Are you an atheist?

[Brianwarnock]

Well said and also



Theres you're books passage -

I'm struggling these days, could we all take a little time to write clear English, I assume, but could be wrong, that the above should be

There's your book's passage.

Perhaps this is the point to ask Bladerunner to correct his signature.

Brian

 

[aziz rasul]

The primary nebula or singularity contained the root ingredients before it was rent asunder.

God describes the universe (which is a word that didn't exist 14 centuries ago) in the Qur'an as the Heavens and the Earth.

 

[aziz rasul]

You may also learn a lot from this thread aziz - read the numerous amounts of peoples views. - try not to throw out your opinions as facts, since they cannot be validated with evidence they cannot be stated as fact.

I do read the views of others, how else could I give a reply? You are entitled to your opinion, please give me licence to have mine. You don't need to accept it if you don't want to. If I think that something is a fact then I will state as such. The creation of the universe began with a tiny particle which burst open. Maths and science have proved this in the 1920's and 1968. Hence it's a fact and the Qur'an corroborates this.

 

[Alc]

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (meaning the universe) were (once) one single entity (ratq), which We (meaning God, the Creator) then parted asunder (fataqa) and We got every living thing out of water. Will they then not believe?”

Can I ask about the next part (in red)?
Other than the book that says that this happened, why believe it? Isn't this a perfect example of the circular logic mentioned elsewhere?
God did it. How do you know he exists? The book says so. How do you know the book is true? God said it is.

 

[aziz rasul]

Frothingslosh, any alleged contradictions must be based on the original Arabic text and not a bad translation which is a common cause. I will give an example to demonstrate this.

Alc, if the Qur'an contains scientific stuff that was unknown at the time it was written, then who wrote it if it was not God?

 

[Alc]

Alc, if the Qur'an contains scientific stuff that was unknown at the time it was written, then who wrote it if it was not God?

This isn't logic. Something happened and you're interpreting statements from the book in an overly favourable manner, to try to show they were know facts. The people who believe Nostrodamus could see the future do the same thing.

Besides which, the burden of proof isn't on me 9as you can't prove a negative). It's on the person claiming that something is true. I ask again, how is it not just circular logic?

There is a hole in my garden.
I didn't see what dug it.
I know it was a unicorn.
People have pointed out that unicorns don't exist.
I reply that it they don't exist, explain how the hole got there?

I am choosing to interpret the evidence (a hole) as proof of the existence of something. The doubters aren't required to explain the hole as it's me whose making the assertion.

 

[Frothingslosh]

See for reference 'God of the Gaps Argument'.

 

[Rabbie]

so much for a spoof. Yes , I know what evolution is. Lets take man...... come from a monkey. Which time.? Which monkey. There are about 5 different types of man and they evolved over the years. But then we still have apes, right. Yeah I know the drill by archeologist who are paid by a liberal university to write a paper so they(the university) can make more money. I will take it that the bacteria morphing into bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics is not a form of evolution. Oh, guess they have to evolve from another being first????? ]

Rabbi: just like everything including Christianity there are a lot of holes to be filled in yet. As far as evolution goes, it has now been debunked by scientist.

Like you, I have picked a side to believe in. It is that simple.

Blade, you do seem to like to twist arguments in a very dishonest way. Your idea of evolution seems to me to be a parody of the correct theory. You say it has be debunked by scientist. Only one since you use the singular? From your posts it seems that you are a creationist who believes the world and universe is only six thousand years old. Is this correct? If so then the creator must have had a sadistic sense of humour to create so much evidence that the world and universe is so much older.

Of course Bacteria morphing as you put it is a form of evolution. Easily explained by Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest".

 

[ConnorGiles]

I'm struggling these days, could we all take a little time to write clear English, I assume, but could be wrong, that the above should be

There's your book's passage.

Perhaps this is the point to ask Bladerunner to correct his signature.

Brian

My fault, was in a rush - don't usually make silly mistakes like this.

 

[Frothingslosh]

From your posts it seems that you are a creationist who believes the world and universe is only six thousand years old. Is this correct? If so then the creator must have had a sadistic sense of humour to create so much evidence that the world and universe is so much older.

Both Dick7Access and Bladerunner have indicated through their posts that they are Young-Earth Creationists and Bible Literalists. Dick has also indicated that he's a Premillenial Dispensationalist, but I don't know where Blade stands on that matter. I *THINK* he is, but that's just from reading between the lines.

 

[aziz rasul]

There is no circular reference if I am using provable scientific facts to compare the Qur'an with.

 

[Alc]

There is no circular reference if I am using provable scientific facts to compare the Qur'an with.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

There is something written in that book which YOU choose to interpret as being evidence that the writer had prior knowledge of some scientfic facts. Even if that were true and not just some vague coincidence (as per the Nostrodamus claims I mentioned), it doesn't prove IN ANY WAY the existence of God. Your argument seems to be:

God exists.
Why?
Because he wrote the book
How do you know he wrote the book?
Because a person couldn't have known the facts in it
What about the mistakes/contradictions mentioned elsewhere?
They're wrong
Even if they were, how does that prove that God wrote the book?
It says so in the book.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, you do seem to like to twist arguments in a very dishonest way. Your idea of evolution seems to me to be a parody of the correct theory. You say it has be debunked by scientist. Only one since you use the singular? From your posts it seems that you are a creationist who believes the world and universe is only six thousand years old. Is this correct? If so then the creator must have had a sadistic sense of humour to create so much evidence that the world and universe is so much older.

Of course Bacteria morphing as you put it is a form of evolution. Easily explained by Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest".

Hi Rabbi: I enjoy our bantering. From what I understand, much of Darwins Theory has been proven false. Yes, I believe that God created all things. No, he did not create them in 6,000 years. How many I am not sure but am satisfied it was a longer time than we probably have calculated.. Now Rabbi, Modern man is no older than 6-12,000 years old. The first being Adam.

As far as his ancestors, there are about 5-7 of them, and the links are not established. From what I can read, there is a large void of time between each of them (with the exception of the last two). There is evidence that they co-mingled. However, they died out and by calculations, modern man was born some 25,000 years after.

I have just had one poster to tell me if I did not have proof, I did not have anything. I have the Bible and that is proof enough. Where is your proof.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Only Creationists with a gross incomprehension of evolutionary theory have 'proven' it false, and then only to people with the same utter lack of knowledge of (and interest in) anything regarding science and scientific theory. If you have actual, citable facts disproving evolution, please, provide them. There would likely be a Nobel prize in your future should they be confirmed.

The fact of the matter is that it as close to a fact as science is able to come. It is the underpinning all of biology, not to mention medicine and genetics. As a theory, its foundation is even more stable than that of the theory of gravity. Scientists are still studying the specific mechanics and how different pressures affect natural selection, but evolution itself has reached the point of being a given. Maybe not three laws of thermodynamics given, but damned close.

Edit: Oh, hell, we're back at 'the Bible is proof because it says it's proof' bull again. YOU are the one making the assertion that evolutionary theory has been proven wrong. That means the onus on proving it is on YOU, and proof does not consist of 'the imaginary man talking in my ear tells me so".

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ah, what the hell.

Hi Rabbi: I enjoy our bantering. From what I understand, much of Darwins Theory has been proven false.

See my post above.

Yes, I believe that God created all things. No, he did not create them in 6,000 years. How many I am not sure but am satisfied it was a longer time than we probably have calculated..

Okay, Old Earth Creationist. Not quite as ridiculous as Young Earth, I'll admit.

Now Rabbi, Modern man is no older than 6-12,000 years old. The first being Adam.

We have H. sapiens fossils older than that.

As far as his ancestors, there are about 5-7 of them, and the links are not established. From what I can read, there is a large void of time between each of them (with the exception of the last two). There is evidence that they co-mingled. However, they died out and by calculations, modern man was born some 25,000 years after.

We have H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis fossils from the same region and same time period (Europe 50,000 to 55,000 years ago, extending to approximately 40,000 years ago). Geneticists have determined that approximately a quarter of us have actual neanderthal genes. As far as we can tell, the neanderthals died off 39,000 to 41,000 years ago, possibly at our hands.

All of this data comes from millions of hours of painstaking research, and is published in millions of pages of peer-reviewed journals that are readily accesible.

I have just had one poster to tell me if I did not have proof, I did not have anything. I have the Bible and that is proof enough. Where is your proof.

See my post above.

 

[spikepl]

@Frothingslosh

I admire your efforts. "Faith" is just that - blind idiocy not based on logic nor facts.

Still, the faithful obviously feel inadequate and hence their urge to disguise their lunacy as "science" or "logic". There isn't any logic nor science in "faith" - that is the definition of faith.

If the faithful would just stick to their BS and themselves, and leave the rest of the normal people alone, I could live with it. Unfortunately they feel they have to impose their BS upon everybody else, so once in a while I feel like giving them a proper bollocking.

 

[Bladerunner]

Frothingslosh :"Only Creationists with a gross incomprehension of evolutionary theory have 'proven' it false, and then only to people with the same utter lack of knowledge of (and interest in) anything regarding science and scientific theory. If you have actual, citable facts disproving evolution, please, provide them. There would likely be a Nobel prize in your future should they be confirmed."

Bladerunner: Here some of it is: I know, I know, He is sorry piece of s????? but he has a point or two you should actually read.

"Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. In Why Evolution is True, he summarizes Darwinism—the modern theory of evolution—as follows: “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”1" (http://www.discovery.org/a/10661)

Frothingslosh :The fact of the matter is that it as close to a fact as science is able to come. It is the underpinning all of biology, not to mention medicine and genetics. As a theory, its foundation is even more stable than that of the theory of gravity. Scientists are still studying the specific mechanics and how different pressures affect natural selection, but evolution itself has reached the point of being a given. Maybe not three laws of thermodynamics given, but damned close.

Bladerunner: (see above)

Frothingslosh : Edit: Oh, hell, we're back at 'the Bible is proof because it says it's proof' bull again. YOU are the one making the assertion that evolutionary theory has been proven wrong. That means the onus on proving it is on YOU, and proof does not consist of 'the imaginary man talking in my ear tells me so".

Bladerunner: The bible has individual scripts that have survived thousands of years. Yes, they were (with exceptions) written by the hand of man. But so are the papers we have today. I would like to compare the brain power of those people back then and those of today. What about the scientific methods back then---No? and what about the language, I believe Hebrew, could it be used today by your research writers. But then the people back then did not have the brain power or the resources to write something so complex as the bible. Somebody did? God possibly?


Originally Posted by Bladerunner
Hi Rabbi: I enjoy our bantering. From what I understand, much of Darwins Theory has been proven false.
Frothingslosh : See my post above.
Bladerunner: Yes please see my post from above?

Quote Bladerunner::
Yes, I believe that God created all things. No, he did not create them in 6,000 years. How many I am not sure but am satisfied it was a longer time than we probably have calculated..

Frothingslosh : Okay, Old Earth Creationist. Not quite as ridiculous as Young Earth, I'll admit.
Bladerunner: Good Name, I'll have to remember that.

Quote Bladerunner:
Now Rabbi, Modern man is no older than 6-12,000 years old. The first being Adam.
Frothingslosh : We have H. sapiens fossils older than that.

Bladerunner: Which H. sapiens?

Quote Bladerunner:
As far as his ancestors, there are about 5-7 of them, and the links are not established. From what I can read, there is a large void of time between each of them (with the exception of the last two). There is evidence that they co-mingled. However, they died out and by calculations, modern man was born some 25,000 years after.

Frothingslosh : We have H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis fossils from the same region and same time period (Europe 50,000 to 55,000 years ago, extending to approximately 40,000 years ago). Geneticists have determined that approximately a quarter of us have actual neanderthal genes. As far as we can tell, the neanderthals died off 39,000 to 41,000 years ago, possibly at our hands.

Bladerunner: Oh, yeah, we went back and killed them. Would you please be more specific here instead of just generalities Please?
Better go back, read up and be a little more specific. (i.e. Mesolithic humans lived around 10,000 years ago but US, WE Modern man of today only became less than 10,000 years ago. )

Frothingslosh : All of this data comes from millions of hours of painstaking research, and is published in millions of pages of peer-reviewed journals that are readily accesible.

Bladerunner: Question: How do you feel about all your research, papers and professors being compared to those very controlling people that lived 1500 BCE whom you claim wrote the Bible on their own without any help from God.

Quote Bladerunner:
I have just had one poster to tell me if I did not have proof, I did not have anything. I have the Bible and that is proof enough. Where is your proof.
Frothingslosh : See my post above.
Bladerunner: YES, Please see my post above!

FYI: My secretary's name is 'Me, Myself and I'. While it is evident you missed it, I will tell you anyway. The reference to 'my secretary' was my way of offering a reason why my typing is usually horrendous. Certainly nowhere as good as some secretary's typing.

 

[aziz rasul]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I’m not being obtuse, deliberate or otherwise.

There is something written in that book which YOU choose to interpret as being evidence that the writer had prior knowledge of some scientfic facts. Even if that were true and not just some vague coincidence (as per the Nostrodamus claims I mentioned), it doesn't prove IN ANY WAY the existence of God. Your argument seems to be:

God exists.
Why?
Because he wrote the book
How do you know he wrote the book?
Because a person couldn't have known the facts in it
What about the mistakes/contradictions mentioned elsewhere?
They're wrong
Even if they were, how does that prove that God wrote the book?
It says so in the book.

That is not the way for example a non-believer would think prior to becoming a believer. He\she would analyse the situation completely differently.

God doesn’t exist
Try getting the evidence with an open mind with the object of seeking God (if He exists)
Read religious scriptures and accept or reject them as we see fit
Talk to people of different faiths and ask key questions and obtain answers wherever possible
Are there any contradictions in the scripture I’m reading?
How were the [Qur’anic] science based verses been known about at the time the scripture was revealed or written?
Check that the belief and its actions are sound
Once convinced that the chosen belief is correct, accept it

Once he\she becomes a believer the sequence of course would change. My views come from the direction of having become a believer after analysis and seeking God and ‘finding’ Him. I didn’t start my beliefs by assuming any pre-requisites. On the contrary I assumed that God didn’t exist and was seeking God when I became a believer. Many reverts to Islam do exactly the same.

Not all Muslims blindly accept God as people may think. Those who have little or no education or have not used there God given brain may do as is the case with believers of other faiths as well.

You are coming from the direction of a non-believer. Oh and BTW just because someone says there is a contradiction in the Qur’an doesn’t mean that they are right. You have to hear the debate on both sides before you automatically come to that conclusion. Similarly if I say that a particular alleged contradiction is not a contradiction, I would expect you to analyse my arguments to that effect. I wouldn’t expect you to just accept my word without reading what I’m saying and perhaps checking it out for yourself with others.

If there are Qur’anic verses regarding provable scientific facts that were unknown 14 centuries ago, you have to ask the question that if the Qur’an is not the word of God, where did that knowledge come from? That is what the non-believer has to answer if they are interested. Some of these people do become interested and after investigation accept Islam. However it is important to note that the challenge that the Qur’an gives is that of finding contradictions which I will of course address.

 

[aziz rasul]

We have H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis fossils from the same …

Hast thou not seen that Allah hath created the heavens and the earth with truth? If He will, He can remove you and bring (in) some new creation; Qur’an 14:19

If He will, He can be rid of you and bring (instead of you) some new creation. Qur’an 35:16

 

[Galaxiom]

If there are Qur’anic verses regarding provable scientific facts that were unknown 14 centuries ago, you have to ask the question that if the Qur’an is not the word of God, where did that knowledge come from?

It is an illusion built on your faith.

You choose to interpret what you read as backing the scientific facts. You also ignore the parts that cannot be interpreted to suit your doctrine.

Do tell us how this one is backed by science. The Qur'an says there are seven heavens supported on invisible pillars and seven earths below.