bible,vedas,buddhistsripture foretold the coming of prophet muhammed as the last and final prophet/messenger to the whole mankind[hindus,christians,buddhists,jews,chinese,persians....etc ] to guide..please read quran with open mind aand using reasoning!please reply to this one and my previous posts.....science can not challenge quran but agree to all statements made by quran in respect of material world/universe....syed.liyakhatali2yahoo.com
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
i think your belief in islam is a tab bit too blinded. i also believe to each his own so i will not try convincing you otherwise. but, i cannot possibly have a reasonable discussion with you when you make claims like you have above.
gregpek ..where did you come up with this ?! seriously ?? is mohammed a threat to you to make him fake ??
just debate facts about religions dont make the person don't exist .. that doesn't mean anything still they believe there is a god because they want to .. they in their mind thought and made a decision that there is a god just they like mohammed he did exist and they want to follow his lead because everyone need a guider .. that is why we have leaders to countries .. may be you dont need them but other people would destroy the world without them
Sara, I know that people like you tend to defend their religion to the teeth.
However wouldn't you want to see the best arguments against your religion,
I think Greg is presenting you with a nice opportunity to learn more about the origins of your religion from a non Muslim perspective.
Would you miss it just because he MUST be wrong?
Try studying your religion(especialy those points raised) and then come back and debate seriously greg.
first i wanna clear one thing :
re-interpreting doesn't mean changes in quran .. i can elaborate on that if you need explanation
but i will give an example : you see how the mona lisa painting from every angle you look at it .. it seems she is looking your way ??
quran fits multiple generations from many angles of it .. that is why there is re-interpretation .. it is mesmerizing
now they have solid interpretations to all the angles of it .. that is what they hope to accomplish in the interpretations
.....
now the questions :
- where is the coin that has the name muhammed that you are talking about ?
- over the years no one cracked and said that muhammed was just a name on a coin ?
- give me names of people who around that time that this coin existed said its just a name on a coin ? cause no lie can be carried for that long and no one say something cause they are blinded and weak (too pathetic don't you think ..i would say something if i was alive at the time)
......
muslims have lot of evidence and they stored lot of things over the years .. they can tell you names of people now alive who their family trees goes back till "Ali bin abu talib " which he is the prophet Muhammed's uncle
.....
you have to dig deeper and try harder to crack them .. don't make atheist seem desperate
its for your own good .. try other things
I think you need a smoke check on how closely science corroborates anything the Quran says. First, there is a lot of evidence that points to most "prophets" as fictonal people.
Let's look at it rationally. Anything that claims a miracle in itself is rather unbelievable. Science has studied the world intensely for over the last millenia, and the true state of the universe seems to be in many ways quite predictable, working on natural laws that don't change. The very nature of a miracle, such as the prophet muhammed riding a donkey into the sky, completely defies the laws of nature. Therefore even someone with no scientific understanding what so ever, working purely from experiences of normal life, should indeed not be inclined to believe such... mythology. Science could only further prove the impossibility of a donkey being able to fly by the laws of aerodynamics. But scientific back up is completely unnescassary, as we all know donkeys don't fly.
Which leads to the logical conclusion that muhammed, as portrayed in the Quran, was not a real person. He may in fact have been a real person with, I guess for his time and climeate, progressive ideas. But after his death people turned him into a Legend by adding mythology, to make his existence and ideas seem more important, divine, morally superior.
However... despite religions tendency to dig it's claws into the ground and resist change, true morality is not defined by any god. Like most things it tends to abide by a strange and ambiguous natural law. People try to live peaceabley, protecting themselves and loved ones, fulfilling their life with as much pleasure and fulfillment as possible. And oddly enough as we progress along the evolution of morality in a world with an ever increasing populace trying to fulfill those natural desires... We sometimes realize our forfather's answers on morality seem inadequate. For example how Muhammed in his myths married a 9 year old child. By today's standard we would consider such a person a pedophile, and rightly so. And we should look at such things with disgust. We should allow all people equal choice in life decisions. It would not be fair for one person to force another to do as they want. Which is why we should also look with disgust on the arranged marriage system, where children are forced to marry people for socio-political reasons. Anyway... I'm tired of writing on morality.
In closing, you worship mythological pedophile. Kudos.
Hi Travis,
here are some responses to your post.
Firstly, what you said about miracle and science is unacceptable. Because miracle by definition means an event which defies natural laws. So then to come back and say that a particular miracle (say the prophet's journey to heaven - not on a donkey - but yes an animal) defies natural laws is baseless.
Secondly, even if you say that a stated miracle is nothing but a cooked up story, it doesn't make the person who claimed that to be a product of fiction himslef. The prophet could have been a real man who made up these stories for whatever ends.
Thirdly, your take on morality. From a believers of point of view, we decide good and bad based on what our scripture tells us. What do you base your morality on? Can you give me a definition of morality, which all people of reason (you don't have to satisfy believers because they are bigoted in your opinion) can agree on?
I think i can prove my point when you try to answer that question. Expecting to hear from you soon.
Hi Valiya,
You have a good reasoning and questions.
However, I understood from Travis point of view about miracles that you cannot state that you are a rational and a person of science if you claim at the same time that miracles are true. It is a total contradiction, and I'm always enraged when I meet people claiming they are logical, partial and have scientific method of thinking and at the same time say they believe in things that ''defies natural laws'' like you say about miracles.
I'm also pragmatic about the idea whether Mohamed is a true person or not. If he was, I believe he was the greatest manipulative politician and have the most effective war strategy based on an religious ideology based on fear and subjugation of all people who are non-muslims. If we never existed, well, someone somewhere had done a tremendous job inventing such a character like Mohamed.
Thirdly, I don't know if you know but... morality in its whole definition can derives either from a religious code of conduct than a philosophical code of ethics, conduct or way of thinking. Did you ever read about Aristote or Voltaire? Their arguments were not based on religion and yet, they managed to develop the way of thinking of today's progressive society.
In the end, I really believe that it's no use for atheists to debate with religious people, especially about religion. In the end, each party will always say ''But hey, that's my opinion.''. That is why, as an ex-muslim, I stopped debating with muslims because I have been like them, stuck in my own castle of ideas and set of thinking. I really believe that if what you believe in makes you happy as a person, then great! Good for you! But (this message is for Syed) don't barge in other people's circles to try to contradict them or prove you're right. To me, when a person does that, it's just showing that they feel insecure about their own ideas. Live your life like you want to and leave Atheists like us alone, okay?
No hatin' :)
Cheers, boys and gals.
Hi Mmesatie,
Thanks for the post. Here are some of my takes on your points.
You said: “you cannot state that you are a rational and a person of science if you claim at the same time that miracles are true. It is a total contradiction,…”
I think we have certain basics to clarify before we start. When we are in disagreement over a subject, our personal views and prejudices have got no value. We have to speak only in terms of evidences.
You seem to have assumed that your premise, which is “Nothing exists outside of empirical scientific reality”, is a universally accepted maxim. It is not. That is the reason we are debating here.
Therefore, when I say miracles are possible, I can bring you a proof for it. A miracle which you can put to test. I am not asking you to take a leap of faith, to blindly believe in myths. If my proof fails, my argument fails. If it stands, my argument is valid. Simple. My proof is the Quran.
(However, as this thread is dedicated to the topic of morality, if you wish to start a serious debate on the topic of Quran’s miracle, then I request that we start a new thread.)
You said: “I'm also pragmatic about the idea whether Mohamed is a true person or not. If he was, I believe he was the greatest manipulative politician and have the most effective war strategy based on an religious ideology based on fear and subjugation of all people who are non-muslims. If we never existed, well, someone somewhere had done a tremendous job inventing such a character like Mohamed.”
Once again, you will have to give your proofs. I can say whatever I want about anybody I like. That has no value at all, unless evidence is provided.
You said: “Thirdly, I don't know if you know but... morality in its whole definition can derives either from a religious code of conduct than a philosophical code of ethics, conduct or way of thinking. Did you ever read about Aristote or Voltaire? Their arguments were not based on religion and yet, they managed to develop the way of thinking of today's progressive society.”
If you had read all the other posts in this thread, you would know that my main contention is that deriving morality from reasoning and rationality would be extremely relative. It would not provide you with a sound set of values for you to live by. As this thread is so tediously about those points, I don’t wish to repeat myself here. But if you can raise specific questions, may be we can debate.
You said: “No hatin' :)”
Not at all. I firmly believe that we can differ strongly with mutual respect, love and admiration too.