World of religion

[aero]

LayZie G.;818771 wrote:

pre-modern, then think about:

 

Islamic conquest of Syria

Islamic conquest of Egypt

Islamic conquest of North Africa

Islamic conquest of Persia

Islamic conquest of Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc...

 

LayZie G.

Can you name specifically what atrocities were committed? I'm curious to know.

[N.O.R.F]

Garnaqsi;818811 wrote:

My answer will probably bore you because I don't have a particular pet-peeve (moral or otherwise) with the Koran. I'm just not convinced by its divinity. I see no evidence for the claim that it's a divine work. People purport 'scientific miracles' in attempts to show its supernatural nature but unfortunately these more often than not turn-out to be just like the one I was just addressing, so I don't think they even come close to being adequate at doing that. Can some sort of independent verification system be used to confirm that it's indeed divine? If yes, then good, but how? If no, then there's probably no good reason for anyone to believe it.

You're looking for black or white. Islam is based on 'signs' that there is a creator whose words are the Quran. Those signs are contained in the Quran (see other thread). It requests its readers to 'think' (through the signs contained within it). Considering those signs have been confirmed scientifically later on (you're yet to state you believe otherwise), isn't that a good enough sign of it's divinity? If you're still not sure why the rejection? If, as you've stated, you're not sure about the Quran's divinity, why have you rejected it? You're clearly still to find out either way.

[Garnaqsi]

N.O.R.F;818940 wrote:

Considering those signs have been confirmed scientifically later on (you're yet to state you believe otherwise), isn't that a good enough sign of it's divinity?

I believe you missed when I said "people purport 'scientific miracles' in attempts to show its supernatural nature but unfortunately these more often than not turn-out to be just like the one I was just addressing, so I don't think they even come close to being adequate at doing that," referring to this:

Garnaqsi;818780 wrote:

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity' date=' and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?[Quran 21:30']

I'm baffled as to why people take the above verse as a miracle of sorts. The myth of the parted heavens and earth is all over the place. As a matter of fact, many cultures maintained it through-out history. Even in Hesiod's Theogony (one of the most popular creation narratives -- still taught at universities) the first stage of the creation of the present world was the separation of the heaven and earth. What makes yours a miracle? It seems to me what we have here is a glorified myth with no scientific content whatsoever.

I've similar problems with most alleged 'signs/scientific miracles'.

[N.O.R.F]

^what I'm asking you is, if you're not convinced, why the rejection?

[Mario B]

Garnaqsi;818780 wrote:

I'm baffled as to why people take the above verse as a miracle of sorts. The myth of the parted heavens and earth is all over the place. As a matter of fact, many cultures maintained it through-out history. Even in

Hesiod's Theogony

(one of the most popular creation narratives -- still taught at universities) the first stage of the creation of the present world was the separation of the heaven and earth. What makes yours a miracle? It seems to me what we have here is a glorified myth with no scientific content whatsoever.

The Quran is not a book of miracles nor is it a book of science, it's a book of signs. It contains stories of the people of the past, it's a book guidance and a reflection for the people of the present and it foretells on life after our temporal existence

 

Science is a subjective discipline, todays objective truths could be tomorrow's false universals. [ Just ask Newton]

 

Mr Critic,If you're not convinced of its divinity[Quran], why don't you write your DIVINE MANIFESTO and show GOD why he botched his last work? [God forbid]

[Garnaqsi]

N.O.R.F;819345 wrote:

^what I'm asking you is, if you're not convinced, why the rejection?

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think there is enough evidence for it being what it's claimed to be, and I don't accept it on that basis. I'm not sure what the technical distinction (if any) between this and rejection is. If you elaborate, then perhaps I could answer.

[Wadani]

^ But theres no evidence disproving its claims either, so y not remain ambivalent about its divine status instead of rejecting it outright? This is what he means i believe. To him, there is a technical distinction between uncertainty and rejection.

[Garnaqsi]

Wadani;819654 wrote:

^ But theres no evidence disproving its claims either, so y not remain ambivalent about its divine status instead of rejecting it outright? This is what he means i believe. To him, there is a technical distinction between uncertainty and rejection.

Thanks for the elaboration. Well, I would argue I’m entitled to non-ambivalent take simply because of the lack of evidence. Consider what happens at a court of law between a claimant with no evidence and a defendant with no affirmative defence. Denial suffices on the defendant’s part. Even scientific-wise lack of evidence justifies out-right rejection unless there is a credible explanation as to why the evidence is missing. Moreover, if we were to require for one to take ambivalent position on all things with no evidence offered on their part -- as we sure have to be consistent -- that would open epistemological Pandora's box. It would be ridiculously impractical.

 

[AYOUB]

^ What do you believe and those who say they reject Islam believe? Quoting what others believe is just silly, unless you agree with their beliefs. If you and the others deny or refuse to accept Quranic characteristic of the Almighty ie The Merciful, The Creator, The Originator, The All-Knowing etc etc, what explanation have you to fill whats obvious to Muslims? Don't waste time on peripheral issues, use the brain for what's it is really for. Apologies in advance for being a bit harsh.

[Johnny B]

N.O.R.F;819345 wrote:

^what I'm asking you is, if you're not convinced, why the rejection?

And there we've the fundamental difference in the rationale, accepting everything you're not convinced about leaves you at the mercy of gullibility, is that what you're asking us to do? .

In my view , the non-convincing and the non-existent look very much alike.

 

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.

 

Carl Sagan

[sharma-arke451]

Garnaqsi;819695 wrote:

Even scientific-wise lack of evidence justifies out-right rejection unless there is a credible explanation as to why the evidence is missing.

 

this statement needs evidence.

[N.O.R.F]

Garnaqsi;819695 wrote:

Thanks for the elaboration. Well, I would argue I’m entitled to non-ambivalent take simply because of the lack of evidence. Consider what happens at a court of law between a claimant with no evidence and a defendant with no affirmative defence. Denial suffices on the defendant’s part. Even scientific-wise lack of evidence justifies out-right rejection unless there is a credible explanation as to why the evidence is missing. Moreover, if we were to require for one to take ambivalent position on all things with no evidence offered on their part -- as we sure have to be consistent -- that would open epistemological Pandora's box. It would be ridiculously impractical.

 

So, essentially, your rejection is based on nothing more than doubt whilst at the same time leaning towards the opposite of religion without considering the same evidence based proof you claim to have looked for in making your decision to reject.

 

Johnny,

 

You're not convinced because you simply didn't bother

[AYOUB]

Hoos udhaadhac.

[AYOUB]

Johnny B and the rest, just in case you missed it, the request for the kinds of you to explain what you believe - instead of quoting people whom might have never came across Islam - applies to you as well. Unless what you so-called Atheists believe in is the collection of the quoted soundbites from *people like you love chuck about in strange ironicly cultish manner; then it is about time you tell the SOL crowd whats under obssessive rhetoric coming from those who claim they are Godless. Is Dr Idriss (May Allah give him healthy life and pardon his sins) correct in the piece bellow? Or are you not among those who belong to the Atheist religion? *

 

There's no point of repeating your issues - with Qur'an for example - which you have clearly showed you lack basic understanding. If fact I'm not surprised you have such issues. *Please be kind enough and use the time and effort to tell what's in your heart and souls ( yes you do have one).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheists are Polytheists!

 

Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris

 

Manar As-Sabeel V 1, No. 6, p.9. *Jumada 1413 H. December 1992.

 

An atheist is said to be someone who denies the existence of the Creator. *This is a good definition, provided that we mean by it that the creator whose existence they deny is the only God ofreligion, the one true Creator. *Otherwise, atheists do believe in creators, albeit they do not recognize them under that appellation. *This is so because atheists, in their endeavor to find alternatives to God for explaining the existence of the temporal things we see around us, invent some imaginary entities and give them some of the essential attributes of God.

 

*Thus materialistic atheists used to believe in matter as such a god. *But this matter-god of theirs is not the matter with which we are familiar in our daily life; it is something that is eternal and everlasting, hence the statement, which used to masquerade as a scientific fact, “matter is neither created nor destroyed.” *But when you ask them to point this eternal and everlasting matter you discover that they are only chasing a will-o’-the-wisp. *The matter that we can recognize and to which we can point is matter in the form of the large heavenly bodies, in the form of earthly physical things, and in the form of the constituents of these things: molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, photons, etc., none of which is eternal. *Atheistic materialists used to believe in an eternal matter behind all such material things which come and go, but the advent of the “big bang” theory shattered all hopes in the existence of such matter. *Scientists now believe that everything—matter, energy, even space and time—had a beginning. *In fact they speak about a moment of creation of all these things.

 

*Another such imaginary god is Nature (with a capital N). *The nature with which we are familiar is the totality of natural things. *But when we are told that Nature does this or that, as atheists are prone to say, we find ourselves at a loss. *What is this Nature? *If it be the one we know, how can it cause or create itself? *But if it is something else, then we want to have proof of its existence.

 

*The same applies to Evolution. *Now evolution, scientifically speaking, is “[t]he gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primary organisms…” *(Concise Science Dictionary) *But the Evolution of the atheists is not this process; rather it is the agent which brings about the process. *Only in this unscientific and imaginary sense can evolution take the place of God; otherwise, a believer who accepts the theory of evolution can easily reconcile it with his belief in God, by saying that that process is itself the work of the Creator.

 

There are, on the other hand, atheists who say in a misleading way that they believe in God; but on inspection, their god turns out to be the god of the atheists. *I am referring here to people like Einstein, who is said by some to have been a believer, but whose god was in fact not God the Creator in whom we all believe. *Einstein declared that he believed in “Spinoza’s god,” i.e. in a god that is identical with the universe, and who does not thus interfere from outside in its working. *“The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation, “says Einstein, “cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events.”

 

Thus all atheists are in fact polytheists, or mushriks. A *mushrik, according to Islam, is one who believes in a god or gods besides, or to the exclusion of, the one true God, or who worships such gods, even if he also worships the true God. That perhaps is the reason why the Qur’an never talks about atheists, but only about mushriks (or polytheists).

There you have it, *c'on folks time to drop the posturing and to share your explanation *of life, its purpose and*what surrounds us.

[Archdemos]

Its in the interest of atheists (a religious cult) to say there is no creator, that his/her existence is a mere accident. With hearts darkened and hardened by sin, they hope and pray that there is none to hold them to account. A tragic irony.