Hitchens and Dawkins: Quran

[jarofthoughts]

It is not a scientific approach;it is rather a totally unscientific method by any standards.

Hitchens study of religion is shallow and hollow both.

You keep saying that but you bring no arguments to the table.

 

[A-ManESL]

It is perfectly possible to write a coherent book on Christianity without quoting the Bible, so why should it be any different with Islam?

Because the role of the Bible in Christianity is not as the same of the role of the Quran in Islam. If you want to equate, then the role of Jesus(on whom may be peace) and the role of the Quran should be equated. The Quran plays the role of "something directly from God" in the Islamic way of thought. It is sort of related to the role Jesus(pbuh) plays in Christianity.

 

[paarsurrey]

You keep saying that but you bring no arguments to the table.

The same thing, I think, is true for you.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Because the role of the Bible in Christianity is not as the same of the role of the Quran in Islam. If you want to equate, then the role of Jesus(on whom may be peace) and the role of the Quran should be equated. The Quran plays the role of "something directly from God" in the Islamic way of thought. It is sort of related to the role Jesus(pbuh) plays in Christianity.

And yet, it is perfectly possible to write a book about Christianity without quoting Jesus.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The same thing, I think, is true for you.

I don't have to.
I haven't made any claims.

 

[A-ManESL]

And yet, it is perfectly possible to write a book about Christianity without quoting Jesus.

That may very well be; I was just pointing out that its incorrect to equate Bible and the Quran in this fashion. I have no opinion on this thread otherwise.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That may very well be; I was just pointing out that its incorrect to equate Bible and the Quran in this fashion. I have no opinion on this thread otherwise.

Fair enough, and as it may be, I agree with your comparison.

 

[paarsurrey]

You keep saying that but you bring no arguments to the table.

You may quote from Hitchens; one strong argument, repeat one;that you think he gave and was full of wisdom and that he did substantiate with his deep understanding of religion and to which you also agree. Can you?

Please

 

[jarofthoughts]

You may quote from Hitchens; one strong argument, repeat one;that you think he gave and was full of wisdom and that he did substantiate with his deep understanding of religion and to which you also agree. Can you?

Please

Dude, I posted three videos of him doing exactly that in the previous thread we had about this.
Did you watch any of them?

 

[paarsurrey]

Dude, I posted three videos of him doing exactly that in the previous thread we had about this.
Did you watch any of them?

Please give something in writing.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Please give something in writing.

Sorry mate.
I'm tired of doing your homework for you.
Go watch those videos and you'll find more than enough to work with.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sorry mate.
I'm tired of doing your homework for you.
Go watch those videos and you'll find more than enough to work with.

So you cannot quote anything substantial from Hitchens from his book "God is not Great". The book is in writing and is also available in PDF; it should not be difficult for you to quote from it.

Unless you think Hitchens was wrong; then you should say it in so many words; no compulsion however, whatsoever.

Have a heart, please. One who favour Hitchens should be steadfast in his blind-faith in him, at least.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So you cannot quote anything substantial from Hitchens from his book "God is not Great".

Yes, I can, but since you are the one making the claim that he is in the wrong I'd rather you point out where you think that is.
Hitchens has already made his arguments, a whole book full of them in fact, so you have plenty to choose from.

Unless you think Hitchens was wrong; then you should say it in so many words; no compulsion however, whatsoever.

You're the one claiming he is wrong.
Now present your case.

Have a heart, please. One who favour Hitchens should be steadfast in his blind-faith in him, at least.

Nah.
Do your own homework.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, he (Dawkins) makes logical inferences on religion.

Did they (Hitchens and Dawkins) quote the verses of Quran from which they made the reasonable inferences, as is said?

Did Dawkins or Hitchens read Quran? Please

Hitchens certainly, and Dawkins almost certainly.

If Hitchens and or Dawkins made logical inferences from the verses of Quran and for which it is said that they read it “Hitchens certainly, and Dawkins almost certainly” that should be proved by their (atheist) fans unless they say they have blind faith in them.

It is for all the atheists to prove; not a single individual.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If Hitchens and or Dawkins made logical inferences from the verses of Quran and for which it is said that they read it “Hitchens certainly, and Dawkins almost certainly” that should be proved by their (atheist) fans unless they say they have blind faith in them.

It is for all the atheists to prove; not a single individual.

No need.
Hitchens was known for having a great literary mind and Dawkins is known for doing his homework too.

Now, make your case for why you think they are wrong.
Because... unless you deal with their actual arguments, whether they have never seen a Quran in their lives or if they have studied the scriptures for decades really makes no difference.

Arguments stand or fall on their own, no matter who makes them.

 

[paarsurrey]

Please have a rest; being too tired.

Let other atheists with blind faith in Hitchens and Dawkins come forward to defend them; maybe there is some or many in them who still cling to reason and rationality.

No compulsion however.

It is open discussion for everybody those who participate in this discussion are requested to read my following submissions in this connection:

It is a common sense approach; I think you will agree, to understand a sentence from its context.

A single verse/sentence without the text and the context could be sometimes misleading.

One cannot correctly understand the meaning of a word unless one knows the whole sentence in which it has been used; the value of a sentence could be best understood in a passage, and of a passage is best understood in a chapter and the chapter from the whole book.

The reference to the context is therefore most essential for a useful discussion.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

I wrote a post on another thread; it is relevant to this topic also, hence I post it here:

Quran does not claim to be a text book of science. It is for guidance of the humans in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; this is mentioned in the beginning of Quran in very clear terms, so those who comment from other perspectives are sure wrong. They first have to prove that they have understood the verse in question from Quran correctively and then they must give verses in the context to prove their viewpoint. If they cannot do it; they have understood Quran wrongly for sure, hence their further argument are ineffective and pointless.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So, still no dealing with the actual arguments made?

Gottcha. :sarcastic

 

[ForeverFaithful]

No, if you read the Bible literally you would not have genocide, it is a simply false claim dependant on the Biblical ignorance of this generation to substain itself. Hitchen may have better spent his life actually learning things.

Besides, Scripture must be read through Church tradition

 

[jarofthoughts]

No, if you read the Bible literally you would not have genocide, it is a simply false claim dependant on the Biblical ignorance of this generation to substain itself. Hitchen may have better spent his life actually learning things.

Besides, Scripture must be read through Church tradition

If you read the bible literally, and believed it, you would end up an ignorant fool.
There is so much written in it that we know to be factually wrong that it is just plain silly.