Quran is free of errors

[Tom Brkic]

Could you possibly be vaguer? Besides, what makes you think I am not taking into consideration an even larger perspective than you words allow for? Riddle me that and we can talk.

the biblical & quranic authors consistently opted for word play, especially the alliterative type, whenever the opportunity arose. When a choice of synonyms was available, the writers typically chose the word that produced the greater alliterative effect.

When translated to another language the parallelism often disappears because not all terms manage to traverse. But by your loyalty to reason you may climb to the peak of this enormous wealth and seize the significance.

Every word is a unit of language that represents a concept which can be expressively communicated with meaning. It consists of one or more morphemes which are linked more or less tightly together, and has a phonetic value which is portrayed by letters or graphemes. Anyhow, the significance of a word is primary manifested in the imagination of a reader.

May you behold, by these; thy own two insights, the hand of the Most Magnificent Graciously Consistent Capacious Supreme Being.

 

[YmirGF]

the biblical & quranic authors consistently opted for word play, especially the alliterative type, whenever the opportunity arose. When a choice of synonyms was available, the writers typically chose the word that produced the greater alliterative effect.

This much I do understand. What I am dismissive of is many of the original concepts behind the words.

When translated to another language the parallelism often disappears because not all terms manage to traverse. But by your loyalty to reason you may climb to the peak of this enormous wealth and seize the significance.

I have grave reservations about the actual value of much of this alleged "wealth", Tom.

Every word is a unit of language that represents a concept which can be expressively communicated with meaning. It consists of one or more morphemes which are linked more or less tightly together, and has a phonetic value which is portrayed by letters or graphemes. Anyhow, the significance of a word is primary manifested in the imagination of a reader.

Exactly. This is precisely why I have grave reservations about such "holy" texts.

May you behold, by these; thy own two insights, the hand of the Most Magnificent Graciously Consistent Capacious Supreme Being.

I've been There and done just that, Tom. My appointment with gnosis is what drives my disbelief in what mythologies would have us believe. It is true that all religions have their crumbs, but their loaves turned to dust long ago. Sadly, one cannot gain much nourishment from dry crumbs.

 

[Tom Brkic]

nourishment from dry crumbs

In the beginning every syllable was meaningful as three or four letters can make the body of a word. Since the orthographic conclusion is related to the root of the words, there has been a parallel evolvement in different languages. Consequently even the synonyms of many words are parallel. Or put in other words; from specific roots grew the stem that branched according to whatever could be grasped by the vocabulary.

Just as fruits can seem good, smell good, and also taste good, any object that is needed, once identified, appears as "good". Therefore, whatever one by exertion get becomes "goods". The reason to this is that all these shapes are built on the same syllable.

Truly, a scribe's eloquence is a well of vitality for the truth-loving. Due to the purity and freshness it always attracts the thirsty ones, but becomes poisonous to the one that deviates.

 

[YmirGF]

Truly, a scribe's eloquence is a well of vitality for the truth-loving.

But Tom, so-called "truth" is relative to the viewpoint taken. What you are describing is little more than the penchant to sing to the choir, which can become a self-supporting fantasy. Sadly, all too often, eloquence is used to bind the listener with the chains of their own preconceived beliefs.

Due to the purity and freshness it always attracts the thirsty ones, but becomes poisonous to the one that deviates.

An interesting perception, but one that may well be an effective way to ensure the perpetuation of mediocrity.

 

[Peace]

I know, Peace. After you meet your god, you will then understand what I am talking about.

After we meet our God, you will know what Muslims had been talking about Paul

 

[Gharib]

This is a subject for another thread, but, it would be wrong to say that "atheists believe that life goes on".

i'm not saying that. i'm saying that life never seizes to end according to an atheist, due to the non existence of god, and what does "chance" tell you guys about death, dois it evolve you guys into something else or not?

i get evolved into dust, well my body anyway, my soul will either suffer or enjoy pleasures. i hope i don't suffer inshallah.

 

[themadhair]

i'm saying that life never seizes to end according to an atheist,

 

[Gharib]

you lost me man, not everyone gets everything you post you know. can you explain what it means.

 

[themadhair]

Attributing any claim to atheism that does not directly follow from the lack of belief in god(s) simply makes no sense.

 

[YmirGF]

i'm not saying that. i'm saying that life never seizes to end according to an atheist, due to the non existence of god...

you lost me man, not everyone gets everything you post you know. can you explain what it means.

What he is saying, Eselam, is that the sentence, "i'm saying that life never seizes to end according to an atheist, due to the non existence of god", does not actually make sense. It will take awhile, but in time, you may understand the subtler aspects of English. The "does not compute" comment originates with Mr. Spock on the original Star Trek series and it was something he would say when he encountered something illogical.

For the most part, atheists do not believe in life after death and god doesn't necessarily factor into the idea. It is just another thing that many do not believe in. The bottom line is that you do not understand atheists very well at all and perhaps shouldn't make claims about what they believe and what they do not believe. Atheism isn't like a religion with hard and fast rules and dogmatic viewpoints. Hope that helps.

 

[Gharib]

Attributing any claim to atheism that does not directly follow from the lack of belief in god(s) simply makes no sense.

so why do atheists believe in death, what do you know about it.

 

[YmirGF]

so why do atheists believe in death, what do you know about it.

Your question doesn't make any sense, Eselam. THINK ABOUT IT. Why wouldn't they believe in death, there is certainly enough evidence of physical death.

There is a trillion times more evidence for death than there is for the afterlife.

 

[Gharib]

Your question doesn't make any sense, Eselam. THINK ABOUT IT. Why wouldn't they believe in death, there is certainly enough evidence of physical death.

There is a trillion times more evidence for death than there is for the afterlife.

so does a soul exist, in an atheists perspective?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

i'm not saying that. i'm saying that life never seizes to end according to an atheist, due to the non existence of god,

No. You are (wrongfully) assuming that all atheists agree on an afterlife.

The non-existence of God does not mean the same thing to all atheists, regarding what happens to a person after death.

Based on my discussions with atheists, I would say that (if anything) the majority of atheists probably believe that, after death, a person simply ceases to exist.

I say that, based on

 

[Don Penguinoini]

so does a soul exist, in an atheists perspective?

I don't think so, not for the standard atheist.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

so does a soul exist, in an atheists perspective?

Some atheists beleive in souls, some do not.

I would venture to say that the majority of atheists probably do not put much stock in the idea of the human soul.

 

[Gharib]

No. You are (wrongfully) assuming that all atheists agree on an afterlife.

The non-existence of God does not mean the same thing to all atheists, regarding what happens to a person after death.

Based on my discussions with atheists, I would say that (if anything) the majority of atheists probably believe that, after death, a person simply ceases to exist.

I say that, based on

but thats just a blind belief well a "dead belief" of atheists, the do not know about life after death and yet they say we seize to exist after it. it's just a blind as anyother "blind belief". such as the belief in god.

 

[Gharib]

I don't think so, not for the standard atheist.

so they are devided on this ey?

well who is telling the truth then?

i'm asking that from an atheist since you probably wont be able to answer

 

[Don Penguinoini]

so they are devided on this ey?

well who is telling the truth then?

i'm asking that from an atheist since you probably wont be able to answer

I probably can't, but there are different types of athiests to me. The hardcore ones, and the semi-spiritual ones, who believe in a lot of things, like ghosts, UFO's etc. One of them being an afterlife and/or soul.

But, the best person to ask would be an atheist.

 

[themadhair]

but thats just a blind belief well a "dead belief" of atheists, the do not know about life after death and yet they say we seize to exist after it. it's just a blind as anyother "blind belief". such as the belief in god.

You don’t get what an atheist is do you?

It is really simple – they lack a belief in god(s). That’s it. You attempting to attribute any additional beliefs or non-beliefs to them is pointless.

Knowing someone is an atheist tells you nothing about their views on the afterlife. It is similar to how knowing someone is muslim tells you nothing about what films they prefer.