Converting Bread Recipe To Bread...
Recipes0 min ago
You don't believe in god.
131 Answers
I mean if you sit back and actually think about it, surely you don't really believe in god. Sit back now, think about god. Think. Think a little more about him. Now tell me, do you actually think he is there? Honestly.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//If a God would praise killing in their name then surely they do not deserve worship!
If a God sent their son and let him die to help humanity but then abandoned them for the next 2000 years when the world has turned to crap surely they don't deserve worship!//
Well we can hardly blame God for the sorry state our world is in . . . thanks to those who belief He exists.
If a God sent their son and let him die to help humanity but then abandoned them for the next 2000 years when the world has turned to crap surely they don't deserve worship!//
Well we can hardly blame God for the sorry state our world is in . . . thanks to those who belief He exists.
"Here is the verse from Quran and it is very clear and no one has to fit it where it suits. My language is not Arabic but still I can understand what it means without any help from anyone. There are more verses but I do not want to confuse you and therefore only one would be enough."
You are too kind, really.
"Quran 21:30. Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?"
This really doesn't describe the Big Bang in any meaningful way. It expresses an idea common to many religions (pre-dating Islam) that everything was once one, but which was then separated out by a deity. To claim that this is an unambigous description of the Big Bang (which is not a bang, but an expansion) is stretching credulity rather a lot.
"We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
An idea first advanced by Thales the Milesian (639-544 B.C.), a sages of Miletus. He noted that water was the most abundant element, and essential for life. That was about the extent of his reasoning. There was no insight into how this might occur. The point being that this is hardly an insight unique to the Quran, but a well established belief of another culture with whose ideas we know there was extensive knowledge, and indeed acceptance.
You are too kind, really.
"Quran 21:30. Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?"
This really doesn't describe the Big Bang in any meaningful way. It expresses an idea common to many religions (pre-dating Islam) that everything was once one, but which was then separated out by a deity. To claim that this is an unambigous description of the Big Bang (which is not a bang, but an expansion) is stretching credulity rather a lot.
"We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
An idea first advanced by Thales the Milesian (639-544 B.C.), a sages of Miletus. He noted that water was the most abundant element, and essential for life. That was about the extent of his reasoning. There was no insight into how this might occur. The point being that this is hardly an insight unique to the Quran, but a well established belief of another culture with whose ideas we know there was extensive knowledge, and indeed acceptance.
Very Establisehd beliefe of another culture and so on.
Can I ask where had these beliefs been hiding during all these times. Where were these beliefs especially during so called “dark ages”? And then can I ask that if these were mere assumptions or were given as an established authority like Quran does in which if you do not believe then you are out of whole system of belief?
You did say same kind of things for embryo etc and then once asked for details then you disappeared. Shall we start that again?
Can I ask where had these beliefs been hiding during all these times. Where were these beliefs especially during so called “dark ages”? And then can I ask that if these were mere assumptions or were given as an established authority like Quran does in which if you do not believe then you are out of whole system of belief?
You did say same kind of things for embryo etc and then once asked for details then you disappeared. Shall we start that again?
"Very Establisehd beliefe of another culture and so on."
Would you like me to rewrite history so that it only ever agrees with you? That's not generally the way things are done, but clearly you find it very upsetting that civilisations could possibly have known or had ideas about anything prior to the Quran.
"Can I ask where had these beliefs been hiding during all these times."
In books. Who would have guessed..?
"Where were these beliefs especially during so called “dark ages”?"
I refer the honourable genitalman to my last answer.
"And then can I ask that if these were mere assumptions or were given as an established authority like Quran does in which if you do not believe then you are out of whole system of belief?"
I'm not sure I follow your point. Since you claim many things to be true on the basis of it being in the Quran*, yet it clearly not being the case, why should I regard mere claims as authority as being of any consequence? Facts are either right or they are not. Saying they are right when they are wrong does not - make sure you're sitting down for this next bit - make them right. Evidence is what makes things right, not assertion.
* insert other religious text if you wish, it makes no difference.
"You did say same kind of things for embryo etc and then once asked for details then you disappeared. Shall we start that again?"
Please do. I quite clearly listed the necessary texts by Galen which you would need to investigate to establish that the claims you believe originated with the Quran existed considerably earlier.
Information hiding in books again. Whoops. Naughty information.
Would you like me to rewrite history so that it only ever agrees with you? That's not generally the way things are done, but clearly you find it very upsetting that civilisations could possibly have known or had ideas about anything prior to the Quran.
"Can I ask where had these beliefs been hiding during all these times."
In books. Who would have guessed..?
"Where were these beliefs especially during so called “dark ages”?"
I refer the honourable genitalman to my last answer.
"And then can I ask that if these were mere assumptions or were given as an established authority like Quran does in which if you do not believe then you are out of whole system of belief?"
I'm not sure I follow your point. Since you claim many things to be true on the basis of it being in the Quran*, yet it clearly not being the case, why should I regard mere claims as authority as being of any consequence? Facts are either right or they are not. Saying they are right when they are wrong does not - make sure you're sitting down for this next bit - make them right. Evidence is what makes things right, not assertion.
* insert other religious text if you wish, it makes no difference.
"You did say same kind of things for embryo etc and then once asked for details then you disappeared. Shall we start that again?"
Please do. I quite clearly listed the necessary texts by Galen which you would need to investigate to establish that the claims you believe originated with the Quran existed considerably earlier.
Information hiding in books again. Whoops. Naughty information.
///I refer the honourable genitalman to my last answer.///
May I have the honour to remind few things to this genitalman then.
I honestly believed all this time that you were more intelligent than that.
////but clearly you find it very upsetting that civilisations could possibly have known or had ideas about anything prior to the Quran.////
Once again It does not very honestly upset me, but makes me feel better. The simplest reason is that we Muslim do believe in all of the prophets before Muhammad (pbuh) and also believe that same message was given to the people before. So obviously similarities (if there are any) are due to “THE SAME SOURCE”. But I do hope the people who got this message then should have taken it more seriously at that time.
Otherwise someone does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a person who could not read or write his own language managed to compile a book within 21 years after copying “if that makes you happy” that contains authentic topics about sociology, economics, science, family, law, and all other aspects of life. And most importantly from books written in languages other than his language and at the time when there were slow means of transport no USB to store data and no computers either.
May I have the honour to remind few things to this genitalman then.
I honestly believed all this time that you were more intelligent than that.
////but clearly you find it very upsetting that civilisations could possibly have known or had ideas about anything prior to the Quran.////
Once again It does not very honestly upset me, but makes me feel better. The simplest reason is that we Muslim do believe in all of the prophets before Muhammad (pbuh) and also believe that same message was given to the people before. So obviously similarities (if there are any) are due to “THE SAME SOURCE”. But I do hope the people who got this message then should have taken it more seriously at that time.
Otherwise someone does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a person who could not read or write his own language managed to compile a book within 21 years after copying “if that makes you happy” that contains authentic topics about sociology, economics, science, family, law, and all other aspects of life. And most importantly from books written in languages other than his language and at the time when there were slow means of transport no USB to store data and no computers either.
So, in summary, although he conceeds that the Greeks DID come up with these ideas first, Keyplus is saying there is no way that these ideas could possibly have been known in the Islamic world a thousand years later, despite the fact that there were well-established trade routes, libraries (and the fact that ideas from Aristole and Plato underpinned Islamic philosophy during the Islamic Golden Age and indeed it was Muslim scholars who curated this knowledge while Europe basked in ignorance during the Dark Ages).
The rest of Keyplus' response seems to make no sense, but if anyone else wants to untangle it, I'm happy to listen.
The rest of Keyplus' response seems to make no sense, but if anyone else wants to untangle it, I'm happy to listen.
Waldo – In summary you still worked it out wrong. Few ideas were present before Islam but all those had flaws. Muhammad (pbuh) must be a very clever uneducated person that he did not copy mistakes along with the original things. And that was the main issue when we talked about embryology and how Galen’s work was different from what Quran says. And just to remind you once again, you may not agree but the most well-known and world renowned Scientists do agree with that. Few ideas never existed before Islam but still are in Quran. One example is of splitting the atom. And of course there are few more but I do not want to overload you. As for your mentioning of Muslim world pioneering whatever you mentioned then one just need to read history that it all happened after Quran was revealed and not before that. In other words Muslim scientist and philosophers benefited from Quran.
Chakka – Your logic need to go past santa and fairies at the back of your garden before you could understand certain things. So if you did not understand that then in simple words do not try to lift what you can’t carry.
Chakka – Your logic need to go past santa and fairies at the back of your garden before you could understand certain things. So if you did not understand that then in simple words do not try to lift what you can’t carry.
Splitting the atom? I presume you mean the claim that Sura 34:3 refer to this?
"Those who disbelieve say: The Hour will never come unto us. Say: Nay, by my Lord, but it is coming unto you surely. He is the Knower of the Unseen, Whom not an atom's weight eludes, either in the heavens or in the earth; nor is there anything smaller or larger than that which is not in a Clear Book."
This seems to be saying, "Unbelievers claim Allah's judgement will never happen, but, bad luck loser, it is because Allah knows everything - even the weight of an atom - and all matters, whether smaller or greater than this issue - are known to him."
The notion of atoms was, of course, Greek. The idea that this verse refers to the splitting of the atom seems entirely fanciful to me. Perhaps the original language has something that is wholly missing from the translation.
There's a similar phrase in Sura 10:61, again not referring to splitting an atom. Indeed, some translations refer to an ant not an atom, nor did English translations use the word 'atom' prior to the 20th century.
It's a real shame that these books (yours, the Bibble) cannot unambigiously describe a single genuine scientific advance except in the light of poetic interpretation after the fact, isn't it?
Your go.
"Those who disbelieve say: The Hour will never come unto us. Say: Nay, by my Lord, but it is coming unto you surely. He is the Knower of the Unseen, Whom not an atom's weight eludes, either in the heavens or in the earth; nor is there anything smaller or larger than that which is not in a Clear Book."
This seems to be saying, "Unbelievers claim Allah's judgement will never happen, but, bad luck loser, it is because Allah knows everything - even the weight of an atom - and all matters, whether smaller or greater than this issue - are known to him."
The notion of atoms was, of course, Greek. The idea that this verse refers to the splitting of the atom seems entirely fanciful to me. Perhaps the original language has something that is wholly missing from the translation.
There's a similar phrase in Sura 10:61, again not referring to splitting an atom. Indeed, some translations refer to an ant not an atom, nor did English translations use the word 'atom' prior to the 20th century.
It's a real shame that these books (yours, the Bibble) cannot unambigiously describe a single genuine scientific advance except in the light of poetic interpretation after the fact, isn't it?
Your go.
Quran was not revealed in English and your biggest problem is that you do not know Arabic. I am sure Greeks did not use word Atom either (as you mentioned yourself). Arabs used to call “Dharra” or “Zarra” I would call it because Arabs use “dh” for “Z”. And another beauty of Quran is that its language is 100% in use even today. And in both of the verses the same word has been mentioned. So as you said that whatever they called it but Greeks, know, Indians knew it and so did Arabs. But none of them knew that something could be smaller than that known as well.
In the end I would say that we are just wasting our time yet once again. I know that you would never agree with whatever I would say or produce as I know that once you refused to believe what well- known scientists had to say only because they said something you do not agree with. So having said that I would leave it as it is as I believe it is waste of time.
So you can have as many goes now as you like.
In the end I would say that we are just wasting our time yet once again. I know that you would never agree with whatever I would say or produce as I know that once you refused to believe what well- known scientists had to say only because they said something you do not agree with. So having said that I would leave it as it is as I believe it is waste of time.
So you can have as many goes now as you like.
You're correct about the fact that I don't read Arabic. Unfortunately, this is about the only correct thing in your response.
I think it's entirely clear that I understand the Quran was not written in English when I make reference to the fact that the surah has been translated to refer to "ants" and "atoms", so what is your point? I didn't translate the Quran from Arabic; I am reporting how Islamic scholars - not evil, baby-eating atheists with an agenda to disprove your religion - have translated the verse.
If you have a problem with the translations, I suggest you take it up with the Islamic scholars responsible, but the fact remains that not only is the word deemed by BELIEVERS to be ambigious but the translation as given, (and I've looked at four different versions) even if the word 'atom' is correct, does not support your claim that it is about spilitting atoms. The context of the surrounding surah do little to support that claim either.
Moreover, the word used, "tharrah" (as you have it “dharra” or “zarra”) did not mean "atom" in the time of Mohammed. The problem seems to arise from the fact that with the advent of particle physics, the word "atom", in works outside of the scientific community, was translated from English to Arabic as the existing word "tharrah", which had the meaning of "the smallest of things" (and which had historically been used variously for "dust", "ants" and "particles of gold"). Thus we have the confusion.
As usual, you seem to think that these are issues to be decided on the basis of personality, and when the facts go against you resort to claiming you're "being picked on by the mean man" rather than examine evidence.
I think it's entirely clear that I understand the Quran was not written in English when I make reference to the fact that the surah has been translated to refer to "ants" and "atoms", so what is your point? I didn't translate the Quran from Arabic; I am reporting how Islamic scholars - not evil, baby-eating atheists with an agenda to disprove your religion - have translated the verse.
If you have a problem with the translations, I suggest you take it up with the Islamic scholars responsible, but the fact remains that not only is the word deemed by BELIEVERS to be ambigious but the translation as given, (and I've looked at four different versions) even if the word 'atom' is correct, does not support your claim that it is about spilitting atoms. The context of the surrounding surah do little to support that claim either.
Moreover, the word used, "tharrah" (as you have it “dharra” or “zarra”) did not mean "atom" in the time of Mohammed. The problem seems to arise from the fact that with the advent of particle physics, the word "atom", in works outside of the scientific community, was translated from English to Arabic as the existing word "tharrah", which had the meaning of "the smallest of things" (and which had historically been used variously for "dust", "ants" and "particles of gold"). Thus we have the confusion.
As usual, you seem to think that these are issues to be decided on the basis of personality, and when the facts go against you resort to claiming you're "being picked on by the mean man" rather than examine evidence.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Jokes2 mins ago
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News5 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |