• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the fastest spreading religion in the world

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Actually, I'm doing a great job of it but there will be some who refuse to admit it. ;)

Your conclusion just makes no sense. If a person's opinion on the number of gods is enough to define what religion that person is, then Christianity and Islam wouldn't be religions; instead, they'd be forms of a single religion: monotheism.

I notice that you put "Christian - Methodist" as your religion in your user info, not "monotheist". It seems to me that you're arguing for a standard for atheists that you aren't willing to apply to yourself.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Actually, I'm doing a great job of it but there will be some who refuse to admit it. ;)

Such people would be unable to provide counters to your logic; we've been able to.

You say that atheists sometimes treat atheism like a religion, essentially because they proselytize. If that were the case, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, etc. wouldn't be religions because they don't proselytize.
 

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I think you may have misread what I posted.
First of all Judaism was indeed polytheistic back then. But what I was saying is that the 'umbrella' term we use today was used back in Roman-Christian time to lump together Belief systems that posed a threat to the Empire and its One Ruler-One Religion practice of Emperor Constantine.

No doubt there are those who define Paganism in such a way. They are not Pagans, however.

For one thing, Paganism is polytheistic and/or animistic, while not all non-Christian religions were, even 2000 years ago.

Specifically, Zoroastrism, Judaism, most if not all forms of Hinduism, Shinto, Confucionism, Buddhism and Taoism are not Paganism - and they all existed at the time of Paul and Constantine.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I think you may have misread what I posted.
First of all Judaism was indeed polytheistic back then. But what I was saying is that the 'umbrella' term we use today was used back in Roman-Christian time to lump together Belief systems that posed a threat to the Empire and its One Ruler-One Religion practice of Emperor Constantine.

Yeah. It's not used that way very much anymore. So what's your point?
 

Justin Thyme

Child of God
Your conclusion just makes no sense. If a person's opinion on the number of gods is enough to define what religion that person is, then Christianity and Islam wouldn't be religions; instead, they'd be forms of a single religion: monotheism.

I made this statement regarding atheism:

I think for some it is a religion.

I said that in reference to a statement made about counting atheism as one of the world's fastest growing religions. I didn't state that atheism is a religion I stated that I thought that for some it is. That is an opinion it is an opinion formed through observation and I believe it to be valid as an opinion. I gave several reasons why I believe some atheist treat their athiesm as a religion other than numbers of gods. If one is going to preach the virtues of disbelief in a god then that person should be prepared to have people form the opinion that they are treating their atheism as a religion.

I notice that you put "Christian - Methodist" as your religion in your user info, not "monotheist". It seems to me that you're arguing for a standard for atheists that you aren't willing to apply to yourself.

I noticed that you put "Humanist/Athiest" as your religion in your user info and not "none". Does that not go to validate my opinion?

Such people would be unable to provide counters to your logic; we've been able to.

You say that atheists sometimes treat atheism like a religion, essentially because they proselytize. If that were the case, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, etc. wouldn't be religions because they don't proselytize.

I'm not sure how you gathered that I stated that opinion essentially because they proselytize while others gathered that I stated that opinion due to the number of gods they worship and others have gathered that I stated it due to atheist writing books, reading books and join in with others to discuss atheism. See what I said in defnse of my opinion is this:

You can assert that all you want but the fact is that many atheist I have had dealings with teach their disbelief as a religion going as far as proselytizing others to join them in their disbelief. Granted, for most, there just is no belief in a deity and no interest in religion but there are still a lot who will write books about atheism, seek out books about atheism and join in with others to discuss atheism. That sounds like a religion to me.

So with that being the case, I think that you could add atheism as a contender for fastest growing religion.

I can also offer you this website of a friend of mine to show that some people really do treat their atheism as a religion. My friend, Tom, admits to this thought. Others not so obviously so.

I'm not sure why my statement has become so controversial but I find it very interesting that it has.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
In that case...

You can assert that all you want but the fact is that many atheist I have had dealings with teach their disbelief as a religion going as far as proselytizing others to join them in their disbelief.

Except that proselytizing isn't limited to religions. Politics are probably more proselytized than religions.

Granted, for most, there just is no belief in a deity and no interest in religion but there are still a lot who will write books about atheism,

Lots of books about politics.

seek out books about atheism

Lots of people seek books about politics.

and join in with others to discuss atheism.

Lots of people join with others to discuss political issues.

That sounds like a religion to me.

So, are political stances religions? They fit your criteria very well.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
For ages the two were inseparable and political stances have always been justified through religion.

The question to that answer would probably be something like: "What is the relationship between religion and politics?" I didn't ask that question.

The question was, is politics a religion in itself? After all, it fit your criteria.
 

yassin

Member
God supported His last Prophet Muhammad with many miracles and much evidence which proved that he is a true Prophet sent by God. Also, God supported His last revealed book, the Holy Quran, with many miracles that prove that this Quran is the literal word of God, revealed by Him, and that it was not authored by any human being. I will discusses some of this evidence.
The Quran is the literal word of God, which He revealed to His Prophet Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel. The Holy QuranIt was memorized by Muhammad , who then dictated it to his Companions. They, in turn, memorized it, wrote it down, and reviewed it with the Prophet Muhammad . Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad reviewed the Quran with the Angel Gabriel once each year and twice in the last year of his life. From the time the Quran was revealed, until this day, there has always been a huge number of Muslims who have memorized all of the Quran, letter by letter. Some of them have even been able to memorize all of the Quran by the age of ten. Not one letter of the Quran has been changed over the centuries.

The Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists. This proves without doubt that the Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him to the Prophet Muhammad , and that the Quran was not authored by Muhammad or by any other human being. This also proves that Muhammad is truly a prophet sent by God. It is beyond reason that anyone fourteen hundred years ago would have known these facts discovered or proven only recently with advanced equipment and sophisticated scientific methods.
 

yassin

Member
In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings leech, suspended thing, and blood clot.

In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the . Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.
The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” , the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.
The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage4 . Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.5 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.
So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.
 

yassin

Member
How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad ). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore8 is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy. In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.

In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said: “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.” (To view the RealPlayer video of this comment click here Video Clip).

Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?” He replied: “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”

During one conference, Professor Moore stated: “....Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah (what Muhammad said, did, or approved of). The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge. The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D. Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages. As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century. For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century. The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.
 

Smoke

Done here.
In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings leech, suspended thing, and blood clot.

In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the . Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.
The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” , the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.
The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage4 . Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.5 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.
So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.


embryo.gif
muslimembryos.jpg


Amazing. Knowledge like that can only come from God. :rolleyes:
 

Justin Thyme

Child of God
The question to that answer would probably be something like: "What is the relationship between religion and politics?" I didn't ask that question.

The question was, is politics a religion in itself? After all, it fit your criteria.

No, politics is not a religion in itself, neither is atheism. However there are some people who treat both as if they were.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
We created man from an extract of clay.

First, coloring up your posts and messing with the sizes doesn't attract us or make us want to read your posts; they're just annoying.

Second, this is where the verse fails as a scientific miracle: we're not made of clay.

Oh, and by the way. There are so-called "scientific miracles" in most holy texts, including the Vedas. In fact, (I haven't followed up on it), I've heard that there's an accurate description of embryonic development in them. Modern physics is often described as an echo of some of what the Vedas taught.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
I would just like to mention that Islam is not the fastest growing religion. They be one of the fastest, but the idea that they were the fastest was created by Muslims. In truth, Christianity is still beating it out. Mainly because of the conversions in Asia, particularly in China and India.

I don't understand why the title of "Fastest Growing Religion" is so important. Competition among the religions is never a good thing.

Am I wrong?
 
Top