I am sceptical of the Skeptics. Is it wrong?

[cambridge79]

Why? Please
Regards

is it wrong? dependes on what arguments your claim stands.

sometime you can do good things for the wrong reasons and do wrong things for the bad reasons.


being skeptical is always a good thing if you can argument your position. If your arguments are proven to be weak and yet you keep being skeptical, than it becomes something wrong.

 

[use_your_brain]

All three of them. You're just choosing to ignore and/or twist the meaning of said verses in order to deny any faults in the Quran.

You failed to disprove the Quran. Poor. Anyone able to read our posts.

 

[cambridge79]

You failed to disprove the Quran. Poor. Anyone able to read our posts.

how can someone fail to disprove something that is not proved in first place?

It's like if i say to you "you've failed to disprove the remote control of my tv is the only true god".

 

[Aquitaine]

You failed to disprove the Quran. Poor. Anyone able to read our posts.

You conveniently ignore that the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate that the Quran is divinely inspired, rather than for others to provide evidence that it is not. The burden of evidence always rests with the person making the claim.

Still I provided 3 examples of errors in the Quran:
*That Sperm originates from between the spine and the ribs, which you responded by feigning ignorance over what said verse was referring to.
*That freshwater and saltwater don't mix, which you responded to by then claiming the Quran was referring to some specific seas where they do not mix, even though the book made no mention of them.
*That humans are made out of clay, which you seem to believe.

Indeed, people can read our posts, and see that you blatently admit to believing in the Quran as legitimate "because the Quran says so".

 

[use_your_brain]

You conveniently ignore that the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate that the Quran is divinely inspired, rather than for others to provide evidence that it is not. The burden of evidence always rests with the person making the claim.

Still I provided 3 examples of errors in the Quran:
*That Sperm originates from between the spine and the ribs, which you responded by feigning ignorance over what said verse was referring to.
*That freshwater and saltwater don't mix, which you responded to by then claiming the Quran was referring to some specific seas where they do not mix, even though the book made no mention of them.
*That humans are made out of clay, which you seem to believe.

Indeed, people can read our posts, and see that you blatently admit to believing in the Quran as legitimate "because the Quran says so".

"Let man look at (and bear in mind) the substance he is created from! (He is) created from the surging fluid, which springs from between the spine and the ribs! "(Quran 86:5-7)

Nowhere mentions SPERM.

"And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas "ٱلۡبَحۡرَيۡنِ (baharaini=two oceans): one palatable and sweet and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed. (53)" (Quran 25:53)

This situation does exist somewhere where the two do not mix at that area. It doesn't say all fresh water and salt water do not mix.

Adam was created from clay. Debunk it if you can.

At least Quran doesn't oppose the facts and science. it is the keyword.

 

[Aquitaine]

"Let man look at (and bear in mind) the substance he is created from! (He is) created from the surging fluid, which springs from between the spine and the ribs! "(Quran 86:5-7)

Nowhere mentions SPERM.

"And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas "ٱلۡبَحۡرَيۡنِ (baharaini=two oceans): one palatable and sweet and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed. (53)" (Quran 25:53)

This situation does exist somewhere where the two do not mix at that area. It doesn't say all fresh water and salt water do not mix.

Adam was created from clay. Debunk it if you can.

At least Quran doesn't oppose the facts and science. it is the keyword.

1) Yet you have no problem believing "made Man from water" refers to sperm. Interesting.
2) All seas mix, ever heard of Brackish Water?
3) Evidence please.

 

[use_your_brain]

1) Yet you have no problem believing "made Man from water" refers to sperm. Interesting.
2) All seas mix, ever heard of Brackish Water?
3) Evidence please.

1) then from what human was made of supposedly?
2) yes all seas mix, eventually. There are phenomenons where at the spot meeting they don't mix.
3) Adam is mentioned in Torah, Gospel and Quran. It is the evidence. What else?

 

[cambridge79]

.
3) Adam is mentioned in Torah, Gospel and Quran. It is the evidence. What else?

That aint no evidence. It s 3 book, each one inspired the next, each one was well aware of the former and they all refer to the same myth.

Its like saying that since a new hope, the empire strikes back and return of the Jedi all refer to like Skywalker than like Skywalker is a true figure. C'mon

 

[use_your_brain]

That aint no evidence. It s 3 book, each one inspired the next, each one was well aware of the former and they all refer to the same myth.

Its like saying that since a new hope, the empire strikes back and return of the Jedi all refer to like Skywalker than like Skywalker is a true figure. C'mon

I consider it as evidence.
Adam was a true myth.

 

[Aquitaine]

1) then from what human was made of supposedly?
2) yes all seas mix, eventually. There are phenomenons where at the spot meeting they don't mix.
3) Adam is mentioned in Torah, Gospel and Quran. It is the evidence. What else?

1) Sperm. I'm talking about how when presented with the "man created from the fluid gushing from in between the spine and the ribs" verse, you deny that it is referring to sperm, yet you have no problem believing that the "man created from water" verse refers to sperm.
I know why you are doing this, you are doing it because you don't want to accept that the Quran got it wrong in relation to where sperm is produced.

2) As a previous poster pointed out, those areas you mentioned were points of contact, where mixing does gradually take place. Hence brackish water etc.

3) The books being used as evidence for their own claims are not valid. The Gospel of theFlying Spaghetti Monster claims that the monster is the creator of the universe, should we believe that because the book says so?

 

[use_your_brain]

1) Sperm. I'm talking about how when presented with the "man created from the fluid gushing from in between the spine and the ribs" verse, you deny that it is referring to sperm, yet you have no problem believing that the "man created from water" verse refers to sperm.
I know why you are doing this, you are doing it because you don't want to accept that the Quran got it wrong in relation to where sperm is produced.

2) As a previous poster pointed out, those areas you mentioned were points of contact, where mixing does gradually take place. Hence brackish water etc.

3) The books being used as evidence for their own claims are not valid. The Gospel of theFlying Spaghetti Monster claims that the monster is the creator of the universe, should we believe that because the book says so?

1). That verse doesn't mention SPERM at all. it is merely your interpretation.
2). Yes at that meeting spot they do not mix. The poster note states that they do not mix at the spot meeting.
3). Yes, we should believe if they were true.

 

[Corthos]

1). That verse doesn't mention SPERM at all. it is merely your interpretation.

I'd be curious to know what popular Islamic interpretations are for what that liquid could be. =)

 

[Aquitaine]

I'd be curious to know what popular Islamic interpretations are for what that liquid could be. =)

Especially since he's perfectly happy interpreting another verse "and he wh created man from water" as meaning sperm. Interesting selective interpretation going on there.

1). That verse doesn't mention SPERM at all. it is merely your interpretation.
2). Yes at that meeting spot they do not mix. The poster note states that they do not mix at the spot meeting.
3). Yes, we should believe if they were true.

1) Oh come on, a gushing fluid which man is created from, ejected, emerging from between the human spine and ribs. What does it mean then?
2) They slowly mix, hence brackish water presence.
3) If your only evidence for the legitimacy of the material is the material itself, then you are engaging in circular logic.

 

[use_your_brain]

Especially since he's perfectly happy interpreting another verse "and he wh created man from water" as meaning sperm. Interesting selective interpretation going on there.



1) Oh come on, a gushing fluid which man is created from, ejected, emerging from between the human spine and ribs. What does it mean then?
2) They slowly mix, hence brackish water presence.
3) If your only evidence for the legitimacy of the material is the material itself, then you are engaging in circular logic.

1) it called interpretation. And you interpret the verse, while I translate the verse.
2) That poster says at the spot meeting they do not mix. however, of course they gradually mix in the other place far away from that spot.
3) yes that circular logic is accepted as long as you cannot able to disprove it either.

 

[use_your_brain]

I'd be curious to know what popular Islamic interpretations are for what that liquid could be. =)

I don't know.

 

[Aquitaine]

1) it called interpretation. And you interpret the verse, while I translate the verse.
2) That poster says at the spot meeting they do not mix. however, of course they gradually mix in the other place far away from that spot.
3) yes that circular logic is accepted as long as you cannot able to disprove it either.

1) Which further makes the whole concept of trying to find "divine truth" in scripture redundant.

2) Except that's not what the link states, it says "The transition zone between the salty sea water and fresh groundwater is not a distinct boundary but a zone of brackish water since the salty sea water and fresh water intermix."

3) You are playing a dangerous game if you believe the burden of proof lies with the skeptics, rather than the person making the extra-ordinary claim. It is up to you to providence evidence to support your islamic claims.
Otherwise, care to "disprove" every other religion that has ever existed in the history of mankind?
Care to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I bet you cannot disprove it.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't know.

Then what good is the verse lol?

 

[use_your_brain]

1) Which further makes the whole concept of trying to find "divine truth" in scripture redundant.

2) Except that's not what the link states, it says "The transition zone between the salty sea water and fresh groundwater is not a distinct boundary but a zone of brackish water since the salty sea water and fresh water intermix."

3) You are playing a dangerous game if you believe the burden of proof lies with the skeptics, rather than the person making the extra-ordinary claim. It is up to you to providence evidence to support your islamic claims.
Otherwise, care to "disprove" every other religion that has ever existed in the history of mankind?
Care to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I bet you cannot disprove it.

1) ---
2) Another link states in different way.
3) I can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Very easy.

 

[use_your_brain]

Then what good is the verse lol?

"So let man observe from what he was created. "

 

[cambridge79]

I consider it as evidence.
Adam was a true myth.

if the fact that "you consider it true" is enough to make it true, than why are you even wasting your time here. You already know all you need to know, you're your own authority