Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mac111

Hello Atheists U R Close To Muslims !

Recommended Posts

Peace Mac11,

 

The converse of the argument you presented was summarised by Stephen Roberts who said:

 

"“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.â€"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

:sl:

 

"“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.â€"

I'm sorry, but that statement is extremely ignorant.

 

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Haqqul,

 

I'm sorry, but that statement is extremely ignorant.

 

Care to elaborate? :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Eoin,

 

Ignorant, because if he had any knowledge of why we dismiss "other possible gods," he wouldn't have uttered it. Why do we dismiss them, as far as you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this interesting thread.

 

THEORY OF PROBABILITY
This has got to be one of the most humorous attempts at "proving" Islam that I have ever encountered. For one it takes faulty math and then it takes faulty information, then puts the two together to make a "fact".

 

Using the logic of the author I could say that there are two possibilites, either the sun will come up tomorrow or it will not, therefore the odds of the sun coming up are 50/50! Obviously this person did not go to school for math.

 

It was known that the world was flat. The Greeks had even fairly accurately measured the circumfrence of the Earth, among other fallacies that this author mentioned.

 

they pray to statue of dead man (which they consider it to be of prophet Jesus)....

 

Saying that Christians pray to a statue of a dead man is like saying that Muslims pray to a black rock.

 

Ignorant, because if he had any knowledge of why we dismiss "other possible gods," he wouldn't have uttered it. Why do we dismiss them, as far as you know?

 

Almost every Muslim in the world dismisses other gods because that is how they were raised. The only ones that can say otherwise are the converts. This is pretty much the same reason that most Christians dismiss other Gods and the main reason that most Jews dismiss other Gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has got to be one of the most humorous attempts at "proving" Islam that I have ever encountered. For one it takes faulty math and then it takes faulty information, then puts the two together to make a "fact".

 

Please try to convince us that Christians don't actually pray to Jesus, especially when they're in distress or when they need forgiveness.

 

Now, do you we do the same for the black rock? Do we call out to it in times of need, believing that it will intervene on our behalf in front of God?

 

You can't compare two un-alike things like how Jesus is treated in Christianity and the purpose the black rock serves in Islam.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lets stop here

 

This topic is Atheist and Muslim dialogue

 

Dear JCBeliever

 

PLEASE DONT POST FURTHER HERE . FOR REPLYING PLEASE FEEL FREE TO START ANOTHER TOPIC FOR CHRISTIAN-ATHEIST DIALOGUE OR CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM DIALOGUE THERE WE CAN HAVE DETAILED DISCUSSION. THIS TOPICS IS FOR DIALOGUE BETWEEN AND ATHEIST AND MUSLIMS

 

THANKS FOR COOPERATING

LOL....:sl: :sl: :j:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mac111, I agree with Livius that the article you posted which attempts to prove the existence of God scientifically was deeply flawed, in the math it used, in the facts it cited, and in its failure to provide references to the Quran verses which supported the claims being made. I think the article was probably written for believers rather than atheists. I can't imagine very many critical thinkers would actually be convinced by the case presented there, even if the Quran references were provided.

 

I don't see any need to go through it point by point, but I will note one of the weaker claims. Interestingly, this is also the first claim made. Normally, one leads with the strongest point, which suggests to me that the author isn't a very skilled debater. Anyway, here it is:

 

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

 

First of all, as has already been pointed out, the ancient Greeks had already posited a spherical earth, and even calculated its size roughly but accurately. While the notion wasn't universally accepted at the time the Quran was written, if it had been presented in the Quran, it wouldn't have been the first time the idea had been proposed. Anyone who has seen the sun and the moon would find a powerful argument that heavenly bodies are spherical in shape, so there is no need to marvel at the insight of someone who believed the earth might be spherical too, even in Muhammed's time.

 

Second, the author suggests "several other options" as possible alternatives to "flat": triangular, quadrangular, pentagonal, etc. The problem is that, with the exception of "spherical", all of these alternatives are still flat. Perhaps the author meant to suggest tetrahedron, octahedron, icosahedron, cube, and dodecahedron, or perhaps he was deliberately avoiding the mention of these, because they exhaustively list the regular solids. There are only 5 of them, which underscores what shaky ground the author is on when he proposes his plucked-from-air "let's assume" of 30. Why 30? Who knows? It's just a number that was made up, and as such it invalidates any subsequent calculation which relies on its validity.

 

Finally, the Quran doesn't really say the earth is spherical. In several places, it's said to be "spread out" like a carpet (13.3, 15:19, 20:53, etc). Based just on what's written in the Quran, there's a stronger case to be made that Muhammed thought the earth was flat than that he thought it was spherical.

 

I don't think there's much point trying to find evidence of prescient science in the Quran; as your author points out, it's a book of signs, not a book of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Haqqul,

 

Ignorant, because if he had any knowledge of why we dismiss "other possible gods," he wouldn't have uttered it. Why do we dismiss them, as far as you know?

 

I could list hundreds of reasons religious affiliates of one denomination or another dismiss others deities. There is a complication to the debate in that the reasons people tend to follow one religion over another are more often than not dictated by life experience and emotion rather than impartial reasoning. However as people seem to rate impartial reasoning as more importantly than they do life experience and emotion, few would in all honesty admit to their decision to follow a particular religion on anything other than what they consider a logical basis.

 

The most powerful example by sheer numbers would be indoctrination since birth. If this were not the case then there would be a roughly equal proportion of followers of each religion without hereditary links accross the globe. In the deep south of America there are more Christians then elsewhere, in Saudi Arabia there are more Muslims, in Greece there are more Orthodox Christians, in former Persia there are more Zoroastrians, in israel there are more Jews, in Burma there are more Buddhists, in India more Hindu's etc. All of them believe in their own religion in exactly the same way that you believe in yours, all of them were brought up being taught right and wrong on the basis of their respective religions, it is hardly suprising that as you grow older this teaching becomes a self perpetuating cycle.

 

By means of example, Waymoo who lives up the mountain was a popular God in 4000BC. Waymoo controlled the climate and arguably other things such as crop failures and the spread of diseases and infestations. He lived up the mountain, nobody alive had ever seen him and he made himself known through village elders who had remembered his legacy passed on from generation to generation. "Obey Waymoo or suffer." (Conversely, obey Waymoo and flourish.) People prayed to Waymoo to help sick relatives and Waymoo would always answer in his own way. Waymoo had decreed certain simple laws for his flock to follow such as obeying the elders whom he entrusted to run the village, in return when they died loyal followers would join Waymoo up the mountain above the clouds.

 

I'd be interested to hear any criticism you can level at Waymoo which cannot in turn be levelled at Allah, Shiva, Odin, The Emperor of Nippon, Yahweh, Zoroaster or any other God you care to mention!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, the author suggests "several other options" as possible alternatives to "flat": triangular, quadrangular, pentagonal, etc. The problem is that, with the exception of "spherical", all of these alternatives are still flat. Perhaps the author meant to suggest tetrahedron, octahedron, icosahedron, cube, and dodecahedron, or perhaps he was deliberately avoiding the mention of these, because they exhaustively list the regular solids. There are only 5 of them, which underscores what shaky ground the author is on when he proposes his plucked-from-air "let's assume" of 30. Why 30? Who knows? It's just a number that was made up, and as such it invalidates any subsequent calculation which relies on its validity.

Finally, the Quran doesn't really say the earth is spherical. In several places, it's said to be "spread out" like a carpet (13.3, 15:19, 20:53, etc). Based just on what's written in the Quran, there's a stronger case to be made that Muhammed thought the earth was flat than that he thought it was spherical.

 

I don't think there's much point trying to find evidence of prescient science in the Quran; as your author points out, it's a book of signs, not a book of science.

 

1. Earth made as a carpet

 

The question refers to a verse from the Qur’an in Surah Nuh:

"And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out)." The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 71, Verse 19

But the sentence in the above verse is not complete. It continues in the next verse, explaining the previous verse. It says: "That ye may go about therein, in spacious roads." The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 71, Verse 20

 

A similar message is repeated in Surah TaHa:

 

"He Who has made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels)...." The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 20, Verse 53

 

The surface of the earth i.e. earth’s crust is less than 30 miles in thickness and is very thin as compared to the radius of the earth which is about 3750 miles. The deeper layers of the earth are very hot, fluid and hostile to any form of life. The earth’s crust is a solidified shell on which we can live. The Qur’an rightly refers to it like a carpet spread out, so that we can travel along its roads and paths.

 

2. Carpet can also be spread on other than an absolute flat surface

 

Not a single verse of the Qur’an says that the earth is flat. The Qur’an only compares the earth’s crust with a carpet. Some people seem to think that carpet can only be put on an absolute flat surface. It is possible to spread a carpet on a large sphere such as the earth. It can easily be demonstrated by taking a huge model of the earth’s globe covering it with a carpet.

 

Carpet is generally put on a surface, which is not very comfortable to walk on. The Qur’an describes the earth crust as a carpet, without which human beings would not be able to survive because of the hot, fluid and hostile environment beneath it. The Qur’an is thus not only logical, it is mentioning a scientific fact that was discovered by geologists centuries later.

 

3. Earth has been spread out

 

Similarly, the Qur’an says in several verses that the earth has been spread out.

"And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: how excellently We do spread out!" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 51, Verse 48

Similarly the Qur’an also mentions in several other verses that the earth is an expanse:

"Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse. And the mountains as pegs?" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 78, Verse 6-7

 

None of these verses of the Qur’an contain even the slightest implication that the earth is flat. It only indicates that the earth is spacious and the reason for this spaciousness of the earth is mentioned. The Glorious Qur’an says:

"O My servants who believe! truly. spacious is My Earth: therefore serve ye Me –(And Me alone)!" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 29, Verse 56

Therefore none can give the excuse, that he could not do good and was forced to do evil because of the surroundings and circumstances.

 

4. Earth is geospherical in shape

 

The Qur’an mentions the actual shape of the earth in the following verse: "And we have made the earth egg shaped". The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 79, Verse 30

The Arabic word Dahaha means egg shaped. It also means an expanse. Dahaha is derived from Duhiya which specifically refers to the egg of an ostrich which is geospherical in shape, exactly like the shape of the earth.

 

 

Dr. Bucaille explains that modern science has worked out the details of the sun's orbit as follows: "To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and the sun take roughly 250 million years. The sun travels roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this"

 

After describing this, Dr. Bucaille comments: "The above is the orbital movement of the sun that was already referred to in the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago."

And yet this is a new finding. As Dr. Bucaille says, the knowledge of the sun's orbit is an acquisition of modern astronomy

 

Two verses in the Qur'an refer to the orbits of the sun and moon. After mentioning the sun and the moon, God says:

"Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (Qur'an 21:33; 36:40).

 

How did the author of the Qur'an know of this? Even after the Qur'an was revealed, early commentators could not conceive of the orbits of the sun and moon. The tenth century commentator Tabari could not explain this so he said, "It is our duty to keep silent when we do not know" (XVII, 15 quoted in The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 161).

 

 

Dr. Maurice Bucaille also points out the important fact that the Qur'an does not contain "the theories prevalent at the time of the Revelation that deal with the organization of the celestial world" (p. 153). If the Qur'an was authored by any human being, he or she would have naturally included the ideas prevalent at the time.

 

But many of those ideas were later shown to be inaccurate. How did the author of the Qur'an know enough to exclude those ideas, unless the author is God himself?

 

Those who say that Muhammad authored the Qur'an think that the Arabs were very knowledgeable in the field of Science, and Muhammad was or course one of them. But this explanation is based on the incorrect assumption that the Arabs knew Science before the Qur'an was revealed.

 

As pointed out by Dr. Bucaille, the fact is that Science in Islamic countries came after the Qur'an, not before. "In any case", writes Dr. Bucaille, "the scientific knowledge of that great period would not have been sufficient for a human being to write some of the verses to be found in the Qur'an" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 153-154)

 

Modern astronomers are aware that the stars and planets are kept within ranges of precise distances from each other. Had it not been for this fact, collision between them would be inevitable. The author of the Qur'an was also aware of this. In the Qur'an we read "the sun and the moon (are subjected) to calculations. (Qur'an 55:5).

 

Again, we read: "For you (God) subjected the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses" (Qur'an 14:33).

The phrase `diligently pursuing their courses' is a translation of the Arabic term daa'ib which here means `to apply oneself to something with care in a perseverant, invariable manner, in accordance with set habits' (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p.155). And that indeed is how the sun and moon behave.

 

Another verse in the Qur'an says, "the stars are in subjection to His command" (Qur'an 16:12).

Order in the universe is essential for its preservation. God, who subjected them to that order knew about it before any scientist.

 

 

 

Today we can look at a globe and know that the earth is somewhat like a ball, a sphere. The Qur'an makes certain statements that led Muslim scientists to understand long before their European counterparts that the earth is spherical. When Europe was in the dark ages thinking that the earth was flat, Muslim students were using globes for studying the earth in Islamic universities.

 

Since it was not the purpose of the Qur'an to teach science, the Qur'an did not need to state explicitly that the earth is spherical in shape (or more precisely, a geoid). But some of what the Qur'an says stimulates you to think of the world as a globe. Take, for example, the following verse: "Have you not seen how God merges the night into the day and merges the day into the night?" (Qur'an 31:29).

 

Another verse tells us that God coils the day and night around: "He coils the night upon the day and He coils the day upon the night" (Qur'an 39:5).

 

The word `coils' in the verse above is a translation of the Arabic verb kawwara which is used in describing the action of coiling a turban around the head. To understand this statement fully, readers of the Qur'an had to think of the earth as a sphere.

 

To fully appreciate the above two statements in the Qur'an, try this experiment at home: You need a flashlight and a globe. Take these items into a dark room. Using the flashlight to simulate the light of the sun, shine the light upon the globe. Notice that only one half of the globe is lighted up. The other half is in darkness. Half the world is having day, the other half is having night.

 

Now, recall that the earth is continuously rotating on its axis and will go around completely in twenty four hours. Slowly turn the globe around to simulate this rotation. Notice that as the globe turns, the day is going around the globe to light up the other half of the world. The night is also going around the globe to give rest to the other half of the world.

 

The day and night are perpetually coiling around the earth with some degree of interpenetration. This is exactly how it appears to astronauts during their space flights.

 

Dr. Bucaille makes the following remark: "This process of perpetual coiling, including the interpenetration of one sector by another, is expressed in the Qur'an just as if the concept of the earth's roundness had already been conceived at the time - which was obviously not the case." (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 165).

 

This obviously did not reflect the level of learning of the time, but was helpful in stimulating Muslim scientists to conceive of the earth in its real shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PeaceAll, I know you guys have this arsenal of cut-and-paste articles to trot out, and I have neither the time nor the desire to refute them point by point.

 

Your "dahaha means egg-shaped" is a new interpretation which Islamic apologists are trying to advance, but it's neither a persuasive translation nor a persuasive argument. No reputable translation actually uses "egg-shaped" in the English version. In addition, the earth is not egg-shaped, it is spherical. In pictures of the earth which are now available from space, the shape in no way resembles an egg. It's shaped more like an orange than an egg, but "moon-shaped" or "sun-shaped" would have been perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately for this line of reasoning, that's not what was written.

 

I've read and considered most of these arguments. I don't mean to be insulting when I say this, but they all seem to be laughable attempts to stretch and twist meanings and facts to make them fit. None of them are really persuasive, and all of them simply emphasize that the Quran should be read as a book of inspiration, and not as a book of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most powerful example by sheer numbers would be indoctrination since birth. If this were not the case then there would be a roughly equal proportion of followers of each religion without hereditary links accross the globe. In the deep south of America there are more Christians then elsewhere, in Saudi Arabia there are more Muslims, in Greece there are more Orthodox Christians, in former Persia there are more Zoroastrians, in israel there are more Jews, in Burma there are more Buddhists, in India more Hindu's etc. All of them believe in their own religion in exactly the same way that you believe in yours, all of them were brought up being taught right and wrong on the basis of their respective religions, it is hardly suprising that as you grow older this teaching becomes a self perpetuating cycle.

 

You are wrong ! Only about 18% live in the Arab world and the largest Muslim

community is in Indonesia. Most Muslims live east of Pakistan. 30%

of Muslims live in the Indian subcontinent, 20% in Sub-Saharan Africa,

17% in Southeast Asia, 18% in the Arab world, and 10% in the Soviet

Union and China. Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan make up 10% of the

non-Arab Middle East. Although there are Muslim minorities in almost

every area, including Latin America and Australia, they are most

numerous in Russia and its newly independent states, India and

central Africa. There are about 6 million Muslims in the United

States.

Edited by PeaceAll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.......I have neither the time nor the desire to refute them point by point.

 

 

This is problem you people dont have the time to read with open mind and understand your main aim of coming here is to just refute them .

 

What is your opinion about this ? think of understanding first rather than thinking of refuting first :sl:

 

 

Dr. Bucaille explains that modern science has worked out the details of the sun's orbit as follows: "To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and the sun take roughly 250 million years. The sun travels roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this"

 

Dr. Bucaille comments: "The above is the orbital movement of the sun that was already referred to in the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago."

And yet this is a new finding. As Dr. Bucaille says, the knowledge of the sun's orbit is an acquisition of modern astronomy

 

Two verses in the Qur'an refer to the orbits of the sun and moon. After mentioning the sun and the moon, God says:

"Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (Qur'an 21:33; 36:40).

 

How did the author of the Qur'an know of this? Even after the Qur'an was revealed, early commentators could not conceive of the orbits of the sun and moon.

 

The tenth century commentator Tabari could not explain this so he said, "It is our duty to keep silent when we do not know" (XVII, 15 quoted in The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 161).

Edited by PeaceAll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science confirms existence of God

 

For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it… But the science of Darwin's time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and established itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning. As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them

 

Prominent German physicist Max Planck said:

 

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.28

 

All the issues we have treated so far simply put it that the existence of the universe and all living things cannot be explained by coincidences. Many scientists who have left their mark on the world of science have confirmed, and still confirm this great reality. The more people learn about the universe, the higher does their admiration for its flawless order become. Every newly-discovered detail supports creation in an unquestionable way.

 

The great majority of modern physicists accept the fact of creation as we set foot in the 21st century. David Darling, astronomer and author, says:

 

There were no landmarks here. No galaxies, no stars. Only a heartbeat ago the universe itself began in the most titanic of explosions, an explosion in which all the matter and energy there would ever be spontaneously appeared and was borne swiftly out upon the stretching fabric of space. One second old was the universe, and it was filled exclusively with the steaming, fertile brew of creation.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

 

As is evident, thousands of scientists who have been doing research in the fields of physics, mathematics, and astronomy since the Middle Ages all agree on the idea that the universe is created by a single Creator and always focus on the same point. The founder of physical astronomy, Johannes Kepler, stated his strong belief in God in one of his books in which he wrote:

 

Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.

 

The great physicist, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), who founded thermodynamics . He had strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution and totally rejected it. He explained shortly before his death that "With regard to the origin of life, science… positively affirms creative power."

 

One of the professors of physics at Oxford University, Robert Matthews, states the same fact in his book published in 1992 where he explains that DNA molecules were created by God:

 

The whole process normally takes place in perfect harmony, producing a foetus, then a living baby, a child and finally an adult. Like so much in biology, the whole process is seemingly miraculous. How can such stunning complexity be produced from such simple beginnings? How, in short, does a single cell far smaller than the dot of this letter "i" produce a sentient being? Many of the processes involved remain mysterious, and constitute one of the most fascinating of all the Outstanding Mysteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo if any of you atheist have come with pure heart to know existence of God rather than coming here just wasting to refute :sl:

 

please go through this articles

 

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetharunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/70the_fall_of_atheism_sci34.ph"]The Fall of Atheism[using large font size is not allowed][/url]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetharunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/70ignorance_sci11.php"]The Obivious Existence of God[using large font size is not allowed][/url]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetharunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/70god_created_sci08.php"]God Created the Universe from Nothing [using large font size is not allowed][/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is problem you people dont have the time to read with open mind and understand your main aim of coming here is to just refute them .

The real problem is that your definition of "an open mind" is apparently "leave your critical thinking skills at the door". I do have an open mind, but when someone says "spread out like a carpet" in no way refers to something flat because you can wrap a carpet around a globe, it's patent nonsense. When someone strains to say that one translation of a word is "ostrich egg", and then further claims that the earth is shaped like an ostrich egg (which is clearly far from spherical), it's obvious to me that someone is just trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

 

What is your opinion about this ? think of understanding first rather than thinking of refuting first :sl:

Dr. Bucaille explains that modern science has worked out the details of the sun's orbit as follows: "To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and the sun take roughly 250 million years. The sun travels roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this"

 

Dr. Bucaille comments: "The above is the orbital movement of the sun that was already referred to in the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago."

My opinion is that Dr. Bucaille is again trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

 

When the Quran speaks of the orbit of the sun, it is always in connection with the moon, and how day follows night (e.g., 14:33, 21:33, 39:5). It is obvious to me that this is just more evidence of Muhammed's flat-earth, geocentric view of the cosmos. He is (incorrectly) speaking about the sun's orbit around the earth, not the orbit of the sun about the center of the galaxy. There is no reference to any galaxy, no hint that the sun is merely one among billions of other stars, no hint that the earth is one of many planets orbiting the sun, nor any reference to moons orbiting other planets.

 

At one point (36:40), the Quran even states that it's not permitted for the sun to catch the moon, which (if YOU were to consider it with an open mind) makes it clear that Muhammed's view is that the orbit of the sun is similar to the orbit of the moon, and that they're both chasing each other around the earth.

 

There is even a hadith in which Muhammed speaks about the sun setting in a muddy bog in some land off to the west, which makes it clear that he had no clue about the size of the sun, or the fact that the rotation of the earth is what accounts for its apparent motion.

 

A single mention of the moons of Jupiter would have been more convincing than all the references to the orbit of the sun. Even a hint of the fact that the earth has its own orbit would have been stronger evidence that the author of the Quran understood the layout of the solar system than all this handwaving by Dr. Bucaille.

Edited by spamsickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real problem is that your definition of "an open mind" is apparently "leave your critical thinking skills at the door"
:sl: :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding sun setting muddy bog :sl:

 

Quran answers tales of jewish rabbies who made stories that Dhul Qarnain went up high in skies where sun set :j:

 

quran 18:86

Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

 

This English translation was taken from A. Yusuf Ali. Let us analyse the verse part by part.

 

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun…": The translation of this part of the verse does not say that Zul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets LITERALLY, rather it means here that Zul-Qarnain was facing the direction in which the sun is setting. The "setting of the sun," is an Arabic idiom meaning 'the western-most point' of his expedition. Go read old arabic tales you will find it , it means western part of earth

 

"…he found it set in a spring of murky water": The Qur'an is obviously describing what Dhul-Qarnain saw. What Dhul-Qarnain saw was the image of the sun setting in a dark body of water. Since the Qur'an is clearly describing this from Dhul-Qarnain's direct point of view (the Qur'an is quite explicit here in doing that), there is in fact no problem with the description of what Dhul-Qarnain saw. Of course the Critic is right when he says that "the sun does not set in a spring of murky water", but try standing at a beach during the time when the sun is about to set and the Critic would be able to see the sun "entering" the sea far in the horizon. This therefore gives us the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnain was somewhere west and by a large body of water, possibly the sea.

 

Therefore, it is clear the verse says that Dhul-Qarnain went west and saw the sun setting over the horizon so that it looked to him as though it was setting into the sea, which is murky-looking. Probably the critic have never stood by on the beach and observe the sun set.

 

For further clarification of our explanation, read different translations

 

 

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. (Qur'an 18:86)

 

Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: 'O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.' (Qur'an 18:86)

 

 

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he perceived it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. (Qur'an 18:86)

 

We can see that the general agreement of the translations of this verse is that Zul-Qarnain saw the sun setting into the horizon that it looks like it is setting into a body of water (sea) that looks murky-looking. That this verse was never taken literally was not alien in the understanding of the early commentators.

 

If i say you found that 2+2=5 it doesnt mean I believe 2+2=5

 

.

regarding carpet issue again , i tell carpet is generally put on a surface, which is not very comfortable to walk on. The Qur’an describes the earth crust as a carpet, without which human beings would not be able to survive because of the hot, fluid and hostile environment beneath it. The Qur’an is thus not only logical, it is mentioning a scientific fact that was discovered by geologists centuries later. Not a single verse of the Qur’an says that the earth is flat. The Qur’an only compares the earth’s crust with a carpet. Some people seem to think that carpet can only be put on an absolute flat surface. It is possible to spread a carpet on a large sphere such as the earth

 

Quran speaks about the stages of man's embryonic development. How could anyone have possibly known these stages 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered these stages using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist 1400 years ago so use your critical thinking skills which you have left at door rather than refuting skills :)

The real problem is that your definition of "an open mind" is apparently "leave your critical thinking skills at the door"
:sl: Edited by PeaceAll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea (Qur'an 18:86)

I don't have a problem with this translation, and I don't claim that the Quran categorically states that the earth is flat.

 

I do think the totality of the evidence suggests that "flat earth" was Muhammed's view, but I might be wrong.

 

I will, however, absolutely state that nowhere in the Quran does it say, or even imply, that the earth is spherical. The argument which has been presented claiming it does is fallacious.

 

Quran speaks about the stages of man's embryonic development. How could anyone have possibly known these stages 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered these stages using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist 1400 years ago so use your critical thinking skills which you have left at door rather than refuting skills :sl: :sl:

My critical thinking skills tell me that women had miscarriages 1400 years ago just as they do today, at all phases of pregnancy. Thus it requires no miracle of seeing that which could not be seen to understand what a fetus looks like at various stages of its development (23:14).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My critical thinking skills tell me that women had miscarriages 1400 years ago just as they do today, at all phases of pregnancy. Thus it requires no miracle of seeing that which could not be seen to understand what a fetus looks like at various stages of its development (23:14).

 

Why your critical thinking skills were not used by scientists at that time ? :j:

 

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 :sl: that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract

 

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore 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 , 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.

 

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.â€

 

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.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetIslam-guide(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/video/moore-1.ram"]Professor Moore's comment 1[/url]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetIslam-guide(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/video/moore-2.ram"]Professor Moore's comment 2 [/url]

 

Even if you sit refuting this also i see no point left for dicussion after this. I just pray that God guides you :sl:

Edited by PeaceAll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace PeaceAll,

 

You are wrong ! Only about 18% live in the Arab world and the largest Muslim

community is in Indonesia. Most Muslims live east of Pakistan. 30%

of Muslims live in the Indian subcontinent, 20% in Sub-Saharan Africa,

17% in Southeast Asia, 18% in the Arab world, and 10% in the Soviet

Union and China. Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan make up 10% of the

non-Arab Middle East. Although there are Muslim minorities in almost

every area, including Latin America and Australia, they are most

numerous in Russia and its newly independent states, India and

central Africa. There are about 6 million Muslims in the United

States.

 

Apologies I posted in a hurry and phrased myself badly. The point I was making is that most Muslim's or people of any religious faith are so because they happen to be born into it, I then drew out a list of countries in which certain religions have proportionately larger bases of believers. Hence deep south America having more born again Christians than elsewhere in the world (as a proportion of the population), Saudi having more Muslims per head of population than elsewhere, former Persia having more Zoroastrians per capita than other places etc. Now it may be Afghanistan has 99% Muslim population compared to Saudi with 95% (or whatever) but that is entirely besides the point which is that most Muslims are Muslims because they happened to be born into it. Most Zoroastrians are Zoroastrian because they were born into it, the same with Christians, Jews or whoever else you care to mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists please tell your reasons that there is no God and universe is working on its own ![using large font size is not allowed]

Edited by PeaceAll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well No God in universe because what I read till now is that Bible is not God’s word because it contains thousand of errancies and contradictions that can not be solved, only rationalized. If one will read the entire Bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions, mass insanity, and even cannibalism and human sacrifice. Each translation changes concept of God. It staggers the imagination how anyone in his right mind could read the Bible

What nonsense at one point bible says one should be “open to reason†(James 3:17 RSV), that we should “reason together†(Isaiah 1:18) and another points“he who hates correction will die†(Proverbs 15:10)

 

I am not sinful because Adam and Even ate the fruit :sl:

 

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

 

According to this scripture, Jesus thought that the Jewish law (i.e., the Old Testament) reported that he said the Jews were gods. :sl: !

 

There are lot of contradictions about God in Bible

 

Well lets see what Islam says now I have joined this forum I would like to give last chance to myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

Atheists please tell your reasons that there is no God and universe is working on its own !

 

A theist is somebody who believes in a theological interpretation of God. An A-theist is somebody who does not believe in a theological interpretation of God. As the term 'God' is undefined then how can you reasonably expect somebody to contradict what is not defined?

 

If by God you mean the God you believe in (Allah) then I'll give you a few compelling reasons that Allah does not exist.

 

1. There is no observable evidence for his existence.

2. His supposed powers are contradictory. (Free will/omniscience)

3. Whichever human or group of humans wrote the Qu'ran messed up big time with the whole evolution thing.

4. The 'test' we are supposedly involved in is not something I agreed to and the rewards/punishments are out of proportion to the arbitrary nature with which our fates are decided. (I.e. Being born a Muslim)

 

Those are just a few of hundreds of potential logical arguments as to why Allah does not exist. People tend to get hung up on those reasons though without ever grasping the true nature of why they either believe do not believe in a particular God. I will now list several personal reasons I will not ever believe in Allah.

 

My grandfather worked his whole life to provide for his family, at times he cycled 30 miles to work through rural Ireland to find work to feed and educate his children. He didn't touch alcohol, was devoted to his wife and family and despite his lack of formal education and having been abandoned by his mother at the age of 4, he managed to raise a large family who all went on to professional and respectable careers in medicine and law. People went to him for advice as he had a reputation accross Dublin for being being honest. In his later years he suffered from an extremely painful condition in his intestine which painkillers no matter how strong could entirely block, despite this he did not complain or moan once about the pain he was constantly in and put others first until the end. At his funeral last May hundreds of old people showed up whom none of the family knew but whom he had helped decades previously through help and advice during the troubled times in Ireland even though he had lost all contact with them many decades before. I was extremely proud to be his grandson when an old lady reminisced about how he had stayed up all night to help floodproof her house during the Dublin floods which rendered hundreds homeless - he went to work for 12 hours the following day without any sleep. My grandfather was nominally a Catholic though it was obvious he did not believe in God, one of his keen interests being philosophy. I have little doubt that he knew enough about Islam to be labelled by Muslims as a 'kafir'. Your religion says my grandfather is now burning in hell in unimaginable pain for eternity because of his 'arrogance'. Your religion is wrong.

 

Eoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Eoin

 

I have little doubt that he knew enough about Islam to be labelled by Muslims as a 'kafir'.
'kafir' is a arabic term for non-muslims , what is this issue of labelling here :sl: . I am not a christian so people will call me non-christian Likewise you are not a muslim so in english I would say 'non-muslim' and in arabic and urdu I will call you 'kafir' as simple as that.

 

Your religion says my grandfather is now burning in hell in unimaginable pain for eternity because of his 'arrogance'. Your religion is wrong.

Eoin

I don't mean to hurt you here but what would an atheist say he turned into dust and pieces of rotten bones ?

Regarding hell , it is God who is going to decide we are not the ones to sit here and decide ! Even to muslims we cannot say you will go to heaven or hell , we believe regarding this issue Judgement belongs to God because we dont know hearts of people it it only God who knows about them :sl: . But for whom this message of Quran comes and they reject it out of their arrogrance then for such people Quran says

 

Translation quran 3:3-4

It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you (Muhammad ) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel). Aforetime, as a guidance to mankind, And He sent down the criterion [of judgement between right and wrong (this Qur'an)]. Truly, those who disbelieve in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, for them there is a severe torment; and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Able of Retribution.

 

translation Qur'an, Chapter 7, Verse 40.

To those who reject Our Signs, and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be for them of the Gates of Paradise, nor will they enter Paradise until the camel can pass through the eye of a needle: Such is Our Reward for those who sin .

 

Thats why I request all of you all to accept the truth i.e. Quran and shun away all arrogance and envy .

 

Since knowledge has reached you now so accept Islam and follow Quran and sunnah you will also go to paradise in hereafter God willingly :j:

Edited by PeaceAll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×