Atheists: WOW proof this Book is from God.

[~Amin~]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]:bow:Islam - The Modern Religion:bow:[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=+3]Religion and the Scientist[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=+3]Do you think this is enough [/SIZE]​

evidence?​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]...seated side by side, two gentlemen from two different world...[/FONT]​

Religion and Scientist « Absolute Truth

Whats your thoughts?:angel2:​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

<yawn> drivel </yawn>

 

[Panda]

Well that was useless and not even the slightest bit convincing or informative.

 

[Smoke]

Whats your thoughts?:angel2:

I'm wondering whether you honestly expect that to convince even a single person.

 

[standing_alone]

Whats your thoughts?:angel2:

Basically, I'm thinking I can't believe I wasted my time reading that.

 

[Pariah]

I'm convinced. What next?

 

[~Amin~]

Im sad not one sensible response.

 

[painted wolf]

ok how about this one... Pork contains no more uric acid than any other type of animal meat.

If this is why god says its a no-no then he missed the fact that bakers Yeast is higher than Pork in uric acid, as is ox liver, Calf's neck, and a bunch more.

Foods High in Uric Acid - a Surprising Myth

Pigs are no worse at ridding themselves of uric acid than any other mammal, if they were they would die.

wa:do

 

[~Amin~]

ok how about this one... Pork contains no more uric acid than any other type of animal meat.

But the point is this, was prohibited over three thousand years ago
and recently they found out that the pig contains tricnossis which
is harmfull how would any human being known that at that time?

 

[painted wolf]

So what?
Beef contians the tapeworm, sheep the blood fluke and fish... egads the things you get eating fish.
Let not even mention undercooked chicken!

Why not ban it all?
Cooked pork is no more dangerous than any other meat. Less so than some actually.

wa:do

 

[Quagmire]

But the point is this, was prohibited over three thousand years ago
and recently they found out that the pig contains tricnossis which
is harmfull how would any human being known that at that time?

That's not actually the point the interview was making;

Bob: The medical sciences find that there is a risk for various diseases as the pig is found to be a host for many parasites and potential diseases.
Yunus: Yes, even apart from that ....as we talked about uric acid content in the blood.....it is important to note that the pig's biochemistry excretes only 2% of its total uric acid content...... the remaining 98% remains as an integral part of the body. This explains the high rate of Rheumatism found in those who consume pork.

As far as how any one would know there was a connection between eating pork and certain diseases prior to scientific verification; the ancient agricultural peoples were much more in tune with the the way the different elements and events of their world interacted and effected each other. They had to be.

It wouldn't take a sceintist or a prophet to notice that, say, everytime someone ate pork, they get sick.

I think there are some thought provoking points made here and there in your article. The pork reference isn't one of them however.

Im sad not one sensible response.

I think the problem lies partly in the way this was presented; "WOW proof this book is from God" doesn't invite discussion so much as refutation.

The other weakness is in the article itself.

Like I said, there are, IMO, some thought provoking points, things that might be worth discussing, exp;

Bob: That is correct.....this phenomenon is observed at various locations......for example the region where the Nile river meets with the Mediterranean sea and more especially in the Gulf stream where these two bodies of water flow together for thousands of kilometres.
Yunus: In chapter 25, verse 53 it reads, ....... "God is the one that has let free two seas, one is sweet and palatable and the other is salty and bitter. He placed an unseen barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to pass". A similar message is given in chapter 55, verses 19 and 20, "He has loosed the two seas. They meet together. Between them there is an unseen barrier which they do not transgress........"

But Yunus keeps takes away from whatever credibility they might lend his case by presenting vague speculations about possible interpretations as if they were definitive...

Yunus: Further in chapter 39, verse 5, it says, "He coils the night upon the day and he coils the day upon the night." The word used in the original arabic text is "Kaw'wara" which means coils or winds, the significance of this verb is that you usually coil something around a rather spherical object. You say that this fact was discovered recently, well relatively recently, who could have mentioned this in the Holy Quraan over
1400 years ago ?

Confusing terms..

Yunus: Well, this is nothing new to the muslim for it is revealed in the Holy Quraan in chapter 21, verse 33, "(God is) the One who created the night, the day, the Sun and the Moon, each one spinning around its own axis (travelling in an orbit)".

(orbiting and rotating are two different propositions alltogether)

And doing quite a few other things that apologists usually do in the course of presenting propaganda.

Also I get the sense that the interviewer is a shill, ie, someone who's already sympathetic to the subjects veiws. His questions are leading and he's not challenging the answers.

Basically, the whole thing insults the readers intellegence, which isn't going to gain any sympathy for your veiwpoints from anyone who doesn't already share them.

 

[YmirGF]

I think there are some thought provoking points made here and there in your article.

On the face of it, it may seem so, but none of the things outlined were actually discovered by Muslims which makes the whole concept of "miracles within the pages of the Qur'an" come off sounding very lame. If Muslims had indeed discovered some great scientific marvel based on WHAT they read... I would just be quiet. Grandfathering the information into the Qur'an after the fact is -- unseemly.

I think the problem lies partly in the way this was presented; "WOW proof this book is from God" doesn't invite discussion so much as refutation.

Since the article merely "sings to the choir" it is disengenious, at best and luridly self-serving pomposity at worst.

The other weakness is in the article itself.

Oddly, I did not see any sign of strength in any argument presented.

But Yunus keeps takes away from whatever credibility they might lend his case by presenting vague speculations about possible interpretations as if they were definitive...

But that is a facet of Muslim understanding. Somehow fanciful speculation often makes an intuitive leap in a Muslims mind and instantly is seen as real where in reality all that is there is smoke on the wind.

Also I get the sense that the interviewer is a shill, ie, someone who's already sympathetic to the subjects veiws. His questions are leading and he's not challenging the answers.

Yes, Bob, for example, states "so how do you know it was unchanged" when the other "fellow" didn't say that it had. It makes thinking people wonder a tiny bit, I'll say that

Basically, the whole thing insults the readers intellegence, which isn't going to gain any sympathy for your veiwpoints from anyone who doesn't already share them.

This is what troubles me about common Muslim commentaries. I can well imagine them sitting around ohhh and ahhhing over some fellows brilliant argument because they cannot see for themselves the illusory nature of those arguments. Don't even get me started about the logical error they commit with great relish and fervor.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Yunus: I see, well I have a surprise for you....In the Holy Quraan, chapter 21, verse 30 says. "Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart". Here we can see that the Holy Quraan is speaking about this 'BIG BANG' theory and let me tell you that the Holy Quraan was revealed over 1400 years ago.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]I always chuckle when Muslims trot this passage out and say that it means the "Big Bang". To say that is creative thinking and stretching the truth is putting it mildly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

Yunus: Absolutely, it is a historical fact that the Holy Quraan was completed in the seventh century and has remained unchanged ever since. Historians, whether friends or foes to Islam, testify to this.

Yunas conveniently forgets to mention that all other copies (variations) of the Qur'an were destroyed by decree of Uthman when he assembled the Qur'an as it exists to this day.[/FONT]

Whats your thoughts?:angel2:

My thought on this is that Muslims need to be better educated before trotting out such meaningless drivel. These kind of alleged anecdotes might be persausive in Muslim circles but they only serve to make some Muslims look like blithering idiots.

 

[Quagmire]

On the face of it, it may seem so, but none of the things outlined were actually discovered by Muslims which makes the whole concept of "miracles within the pages of the Qur'an" come off sounding very lame. If Muslims had indeed discovered some great scientific marvel based on WHAT they read... I would just be quiet. Grandfathering the information into the Qur'an after the fact is -- unseemly.

Since the article merely "sings to the choir" it is disengenious, at best and luridly self-serving pomposity at worst.

Oddly, I did not see any sign of strength in any argument presented.

I did see points I thought would be worth discussing though. This for example;

Bob: That is correct.....this phenomenon is observed at various locations......for example the region where the Nile river meets with the Mediterranean sea and more especially in the Gulf stream where these two bodies of water flow together for thousands of kilometres.
Yunus: In chapter 25, verse 53 it reads, ....... "God is the one that has let free two seas, one is sweet and palatable and the other is salty and bitter. He placed an unseen barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to pass". A similar message is given in chapter 55, verses 19 and 20, "He has loosed the two seas. They meet together. Between them there is an unseen barrier which they do not transgress........"

I don't know anything about oceanography, and I haven't got the slightest idea how well the ancient mariners understood the interplay between salt and fresh water in the oceans, but I think this point presented by itself at least has the pontential for leading to an intellgent discussion.

Or put it this way, IMO it isn't immediately recognizable as propaganda.

But that is a facet of Muslim understanding. Somehow fanciful speculation often makes an intuitive leap in a Muslims mind and instantly is seen as real where in reality all that is there is smoke on the wind.

Yes, Bob, for example, states "so how do you know it was unchanged" when the other "fellow" didn't say that it had. It makes thinking people wonder a tiny bit, I'll say that

This is what troubles me about common Muslim commentaries. I can well imagine them sitting around ohhh and ahhhing over some fellows brilliant argument because they cannot see for themselves the illusory nature of those arguments. Don't even get me started about the logical error they commit with great relish and fervor.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]I always chuckle when Muslims trot this passage out and say that it means the "Big Bang". To say that is creative thinking and stretching the truth is putting it mildly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Yunas conveniently forgets to mention that all other copies (variations) of the Qur'an were destroyed by decree of Uthman when he assembled the Qur'an as it exists to this day.[/FONT]

My thought on this is that Muslims need to be better educated before trotting out such meaningless drivel. These kind of alleged anecdotes might be persausive in Muslim circles but they only serve to make some Muslims look like blithering idiots.

Come on now, this is hardly a Muslim phenomenum. All religions have their apologists, and they all use the same tactics more or less.

 

[~Amin~]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]I always chuckle when Muslims trot this passage out and say that it means the "Big Bang". To say that is creative thinking and stretching the truth is putting it mildly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Yunas conveniently forgets to mention that all other copies (variations) of the Qur'an were destroyed by decree of Uthman when he assembled the Qur'an as it exists to this day.[/FONT]

Dear Ymir this shows how terrible your understanding of this issue is
if it continues gonna have to skip your statements

 

[YmirGF]

Dear Ymir this shows how terrible your understanding of this issue is
if it continues gonna have to skip your statements

From the mighty Wikipedia. (Used simply for convenience, btw.)
(Full article here.)
Qur'an
Main article: Qur'an
Uthman is perhaps best known for forming the committee which compiled the text of the Qur’an as it exists today. The reason was that various Muslim centres, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur'an.



Uthman feared that the nascent Rashidun Empire would fall apart in religious controversy if everyone did not have access to the original text of Qur'an. Towards the end of his reign, the committee finished compiling the text, and Uthman had it copied and sent to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, commanding that variant versions of the Qur'an be destroyed, and only the one version used.
While Shi'a and Sunni accept the same sacred text, the Qur'an, some claim that Shi'a dispute the current version, i.e. they add two additional surahs known as al-Nurayn and al-Wilaya.[8] Nonetheless, Shi'as claim that they are falsely accused of this, as they believe, like Sunnis, that the Qur'an has never been changed and it is with reference from sunni hadeeth books that this inference is drawn not only by uninformed shias but sunnis too.[9][10]
Zayd ibn Thabit was put in charge of the operation.[6](Note that John Wansbrough and some Western historians believe that the Qur'an was completed later than Uthman's time; theirs is a minority opinion.)



Um... just where did I "get it wrong" Amin?

 

[YmirGF]

I did see points I thought would be worth discussing though.

I don't know anything about oceanography, and I haven't got the slightest idea how well the ancient mariners understood the interplay between salt and fresh water in the oceans, but I think this point presented by itself at least has the pontential for leading to an intellgent discussion.

Or put it this way, IMO it isn't immediately recognizable as propaganda.

Well, when you have seen the topic beaten to death as many times as I have the "intelligent discussion" aspect becomes very superficial.

Come on now, this is hardly a Muslim phenomenum. All religions have their apologists, and they all use the same tactics more or less.

Did I say it was only a Muslim affectation? Um... nope. I may well have implied that they place an unusually great reliance on such thinking however. Sloppy thinking and unsubstantiated reason is rarely a good way to makes ones points. In my personal opinion making drivel sound like wisdom is almost an art form in Muslim circles... or so it would seem.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Im sad not one sensible response.

That you would proudly offer such tripe does little to inspire confidence in your ability to discern the sensible.

 

[painted wolf]

Sadly even the oceanography arguments falls apart. There is no berrier between fresh and salt water... they will happily mix together, in fact Osmosis demands that they do so.

Also, the Gulf Stream has nothing to do with the Nile river... The Nile empties into the Mediteranian sea. The Gulf Stream is allong the eastern coast of North America... They never meet.

wa:do

 

[doppelganger]

But the point is this, was prohibited over three thousand years ago
and recently they found out that the pig contains tricnossis which
is harmfull how would any human being known that at that time?

People who ate pork were more likely to die from a disease later to be named "trichinosis" :slap: Sheesh . . .

 

[Fluffy]

Amin, I have four general objections to the points raised in the article:
1) Most Muslims do not believe in God because of scientifically verifiable facts contained in the Qu'ran, if any actually exist. Therefore, if you hold that you are justified in believing in God without these points, then these points are not necessary for your belief to be justified and so are irrelevant.
2) If I went through and proved that each and every point did not evidence God's existence, you would still turn around and say that God existed. Therefore, this theory is not falsifiable.
3) They all break Occam's Razor.
4) The grammar is inconsistent making the meaning ambiguous or even unclear at times. Also the article contains at least some factual errors.