copy and pasted images of random anti-Christian jokes. And Elindoril should realize that there is a time for joking and there is a time for not joking. In fact you posted right after Tiger posted making it seem like you called him a troll when you said that of course I would try to defend him even if you are trying to make me out as a villain now. If you notice my earlier comments on his posts you could see that I had the utmost respect for his knowledge.
Really now I also respect Tiger's views since he is more faithful than I and can piece together arguments better than I ever could. But you wrote: Oh my Dawkins, 40 pages! How far are you people willing to go just to troll? In that case I believed you were referring to "you people" as the religious people in this thread considering this was right around the 3rd or 4th post of Tiger's. It's not confirmation bias read what you wrote and tell me how it might not sound like it might imply that you called Tiger a troll when you yourself are so against religion and when I told you that you shouldn't call Tiger a troll I was referring to that post. And all you showed was some copy and pasted images of random anti-Christian jokes. And Elindoril should realize that there is a time for joking and there is a time for not joking. In fact you posted right after Tiger posted making it seem like you called him a troll when you said that of course I would try to defend him even if you are trying to make me out as a villain now.
If I wanted to address him I would have quoted him. Seeing as how he only has 6 posts I doubt that he stretched it all over 40 pages as I specifically mentioned. So how could I possibly call him a troll? Let's not turn him into a strawman. I consider the TigerWood matter closed.
Why do you keep dodging my original points? Just because I didn't write a thesis on it you don't want to give it the attention of your master intellect right? Here's the sad fact: There's no point in reinventing the wheel; I bring up 2 basic points most rookie skeptics bring up right away anyway. What I posted should be child's play to a superior theologian like you but I guess your confirmation bias will not let you see that.
Cellophane batshit to English Translation: I love following OriginalGin around and trolling him.
Actually, I only just realised that you're Pathetic. Love the name change though, it's almost clever if you squint whilst beating yourself over the head with a blunt object. It suits you.
Mind learning some punctuation or how to make your sentences more to the point, though? Your posts might be long but baby, the padding doesn't change what's really there. You're like an A cup stuffing her bra with tissues.
If I wanted to address him I would have quoted him. Seeing as how he only has 6 posts I doubt that he stretched it all over 40 pages as I specifically mentioned. So how could I possibly call him a troll? Let's not turn him into a strawman. I consider the TigerWood matter closed.
Why do you keep dodging my original points? Just because I didn't write a thesis on it you don't want to give it the attention of your master intellect right? Here's the sad fact: There's no point in reinventing the wheel; I bring up 2 basic points most rookie skeptics bring up right away anyway. What I posted should be child's play to a superior theologian like you but I guess your confirmation bias will not let you see that.
Strawman? You basically made me out to be a villain against him when I respect his point of view and knowledge since I am not even half the theologian or educated in religion as he is. I felt you were disrespecting him earlier so I posted what I posted implying you since I thought you were implying him as a troll. I didn't even know I was dodging any original points. Are you talking about your graphic images? I originally thought you were just mocking Christianity. How am I supposed to know you wanted me to prove 2 basic points when you never asked me to. Please tell me in words what you want me to explain and I will try to get back to you. However, I see Ali's posts and I am not sure but do they not answer your question as well? I'll try to find other sources however if you want me to answer any questions.
Actually, I only just realised that you're Pathetic. Love the name change though, it's almost clever if you squint whilst beating yourself over the head with a blunt object. It suits you.
Mind learning some punctuation or how to make your sentences more to the point, though? Your posts might be long but baby, the padding doesn't change what's really there. You're like an A cup stuffing her bra with tissues.
Cellophane I love your troll posts but if you're not going to contribute you might as well leave thank you. Peace.
Cellophane I love your troll posts but if you're not going to contribute you might as well leave thank you. Peace.
Your projection is sho cute! Isn't it weird that you accuse lots of people of trolling you - and yet, no one else claims to be trolled by these people? Huh, it's almost as if you're completely and utterly wrong.
By the way? The comma called. It wants to know why you ignore its existence.
TigerWoods, I suggest you decide what you're trying to argue.
Either, the Islamic ancients were excellent scientists, and some of their astute observations were included in the Koran; or, the Islamic ancients were illiterate goatherders whose knowledge was miraculously passed on by Allah.
In the former situation, which I am happy to accept, the scientific accuracy of the Koran is not evidence for its infallibility and/or divine inspiration. In the second situation, which I am far from happy to accept, the scientific accuracy of the Koran is evidence for its divine origin... however, it's one that is totally undermined by even the tiniest mistake.
And, to preempt your inevitable "fallibility of the scribes", the same argument must be applied to all the text, and as such, it cannot be described as infallible even if it is of divine origin.
Btw, when you said this I hope you were excluding yourself because throughout this thread you've consistently failed to support any and all of your beliefs or statements other than saying "the bible is fact". You may well be religious but you certainly aren't educated.
I, on the other hand, am spectacularly educated, but decidedly non-religious.
TigerWoods, I suggest you decide what you're trying to argue.
Either, the Islamic ancients were excellent scientists, and some of their astute observations were included in the Koran; or, the Islamic ancients were illiterate goatherders whose knowledge was miraculously passed on by Allah.
In the former situation, which I am happy to accept, the scientific accuracy of the Koran is not evidence for its infallibility and/or divine inspiration. In the second situation, which I am far from happy to accept, the scientific accuracy of the Koran is evidence for its divine origin... however, it's one that is totally undermined by even the tiniest mistake.
And, to preempt your inevitable "fallibility of the scribes", the same argument must be applied to all the text, and as such, it cannot be described as infallible even if it is of divine origin.
I, on the other hand, am spectacularly educated, but decidedly non-religious.
Am I also to be excluded?
Those scholars and scientists I've posted earlier were scholars that came after the time of the Prophet. I posted them in response to a picture drawn comparing the scientific method to "faith". However the poster failed to realize that Muslims were the reason we have this scientific method today (one has to agree with all humility that they greatly influenced it at the very least). I think you have a lack of understanding on how the Qur'an was revealed. It was revealed to one individual whom we know as Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)
May I present more? the Qur'an is considered to be top notch in eloquence and the Arabs who spoke classical Arabic (which has been preserved til today) recognized that it could not have been written by a human. The classical Arabic scholars of before and today acknowledge it's infallibility as a text. Poetry in Pre-Islamic Arabia was seen as a commodity where people would gather to hear recitations of the different styles that eloquent poets would piece together. No Arab literature up til today has been able to match the Qur'an in any aspect of poetry and eloquence. One of the most famous poets of the time acknowledged the Qur'an: "Indeed, one of the finest poems ever written in Arabic was that of Labaid ibn Rabiyah, who’s poem, when recited at Uhaz, caused the Arabs to prostrate before him in admiration. When this same Labaid began to hear the verses of Qur’an, he embraced Islam, and gave up poetry altogether. When he was once asked to recite some poetry he said: "What! After the Qur’an?" Indeed, many of the Arabs entered into Islam just from hearing the Qur’an, because for them it was a conclusive proof of its Divine origin. They knew that no man could produce such eloquence. "
The Qur'an made a challenge for the Arabic poets before and today: If you have doubts about what We have sent down to Our servant, produce another sura equal to it, and call your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are telling the truth. (Qur'an, 2:23) This Qur'an could never have been devised by any besides Allah. Rather it is confirmation of what came before it and an elucidation of the Book which contains no doubt from the Lord of all the worlds. Do they say, "He has invented it"? Say: "Then produce a sura like it and call on anyone you can besides Allah if you are telling the truth." (Qur'an, 10:37-38)
and reassures:
We did not teach him poetry nor would it be right for him. It is simply a reminder and a clear Qur'an so that you may warn those who are truly alive and so that the Word may be carried out against the disbelievers. (Qur'an, 36:69-70)
Here's what some contemporary scholars have said about the Qur'an: One of the reasons that the Qur'an is described as miraculous stems from the fact that, as emphasized in the verses above, nothing like it can ever be written by human endeavour: The greater the scale of that impossibility, the greater the size of the miracle which we see before our very eyes. Therefore, the fact that the style of the Qur'an has been incapable of imitation by even one out of the billions of people down the centuries is one of the proofs of its miraculous nature. In his book, The Construction of the Bible and the Qur'an, F. F. Arbuthnot makes the following comment about the Qur'an:
"From the literary point of view, the Koran is regarded as a specimen of the purest Arabic, written on half poetry and half prose. It has been said that in some cases grammarians have adopted their rules to agree with certain phrases and expressions used in it, and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded."245
"As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style.248" (Well-known Arabist Hamilton Gibb)
"Whenever [Prophet] Muhammad [saas] was asked a miracle, as a proof of the authenticity of his mission, he quoted the composition of the Qur'an and its incomparable excellence as proof of its divine origin. And, in fact, even for those who are non-Muslims nothing is more marvellous than its language with such apprehensible plenitude and a grasping sonority… The ampleness of its syllables with a grandiose cadence and with a remarkable rhythm have been of much moment in the conversion of the most hostile and the most sceptic.250 (From Paul Casanova's article, "L'Enseignement de I'Arabe au College de France" [The Arab Teaching at the College of France])"
"It [the Qur'an] is a literal revelation of Allah, dictated to [Prophet] Muhammad [saas] by Gabriel, perfect in every letter. It is an ever-present miracle witnessing to itself and to [Prophet] Muhammad [saas], the Prophet of Allah. Its miraculous quality resides partly in its style, so perfect and lofty that neither men nor Jinn could produce a single chapter to compare with its briefest chapter, and partly in its content of teachings, prophecies about the future, and amazingly accurate information such as [Prophet] Muhammad [saas] could never have gathered of his own accord.251 (From Harry Gaylord Dorman's book, Towards Understanding Islam) "
All those who are acquainted with the Qur'an in Arabic agree in praising the beauty of this religious book; its grandeur of form is so sublime that no translation into any European language can allow us to appreciate it.252 (From Edward Montet's Traduction Francaise du Coran [French Translation of the Qur'an])
A miracle of purity of style of wisdom and of truth.255 (From Rev. R. Bosworth Smith's book, Mohammed and Mohammadanism) It [the Qur'an] has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear. Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence… indeed it may be affirmed that within the literature of the Arabs, wide and fecund as it is both in poetry and in elevated prose, there is nothing to compare with it.<a href="http://miraclesofthe...02.html#dp">256 (From Alfred Guillaume's book, Islam)
It was revealed orally and later written (and the story of it's written preservation is quite an interesting one, if you'd like to know please ask) and is memorized by millions of Muslims word for word today. The Qur'an also claims:
We have made the Qur'an easy to remember… (Qur'an, 54:22)
(Imagine the companions of the Prophet and how they preserved the text within their own minds)
It regards to it's infallibility, the Quran itself makes this claim:
We have, without doubt sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). [Quran 15:9]
If one is to consider the text to be from divine origin one has to understand this verse was revealed at the time of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). We believe the scriptures of the past have been corrupted over time by men and the Quran acknowledges this corruption a few times, 1 being here:
"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]
This revelation claims to be the final revelation given to mankind, by the final Prophet/Messenger sent by the Creator confirming that which was before and as a criterion over it.
Since you have not yet addressed all of the past accuracies I will only give you a few more to consider:
“They say, ‘What! When we are bones and crumbled dust, will we then be raised up as a new creation!’ Say: ‘It would not matter if you were rock or iron or indeed any created thing that you think is harder still!’ They will say, ‘Who will bring us back again?’ Say: ‘He Who brought you into being in the first place’...” (Surat al-Isra’, 49-51) And We also sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind… (Qur'an, 57:25)
We brought the tribe of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his troops pursued them out of tyranny and enmity. Then, when he was on the point of drowning, he [Pharaoh] said: "I believe that there is no god but Him in Whom the tribe of Israel believes. I am one of the Muslims." (Qur'an, 10:90) "What, now! When previously you rebelled and were one of the corrupters? Today we will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs." (Qur'an, 10:91-92
And We have decreed set phases for the moon, until it ends up looking like an old date branch. It is not for the sun to overtake the moon nor for the night to outstrip the day; each one is swimming in a sphere. (Qur'an, 36:39-40)
If you would like to know why these specific verses are so interesting, please don't hesitate to ask
The infallibility of this compiled Quran that is being circulated today is a whole topic on it's preservation as a written text . Simply by looking at today standards we know it was preserved orally, but for the sake of argument how was it preserved? We know that the earlier manuscripts we have are the same as the text being circulated today. No Qur'an in arabic differs from each other, we don't have different versions like the bible and it has been the same for 1400 yrs.
Edit: Here is a lecture if you are curious on it's preservation (I've decided to add it in because you did question the Quran's infallibility as a text)
you'll have to point out the logical fallacy and show how it's a logical fallacy otherwise you just seem lazy. How can I put things in a nutshell when you've asked about the infallibility of the Qur'an. Take it or reject it, no compulsion.
