Atheists: WOW proof this Book is from God.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I found this interesting:

Yunus:…..What does science say about the shape of the Earth ?
Bob: Previously, Man thought that the Earth was flat, until Sir Frances Drake in 1607 finally proved it to be spherical. Today, the term Geoid is used to describe this spherical shape.

The Earth was long known to be spherical, but I think that Ferdinand Magellan and his crew would have found the above statement especially puzzling, since they circumnavigated the world in 1521, 86 years before the "flat earth" hypothesis was apparently "disproved" by Drake.

Fun fact time: the children's story version of Columbus' discovery of the New World says that before he left, Queen Isabella's advisors were all saying that his expedition was foolish, because he would sail off the edge of the world. In fact, they didn't think the world was flat, but the story is right in one regard: they did think the expedition was foolish.

It was an established fact at the time that the Earth was round; estimates of its diameter had even been made by various methods. To make his voyage to the Orient look feasible, Columbus had fudged his numbers: he had used an estimate of the Earth's diameter that was far too small, and had already been refuted. The Queen's advisors said that he and his crew would die on the expedition: they'd run out of food and fresh water long before they reached the Orient.

And the advisors were right. The only thing that saved Columbus' life was that he stumbled upon a continent that nobody in Europe knew was there.

 

[Quagmire]

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

Ok then, it had the potential for an extremely short intellegent discussion.

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

I've also heard that people who fell off a cliff before Isacc Newton came along were just as likely to hit bottom as those born after he coined the term "gravity". :yes:

 

[Random]

In defence of the OP, he is obviously devout and sincere in his faith, and I do not believe every example of GOD and Science meeting on friendly terms deserves ridicule. I did not take much inspiration from the content of the OP conversation as posted, but nevertheless I applaud the sentiment and the bravery, given the hostile enivronment atheists have created in regard of religion in the Internet.

GOD as Great Scientist and Architect is no less plausible than GOD as...insert your own conception of GOD.

Aside from the usual rudeness of the likes of Jay, I think the rest of you, especially the Science "experts" RF seems to have in abundance (Painted Wolf aside..) are doing a fine job ripping OP to bits, when a simple "I don't think GOD and science coalesce as smoothly as that..." would suffice.

 

[painted wolf]

I think science and faith can exist side by side...

However if you use junk "science" you are only doing both science and faith a disservice.

If you say that ___ is the proof that science supports your religion and ____ happens to be bunk then that doesn't say much in your favor.

In any case the OP isn't about God and science getting along... its about Science proving a book about God is correct.

wa:do

 

[Quagmire]

In defence of the OP, he is obviously devout and sincere in his faith, and I do not believe every example of GOD and Science meeting on friendly terms deserves ridicule. I did not take much inspiration from the content of the OP conversation as posted, but nevertheless I applaud the sentiment and the bravery, given the hostile enivronment atheists have created in regard of religion in the Internet.

GOD as Great Scientist and Architect is no less plausible than GOD as...insert your own conception of GOD.

Aside from the usual rudeness of the likes of Jay, I think the rest of you, especially the Science "experts" RF seems to have in abundance (Painted Wolf aside..) are doing a fine job ripping OP to bits, when a simple "I don't think GOD and science coalesce as smoothly as that..." would suffice.

I think you're missing the point Random. There's a difference between ripping something apart and having it fall apart when you hold it up to the light.

Exp: I did my best to find something of value in the OP, I had to sort through all the obvious misinformation and logical fallacies to find something that, as I've said, wasn't (from my uninformed perspective) immediately recognizable as propaganda.

Anyone who sees honest examination of his views (as opposed to blind acceptance) as a threat, obviously doesn't have much confidence in them himself.

GOD as Great Scientist and Architect is no less plausible than GOD as...insert your own conception of GOD.

I completely agree with this, just as I agree that the sky is blue. But, if someone told me the reason the sky is blue is because the Universe is a big blueberry, I would still disagree with them.

when a simple "I don't think GOD and science coalesce as smoothly as that..." would suffice.

Rejecting a claim without explaining your reasons is just as shallow as accepting one. If anything I think taking someone's claims and examining them point by point is an act of courtesy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In defence of the OP, he is obviously devout and sincere in his faith, and I do not believe every example of GOD and Science meeting on friendly terms deserves ridicule.

It's a tough line: on the one hand, the "science" in the linked article is garbage. It deliberately misleads in order to make its point, and I think that the level of respect given to it should be commensurate to that. On the other hand, as you point out, the OP did seem to be sincere in his post.

I did not take much inspiration from the content of the OP conversation as posted, but nevertheless I applaud the sentiment and the bravery, given the hostile enivronment atheists have created in regard of religion in the Internet.

I do think that the "GOD SUX LOL!!!1!"-type comments that one can see from time to time don't help to foster an environment of mutually beneficial discourse, but I don't think it's out of line to present reasoned (albeit dissenting) responses to a post, especially when it's put in a "debates" forum.

 

[Random]

I do think that the "GOD SUX LOL!!!1!"-type comments that one can see from time to time don't help to foster an environment of mutually beneficial discourse, but I don't think it's out of line to present reasoned (albeit dissenting) responses to a post, especially when it's put in a "debates" forum.

Well said, good post. Furbals.

 

[~Amin~]

(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.)?

Typical who cares what a minority western historians beleive,
if this is what convinces you that this informatio in right then you have no bases,
why dont you give examples of majority muslim scholars?

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

come on then Ymir since you know what your talking about what was burnt?
and why? show us as usaul you know evrythig.

 

[SoyLeche]

Typical who cares what a minority western historians beleive,
if this is what convinces you that this informatio in right then you have no bases,
why dont you give examples of majority muslim scholars?

Well, the link did say this:

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

If there is disention in whether or not this "fact" is true, it should be pointed out. Unless you just want to cherry-pick your historians

(I guess you only have to have 2 historian foes of Islam believe it for the statment to be true, but if that's the case it's kinda misleading)

 

[~Amin~]

I believe that most atheists haved proved by there responses how much
they enjoy mocking at people, and that they dont care about other beliefs,
DONT they know this is a sensitive issue for believers regerdless Muslim, Chriistian
or others?
It doesnt matter but any way, with me is MY LORD HE will help me.

 

[~Amin~]

Unless you just want to cherry-pick your historians )

Yea i agree.

 

[standing_alone]

I believe that most atheists haved proved by there responses how much
they enjoy mocking at people, and that they dont care about other beliefs,
DONT they know this is a sensitive issue for believers regerdless Muslim, Chriistian
or others?
It doesnt matter but any way, with me is MY LORD HE will help me.

So because the atheists weren't swayed into Islam, they don't care about other beliefs?

Because some people are (over)sensitive or insecure about their beliefs (enough so to use junk science to try to justify them), atheists should not state their true opinion when asked for it? Should they have just lied so as not to upset your (or anyone else's) sensibilities?

 

[SoyLeche]

Yea i agree.

You agree that you are cherry-picking your historians?

 

[Quagmire]

I believe that most atheists haved proved by there responses how much
they enjoy mocking at people, and that they dont care about other beliefs,
DONT they know this is a sensitive issue for believers regerdless Muslim, Chriistian
or others?
It doesnt matter but any way, with me is MY LORD HE will help me.

Sorry Amin, but this is just more propaganda. Only a handful of the people who've responded to your OP are atheists and at least a cpl of those went out of their way to post reasonable, well thought out responses in critique of your article.

But, instead of addressing their points you've choosen to address their atheisism, as if that explained everything. So who is it who's being disrespectful of other beliefs here?

 

[SoyLeche]

I believe that most atheists haved proved by there responses how much
they enjoy mocking at people, and that they dont care about other beliefs,
DONT they know this is a sensitive issue for believers regerdless Muslim, Chriistian
or others?
It doesnt matter but any way, with me is MY LORD HE will help me.

You need to learn the difference between someone attacking an argument and someone attacking a person. They are not the same thing - and if you don't understand that you aren't going to have much fun in a debate forum.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It doesnt matter but any way, with me is MY LORD HE will help me.

He's more than welcome to post to this thread ...

 

[~Amin~]

I love this forum but be kind i cant respond to all
allegations against me at once, but if you give me time
ill realy enjoy it.

 

[Quagmire]

He's more than welcome to post to this thread ...

We all post on behalf of whatever God we happen to be serving at the moment Jay, whether we mean to or not.

(As you can see, I'm serving the Goddess Sanctamonia this morning).

 

[~Amin~]

So because the atheists weren't swayed into Islam, they don't care about other beliefs?

Not at all, the mocking manner is clear anyway it doesnt
matter lets get on with the topic

Because some people are (over)sensitive or insecure?

There a HUGE difference between sensitivity and insecurity, you shouldnt
make out like there the same.

atheists should not state their true opinion when asked for it? Should they have just lied so as not to upset your (or anyone else's) sensibilities?

Yes Yes Yea , thats why this thread is here, but not in an attack full
manner, didnt you see the name of the other thread ; attack on the creationists?

 

[~Amin~]

You agree that you are cherry-picking your historians?

No that you guys are cherry-picking not all historians are accurate,
so we should give preference to the majority not minority.