Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

[aziz rasul]

There are many Christians who are becoming Muslims over the past many decades as a result of close scrutiny of their Christian faith and come to the conclusion that the core message of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) i.e. the Oneness of God was the same. Here are some pointers.

1. There originally 79 Gospels, which were eventually whittled down to the 4 we have today.

2. In the original Greek manuscript written by man, the word ‘begotten’ doesn’t appear once. The English translators, incorrectly, have introduced this word in the Gospel of John a few times in the KJV version (Jesus (peace be upon him) is not speaking in these verses. If you read the NRSV version published in 1989 in the same verses the word is not there. This was decided by many Christian scholars at the time.

3. Neither Zakariya, John, Mary nor Jesus (peace be upon them) ever said that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the ‘begotten’ son of God.

4. In Mark 12:29-30 Jesus (peace be upon him) says, Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’. Compare this with the first commandment given to Moses (peace be upon him) and Qur’an 112:1 where God is asking Muhammad (peace be upon him) to say, Say, "He is Allaah, [who is] One,

 

[Vassago]

There are many Christians who are becoming Muslims over the past many decades as a result of close scrutiny of their Christian faith and come to the conclusion that the core message of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) i.e. the Oneness of God was the same. Here are some pointers.

1. There originally 79 Gospels, which were eventually whittled down to the 4 we have today.

2. In the original Greek manuscript written by man, the word ‘begotten’ doesn’t appear once. The English translators, incorrectly, have introduced this word in the Gospel of John a few times in the KJV version (Jesus (peace be upon him) is not speaking in these verses. If you read the NRSV version published in 1989 in the same verses the word is not there. This was decided by many Christian scholars at the time.

3. Neither Zakariya, John, Mary nor Jesus (peace be upon them) ever said that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the ‘begotten’ son of God.

4. In Mark 12:29-30 Jesus (peace be upon him) says, Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’. Compare this with the first commandment given to Moses (peace be upon him) and Qur’an 112:1 where God is asking Muhammad (peace be upon him) to say, Say, "He is Allaah, [who is] One,

I think the key phrase you have used here is "written by man." No matter how you spin it, people are not infallible. Most religious text says this very thing. In the far-off chance that God did speak directly to man, is it inconceivable that man could misinterpret what God has said? We can't even translate our own languages well, as you have pointed out.

 

[Galaxiom]

There are many Christians who are becoming Muslims over the past many decades as a result of close scrutiny of their Christian faith ,

And vastly more have become atheists for precisely the same reason.

 

[Galaxiom]

If you are sincerely seeking God, then I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you will ‘find’ Him.

Humans have always imagined patterns in things, especially where they have been primed from birth to see them. God, by whatever name, is a human engineered delusion.

 

[aziz rasul]

One other issue, while I am in the mood, is this issue of Creationism v Evolution. Everyone I have talked and I mean everyone, either allies themselves to one camp or the other without at least hearing the other side of the argument. For me there are two facts

1. God exists, where the evidence can be obtained from the Qur'an.
2. Different humanoid species existed before Homo Sapiens, where the evidence can be obtained through carbon dating.

Hence I have no problem in accepting that different species of man existed before Adam (peace be upon him). God simply tells us in the Qur'an that Adam (peace be upon him) was a NEW creation. This does not imply, as people who believe in God, that other species of man did not exist before Adam (peace be upon him). After all, God has created millions of species of different things.

29.19 What! Do they not consider how Allaah originates the creation, then reproduces it? Surely that is easy to Allaah.

36.77 “Does not man see that it is We Who created him from a sperm-drop? Yet behold! He (stands forth) as an open disputer!”

35.15 O mankind, you are those in need of Allaah, while Allaah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy.
35.16 If He wills, He can do away with you and bring forth a new creation.
35.17 And that is for Allaah not difficult.

 

[Galaxiom]

For me there are two facts

1. God exists, where the evidence can be obtained from the Qur'an. .....

Your every consideration starts with this delusion and infects every conclusion that you make.

Your brain is incapable of considering any other possibility.

I have previously debunked your claim that the Qur'an is supported by science. You never engage in debate but simply go away for a while then come back with exactly the same nonsense again.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

1. God exists, where the evidence can be obtained from the Qur'an.

But...

2. The Qur'an exists because it was written by the hand of a man, regardless of whether that man was a dreamer or a receiver of imposed dreams. And the moment Man gets his hand into anything, that guarantees it to be error-prone.

3. The ONLY thing for which religious people TRULY have to be thankful is that, whatever their religion, it WASN'T written by a government agency. Between political correctness, redaction, and the requirement to include appropriate references, either the Bible could not exist at all, or it could only exist in a 40-volume set taking up at least 8 feet of shelf space. (Which would make it slightly shorter than the Operations Guide to IBM's DOS/360.)

 

[Mike375]

Your every consideration starts with this delusion and infects every conclusion that you make.

Your brain is incapable of considering any other possibility.

I have previously debunked your claim that the Qur'an is supported by science. You never engage in debate but simply go away for a while then come back with exactly the same nonsense again.

You appear to be the same.

You should be more respectful of other people's views on this subject and for the simple reason neither side can prove anything.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You appear to be the same.

Mike, there is a concept in USA law that may be analogous to the situation about which you complain. In law, res judicata means "a matter already having been judged" - and this is the basis of the concept of "legal precedent."

The concept also applies in the field of scientific research. Once an experimental result has been observed and peer-reviewed, there is usually no need to go back and repeat the experiment. The exceptions would be cause by something new - such as a new contrary observation; a new and more sensitive measuring instrument; or a new mathematical model/theory regarding the thing being measured.

Lacking new information, there is usually no need to go over the same ground again and again. Other than as a teaching exercise, there is no need to re-derive DeMorgan's Theorem. There is no need to re-derive the basic gas law (PV=nRT, if your chemistry is rusty) from statistical considerations of molecular movement. There is no need to re-derive Kirchoff's laws of circuit behavior.

In this thread, we have had the dialogs and shown the lack of evidence or misinterpretation of evidence, including an explanation regarding the common misunderstand of what actually constitutes "evidence" to a rational mind. The teaching value has vanished. If we went over this stuff again, it would be like a remedial class which, to be gentle, is usually reserved for folks who didn't get it right the first time.

Your complaint about Galaxiom is made while overlooking the hard fact: we are faced with the absence of anything new in this argument. Having something new is one of the few ways of discarding or bypassing historical decisions. Please let us know where the "new" factor appears in this discussion.

 

[Mike375]

Please let us know where the "new" factor appears in this discussion.

Doc,

There has been nothing new since the thread started and ditto for similar threads on other forums all over the world

Where this thread is different is it is contained in one thread as opposed fresh breakouts of the subject on other forums.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Where this thread is different is it is contained in one thread as opposed fresh breakouts of the subject on other forums

Yes, computer programmers and designers can sometimes be highly focused, one might venture to say "single-threaded" in their approach to other things. Why not this one?

But you yourself agreed nothing new was offered. Why, then, should you castigate Galaxiom for not changing his mind?

 

[Galaxiom]

You appear to be the same.

The appearance of something is the product of two factors. The objective reality and the subjective perspective. I suggest the problem is your perception. I am fully open to any form of interpretation of reality that is entirely coherent with all observations.

Aziz rasul has repeatedly purported that the Qur'an is backed by science and I have previously demonstrated on this thread that the Qur'an in conflict with observed reality. There is ample evidence in his posts that every thought is underpinned by an unwavering belief in the divinity of the Qur'an.

You should be more respectful of other people's views on this subject and for the simple reason neither side can prove anything.

I have already proved aziz rasul's claims to be wrong both this thread and the Evolution thread.

The world has gone on for too long quietly respecting the right of people to arrogantly hold the bigoted prejudices promoted by all the Abrahamic traditions.

 

[aziz rasul]

Your every consideration starts with this delusion and infects every conclusion that you make.

Your brain is incapable of considering any other possibility.

I have previously debunked your claim that the Qur'an is supported by science. You never engage in debate but simply go away for a while then come back with exactly the same nonsense again.

Why are you so intolerant of my views? Am I not allowed to express my opinion of God’s existence? Read the title of the thread. That’s what the discussion is about. If God exists, and I know He does, of course I am going to repeat myself on this, what else would you expect? You are also consistent in your disbelief. I have given supportive Qur’an verses as proof as I go along. I don’t blindly accept the existence of God in a vacuum. If you don’t agree with the verses, fine. As the Qur’an says

6.1 [All] praise is [due] to Allaah, who created the heavens and the earth and made the darkness and the light. Then those who disbelieve equate [others] with their Lord.
6.2 It is He who created you from clay and then decreed a term and a specified time [known] to Him; then [still] you are in dispute.
6.3 And He is Allaah, [the only deity] in the heavens and the earth. He knows your secret and what you make public, and He knows that which you earn.
6.4 And no sign comes to them from the signs of their Lord except that they turn away therefrom.
6.5 For they had denied the truth when it came to them, but there is going to reach them the news of what they used to ridicule.

I don’t have the luxury of spending full time on this topic that is why I come back when the spirit moves me. There is no hidden agenda on my part. I think I have engaged in the discussion wherever possible. In fact in your responses you haven’t even questioned the Qur’anic verses 23:13-14 in post 5871. If you want a debate, let’s have a genuine debate rather than being upset about my belief in God which is unshakable. If you sincerely don’t believe in God, then why worry about my belief. I am more than comfortable in my belief in God. Your criticism and frustrations in this isn’t going to change anything. What you consider as being ‘nonsense’ is awe inspiring for me.

But...

2. The Qur'an exists because it was written by the hand of a man,

But the verses came from God. What man 1400 years ago could know about a clinging clot? Here are the very first two verses of the Qur’an that were revealed given in chapter 96 (Sūra al-ʿalaq (The Clot))

96.1 Recite in the name of your Lord who created –
92.2 Created man from a clinging clot.

Your complaint about Galaxiom is made while overlooking the hard fact: we are faced with the absence of anything new in this argument. Having something new is one of the few ways of discarding or bypassing historical decisions. Please let us know where the "new" factor appears in this discussion.

I have entered some new stuff over my last 10 posts or so but neither you nor Galaxiom have engaged in it.

 

[aziz rasul]

I have already proved aziz rasul's claims to be wrong both this thread and the Evolution thread.

Have you? That's news to me.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Have you? That's news to me.

Refusal to accept proven facts does not make the facts wrong; instead it simply proves that you're irrational.

Your personal belief is that the Qu'ran is infallible because the Qu'ran tells you it's infallible. That is a logical fallacy, no matter how much you refuse to accept that, and it's no more rational than the assumption that thunder curdles milk.

 

[aziz rasul]

Refusal to accept proven facts does not make the facts wrong; instead it simply proves that you're irrational.

In post 5871 I have shown a proven fact regarding human reproduction and shown Qur’anic verses that agrees with this. How is this irrational?

Last year I was speaking to a retired English teacher who was a atheist and explained the medical process of human reproduction and asked her if she agreed to which she replied Yes. As soon as I told her about the Qur’anic verse, she replied that she didn’t agree to the initial medical process and said she would have to look into it. That to me is irrational.

Your personal belief is that the Qu'ran is infallible because the Qu'ran tells you it's infallible.

Wrong. The Qur’an is infallible because it has shown many times that some of the verses are in compliance with provable science which were unknown when the Qur’an was revealed. No matter how much you refuse to accept that, the truth remains in black and white and you can’t get rid of it. You can deny it but it still remains.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

aziz rasul - as you know, I very FIRMLY believe that it is your right to believe as you do, and I will repeat that now.

As I have also previously stated, when you offer your proofs, we get to review and comment on them. This is, in fact, the basis of modern science since the Renaissance period - peer review of statements and presentations so that others can repeat the tests and confirm or contradict the findings. It is unfortunate that this discussion sometimes seems to be personally directed at you, but there is a fine distinction that is easy to miss and hard to overcome. My rejection of your argument is not intended as a personal affront (and I'm sure that most of us would not find you to be an otherwise unreasonable person). I simply disagree with your interpretation of those passages. I am sad to see that some members are less respectful, but that is on them.

You see the correlation between the Qur'anic verses regarding clinging clots and the way that the blastocyst adheres to the surface of the womb. We atheists and skeptics who look at your words differ from you in one respect. We don't fervently wish for God or Allah (pbuh) to exist. Therefore we have no bias that pushes us to "stretch" our interpretation of those words to match proven reality. I hope you will believe me when I say that to us your interpretation seems to be a big, torturous stretch.

I personally see it as an example of confirmation bias. You really WANT it to be this way, so you SEE it this way as a tenet of your faith. I cannot give you a parallel case from your own cultural history, but I can point out that the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo because he dared to suggest that the universe didn't revolve around the Earth. We know now (and so does the RCC) that Galileo's observations were correct and it was (in this case) anti-confirmation bias on the part of the RCC. So letting faith get in the way of scientific observation and struggling to then make observations fit your preconceived ideas? Common to MAN. Not to Islamic Man or Catholic Man. Common to all men. Therefore I don't condemn you for your belief. I see you as human and seeking answers that you believe you have found in your scriptures. I, too, once sought answers in the Bible, but after months of seeking, I realized that nothing was there.

As to how earlier cultures would know about implantation of the blastocyst, they were as curious then as we are now, and at least some scholars could easily have taken a pregnant woman who died of injury, done an autopsy, and noted the presence of that "clinging clot" from your passages. Can you deny this possibility? We know, for example, that ancient Egyptians performed cranial surgery and several other ambitious procedures on people. If they knew that much about the head, do you think they might have known things about women's reproductive structures?

I actually DID review your passages when you offered them and found that they simply did not parallel reality very well. My thought is this: If, as you say, the Qur'an is divinely inspired, do you think Allah (pbuh) might have at least inspired the authors to get it right?

 

[aziz rasul]

Thanks for at least responding and debating the recent points I made.

I hope you will believe me when I say that to us your interpretation seems to be a big, torturous stretch.

The initial 3 stages of reproduction i.e. only a drop of sperm is required, the drop of sperm entering the egg and becoming a clot then the clot implanting is in accurate accordance with what the Qur’an is saying and moreover the verse follows the correct sequence by which this happens. To me there appears to be no stretch required, but that’s my opinion. Not only that coupled with other scientific facts which I have given already in this thread, it is obvious to me that the Qur’an could not have been written by man 14 centuries ago.

When the RCC disagreed with Galileo's observations it was because they had no knowledge or understanding of this and were blindly following their scripture come what may, hence not the same thing. I personally don’t blindly follow the Qur’an but ponder and reflect closely with what it says to me. Non-believers of old did not do this. They simply ignored the truth when it was presented to them.

47:24 Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?

As to how earlier cultures would know about implantation of the blastocyst, they were as curious then as we are now, and at least some scholars could easily have taken a pregnant woman who died of injury, done an autopsy, and noted the presence of that "clinging clot" from your passages. Can you deny this possibility? We know, for example, that ancient Egyptians performed cranial surgery and several other ambitious procedures on people. If they knew that much about the head, do you think they might have known things about women's reproductive structures?

But how would they know that only a drop of sperm would be required?
How would they know that it is the father who determines the gender of the child and not the mother as was prevalent at the time (53:45-6 And He (Allaah) creates pairs, male and female, from semen emitted.), this is the opposite of bias as the Qur’an went directly opposite to the views held at the time.
Man and woman are mentioned 23 times each in the Qur’an and there are 23 pairs of chromosomes in men and women.
How would they know that the universe began from a tiny particle and rent asunder (21:30), etc. etc.
How come the frequency by which the words water and earth would match exactly to the percentage of water and earth on the planet.
These and other things cannot have been known at the time.
As I said, when you take the cumulative scientific based verses, the conclusion for me is obvious. Let me know what you think? Happy to debate.

I, too, once sought answers in the Bible, but after months of seeking, I realized that nothing was there.

If we had the original pristine Torah and Injil then you may not have had any problems. But since the Torah has been corrupted and the Injil lost, we only have the 10 commandments and the Qur’an intact to study.

I actually DID review your passages when you offered them and found that they simply did not parallel reality very well. My thought is this: If, as you say, the Qur'an is divinely inspired, do you think Allah (pbuh) might have at least inspired the authors to get it right?

But I don’t see where the Qur’anic passages are wrong.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

aziz -

How would they know that the universe began from a tiny particle and rent asunder (21:30), etc. etc.

Various religions use a similar concept. It is no coincidence that the Qur'an echoes some earlier beliefs.

How come the frequency by which the words water and earth would match exactly to the percentage of water and earth on the planet.

This is an example of a stretch for confirmation bias.

But how would they know that only a drop of sperm would be required?

Don't want to burst anyone's bubble, and if you need to brag, do so - but most of the time guys only EMIT a few drops. I at least will admit that I'm not like a bottle of milk. I don't come in quarts.

How would they know that it is the father who determines the gender of the child and not the mother as was prevalent at the time (53:45-6 And He (Allaah) creates pairs, male and female, from semen emitted.),

No, this was known many centuries before that. Consider the temple eunuchs or the harem eunuchs. It was known from pre-Biblical times that the eunuchs could not emit sperm and therefore would not impregnate the women of the harem. That is why they became the guards. If you'll pardon the somewhat whimsical comparison, they decided to let the toothless foxes guard the hen house. And that means they knew it was the men who were responsible for impregnation. This knowledge precedes the Qur'an and therefore I cannot be amazed by its inclusion in any way.

 

[aziz rasul]

Various religions use a similar concept. It is no coincidence that the Qur'an echoes some earlier beliefs.

Can you provide evidence that this was known more than 14 centuries ago?

This is an example of a stretch for confirmation bias.

The point is that if you take all the verses regarding creation with provable science and they match, you can’t say that. With 1 or 2 verses, you could. knowledge of science among the Arabs 14 centuries ago was very limited. To randomly pick and choose the correct science and get them all right, is a S T R E T C H.

Don't want to burst anyone's bubble, and if you need to brag, do so - but most of the time guys only EMIT a few drops. I at least will admit that I'm not like a bottle of milk. I don't come in quarts.

What the verse is saying, is that whatever amount you emit it is a small portion of that that you require and not the whole amount. It is relative.

No, this was known many centuries before that. Consider the temple eunuchs or the harem eunuchs. It was known from pre-Biblical times that the eunuchs could not emit sperm and therefore would not impregnate the women of the harem. That is why they became the guards. If you'll pardon the somewhat whimsical comparison, they decided to let the toothless foxes guard the hen house. And that means they knew it was the men who were responsible for impregnation. This knowledge precedes the Qur'an and therefore I cannot be amazed by its inclusion in any way.

I wasn’t talking about impregnation per say but that the gender of the child is determined by the father and not the mother. Even today in some backward countries, the mother is blamed if she gives birth to a child that the father or others didn’t want. Why would anyone write that the father is responsible against a tide of opinion that was opposite?