plekhanov Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 <snip cut and pasted sophist apologism> It would seem we have a bit of an intractable problem here when I read the statement ‘the Qu'ran DOES NOT conflict with ESTABLISHED modern science.’ I interpreted it as saying that there isn’t a single statement in the Koran which contradicts scientific knowledge. You on the other hand seem to interpret it as saying there isn’t a single statement in the Koran which given sufficient reinterpretation and enough tortuous paragraphs of sophist arguments put together by professional apologists a believing Muslim can’t fool themselves into thinking is compatible with modern scientific knowledge. So long as our interpretations of the disputed statement are so incompatible this discussion really isn’t going to go anywhere. Though just out of interest how do you (not your cut and paste apologists but you) reconcile this verse: 7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? With the fact that hundreds of other species have been observed engaging in homosexual behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Rzaa, lighten up. The site is very obviously a spoof site, and I (quite obviously) posted it as a bit of fun. *rolls eyes* Yes it’s most amusing though personally I find the Uncyclopedia entry on your sky pixie’s holy book much funnier. Then your understanding of science is incorrect. There is nothing in science that can prove there is no diety. I don't like saying it, but there isn't. Also having that view is just as much faith as beleiving in a deity. Science might not be able to prove that there is no deity of any description as proving negatives tends to be rather difficult, I would question anybody who believes in their deity on these grounds though why they don’t also believe in Thor, the tooth fairy, leprechauns and basically every supernatural being every imagined. What science can and has shown us though is that positive claims made by assorted religions the ‘snakes eat dust’ (Christianity and Judaism) that astronomical bodies visible to the naked eye are lamps put there by allah to make the sky pretty and so has something to throw at devils (Islam) are nonsense, so a belief in those religions is incompatible with a scientific world view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downtroad Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 What science can and has shown us though is that positive claims made by assorted religions the ‘snakes eat dust’ (Christianity and Judaism) that astronomical bodies visible to the naked eye are lamps put there by allah to make the sky pretty and so has something to throw at devils (Islam) are nonsense, so a belief in those religions is incompatible with a scientific world view. Different religions and even different people within religions read those texts in different ways. There are Christians a who believe the World is 6000 years old, but there are also people who say that part of the bible is a metaphor. You will have to be a whole lot more specific than that. What it all boils back to is if there is a deity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 There is a school of thought that the Bible in its origin is not in fact a single book at all. That it is in fact the 'index' for a far greater set of books, much as we have with large encyclopeadias etc. This larger set of books is lost to us, or is concealed from us. This is why it does not seem a cohesive text, because it isnt. It is some ancient scribes attempt to make sense of something that is nonsense without the other volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rzaa Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 It would seem we have a bit of an intractable problem here when I read the statement ‘the Qu'ran DOES NOT conflict with ESTABLISHED modern science.’ I interpreted it as saying that there isn’t a single statement in the Koran which contradicts scientific knowledge. Why would you interpret that? its not a verse from the Quran. You on the other hand seem to interpret it as saying there isn’t a single statement in the Koran which given sufficient reinterpretation and enough tortuous paragraphs of sophist arguments put together by professional apologists a believing Muslim can’t fool themselves into thinking is compatible with modern scientific knowledge. Dr. Keith Moore, Joe Leigh Simpson, Gerald C. Goeringer are they Muslims? So long as our interpretations of the disputed statement are so incompatible this discussion really isn’t going to go anywhere. Though just out of interest how do you (not your cut and paste apologists but you) reconcile this verse: 7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? With the fact that hundreds of other species have been observed engaging in homosexual behaviour. Fact? according to? "sophist arguments put together by professional" homosexual "apologists"? This like fact like the "fact" that homosexuality is genetic? theory put forward by a homosexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downtroad Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 This like fact like the "fact" that homosexuality is genetic? theory put forward by a homosexual. I think you will find many thousands of Scientists, hetrosexual, homosexual and maybe even a transexual have all worked on that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rzaa Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 What science can and has shown us though is that positive claims made by assorted religions the ‘snakes eat dust’ (Christianity and Judaism) that astronomical bodies visible to the naked eye are lamps put there by allah to make the sky pretty and so has something to throw at devils (Islam) are nonsense, so a belief in those religions is incompatible with a scientific world view. Lamp: somthing that gives light. The original language of the Quran is in Arabic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rzaa Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I think you will find many thousands of Scientists, hetrosexual, homosexual and maybe even a transexual have all worked on that fact. worked on it, have they proven it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 The Quran is the full, unaltered word of God.no it isn't, it was written by a man “I hate a good many things, but I suffer them all the same.” Stannis Baratheon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Different religions and even different people within religions read those texts in different ways. There are Christians a who believe the World is 6000 years old, but there are also people who say that part of the bible is a metaphor. You will have to be a whole lot more specific than that. In what way do I need to be ‘more specific than that’? The bible is littered with positive claims which we know to be false (not to mention internal contradictions) as such any belief system based upon that source material is incompatible with science (either that or it’s incompatible with the bible in which case you have to ask what exactly are they basing it on?). What it all boils back to is if there is a deity. Not it doesn’t, just because you can’t prove that there is no deity of any kind it doesn’t mean that you can’t show that all the contradictory theistic world views out there to be invalid on a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.