Hold on now. All I've done is to respond to your points and offer a possible alternate explanation for things. I never, as far as I can remember, just say 'your wrong, and I'm right." and leave it at that.

If I've done this, I do apologize, I don't remember doing it.

I understand your point on science. It is a valid way to find the truth. I agree that human beings should use their abilities to find out about the universe, to discover cures for diseases, and learn how to invent new technologies. These are great things that can improve life for everyone. They can also be used destructively, if people are careless, as our current environmental problems demonstrate.

However, science is limited to those things we can observe with our senses, or with the tools we invent to observe things which are outside of the range of our senses. This leaves two major gaps in science namely:

1. What happens to us after we die?
2. How was the universe created?

Religion steps in and claims to have an answer. Does this make religion right? No it doesn't. However, it makes people interested in religion, because people want an answer.

So far, I think any scientist, or atheist would agree with me.

The big difference is in how we interpret religions. You assume that they are made up by people, trying to control others. As proof, you site the fact that many religions propose things which are contrary to what science has discovered. The Bible is a prime example of this phenomenon.

I, after having studied many of the worlds religions, have come to a different conclusion. I think there is a core of truth behind all religions, that of God and the afterlife, but that over time human beings manipulated the message, or changed the scriptures. This is why there are scientific errors in many religions.

This is why I found the Quran to be different. I did not see any errors in it. You may disagree with it's message of disbelievers being punished in the hereafter, but that does not make it wrong.

As for your interpretation of the Quran, I would like to correct your assumption that verses should be taken out of context. No educated Islamic scholar would take verses out of their context, because this leads to wrong conclusions. The Quran itself explains this:

"...Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom." (Quran 2:85)

It has to be taken as a whole. Those who take things out of context are actually committing a sin. It is a problem for religious people, and many of us do it, but that doesn't make it the fault of the religion, rather it is again the fault of the people.

Another example of this is regarding the Jews at the time of the Prophet:

"And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly." (5:13)

The Quran is criticizing the Jews for taking things out of context. This is a big warning for Muslims not to do the same thing. Unfortunately, many Muslims do it anyway, but it's not because the Quran tells them to.

Regarding the verses you sited which refer to killing. These have to be understood in the context of a war. The Quran does not give any justification to start a war, but it does give guidance on how to conduct one, once others have started it.

It's important to mention a little more context here too. The verses regarding warfare did not come until the Prophet was elected as leader of the city-state of Yathrib. The existing tribes of Yathrib (Medinah), became Muslims. They had treaties with the Jewish tribes who also lived there. These treaties were also ratified with the Prophet. This is important because it demonstrates that war is something which states and governments are charged with, not individuals.


"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers." (Quran 60:8)

This is the default position in Islam regarding any person. To treat them kindly and with justice.

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you..." (Quran 2:190)

The command to fight is mentioned in the context of someone attacking the Muslims. It is a defensive war.

Sorry to spend so much time off topic here. I just think it's a bad idea to accuse a religion of something which is not true. But at the same time, I understand why you might have gotten the wrong idea about Islam, there are plenty of Muslims who have this same misunderstanding.

As far as DNA, Quantum Physics, and a detailed description of gemstones, I think you understood me wrong. I never said that the Quran is a book of science, it is a book of guidance. My point was that it does not contradict science. It even has some descriptions of things which science has only recently been able to uncover.

I've only given one example of this, the description of mountains as 'pegs'. no one has yet commented on how Muhammad knew that the mountains acted as 'pegs' when there was no sonar equipment to determine such a thing.

There are more examples like this, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this one first.

As a religious text, it had to make sense to the people to whom it was first revealed. If it went on and on about Quantum Physics, the Arabs would have been bewildered, and no one would have even understood it.

However, I would bet that there is nothing that Quantum Physics will discover, which will clearly contradict the Quran. I would even bet that there are verses about quantum physics in there, but as a non-scientist, I probably would not recognize such a verse. I will search for such a verse for you...

Finally, I'd appreciate if you all would not accuse me of being a liar, or deluded, or trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I am here, sharing my perspective, as are you. No one is forcing you to come here and read my posts. Ultimately, I realize that I have to die one day, and unless you can guarantee that I won't go to Hell, or you can disprove the Quran, I plan to remain a believer.

No, it isn't
Yes it is
No, it isn't
Yes it is
No, it isn't
Yes it is
No, it isn't
Yes it is
No, it isn't
Yes it is
No, it isn't
Yes it is
No, it isn't
Yes it is
...

I have the answer: 42

All you do since pages is to quote from your disproven book, ignoring all arguments. And with every post you introduce more fakes and lies as if they were facts. It makes simply no sense anymore to go on with discussion.

On the contrary, it's you who have ignored my arguments.

The only 2 reasons I've brought quotes from the Quran, is first, because some people have tried to accuse Islam as promoting a violent worldview. I totally disagree with this interpretation, so I have brought verses of the Quran to support my position.

Second, I mentioned a few things about what would indicate that a book is divine in origin:

1.It would claim to be from God
2.It would not contradict itself.
3.It would not contradict reality.
4.It would reveal things to us, which we are not able to know.
5.It would reveal things to us, which we are able to find out later – make predictions.

I provided some verses which support point #5, about how mountains are described like 'pegs'. And how modern science has confirmed that the mountains do indeed reach far beneath the surface of the earth, and stabilize the surface.

Only Lukas commented on this very simple, testable argument, and offered a counter argument. He said that the statements in the Quran were like thos of Nostradamus. his is simply not true. The Quran makes simple statements about the nature of the Universe. If they were false, it would be obvious, but they always turn out to be true.

No one else has so far responded with a verse from the Quran which clearly contradicts modern science. To me, this supports my argument.

Regarding your argument that there is no proof for God, I responded that there is evidence, but it is not the type you're looking for. You want something that scientists can test in a lab. I don't think such proof for God exists. However, it would seem that God proved his existence through other methods.

First, He made it obvious that an intelligence exists behind the universe, which is based on laws and order, not chaos and random events.

Second, He revealed Himself to individuals and through books, like the Quran. In order to determine whether these books are telling the truth or not, one must actually read them. This goes for any theory in science too. I can't know if evolution is true or not, if I never read about it or study it.

About not being able to prove that God exists scientifically, this does not prove that He does not exist. 100 years ago, human beings had no proof that there were other planets in the galaxy. Does that mean that they did not exist? Now that we've found them, should we not assume that they were there even when we had no proof?

You accuse me of lying and ignoring arguments. Please indicate where I lied, or any argument which I ignored I will gladly respond.

Also, I think it should be mentioned that you have relied on a logical fallacy throughout this discussion. You have assumed that because the Quran threatens disbelievers with Hell, it therefore must not be true.

This is highly illogical. It sounds like: "I don't like hamburgers, therefor hamburgers must not exist. Also, anyone who believes in hamburgers is a liar."

All you did was to lead the discussion into a direction where you could start quoting your fairytale book.

Then you started telling me that i have never read it(which i did, that's why i have quoted my favourite sura), telling me that i have no clue about religion (which i have. I have understand the whole concept, not just the part that is comfortable for you), telling me how i have to read the qran (the way you do, and nothing else is allowed), telling me that i am too dumb to understand anything(i understand ways more than you from what i can read), and telling me more or less to shut up. Which i am not willing to.

And you tell me again and again that your unreal world is the real one.

World is made of real things. Religion in general and gods especially are not real. Unreal things doesn't have the slightest relevanve. And so does religion and gods. You can pray to any god you like, gravity remains, Natural laws stays the same.

And again and again and again and again i tell you i don't have to prove the non existance of something. It is you that has to proof the existance of your chimera. Real things have relevance. Unreal not. Religion is lie. HE is lie.

That's what i mean with you are not longer interested in discussion. You ignore all arguments. Everytime we agree that two and two is four, it lasts exact two postings until you start to say that two and two is five again.

And that's why i will not answer your questions anymore. I am not willing to lead the discussion by your wicked rules.

Give me a proof that your pink elephant exists, then let's talk again.

Yes, and so does about a zillion other holy books. Just because a book claims to be from god does not make it so. I could easily sit down and write a book claiming it is god's word.



It does contradict itself. And this is not much of a proof, either. Again, I could write a book that claims to be from god and does not contradict itself.



It does contradict reality. The Qur'an teaches a flat earth (many verses), that the sperm of the man originates in the area of the chest, not the testicles:

"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs," (Qur'an 86:5-7).

And there are many other examples.



It does not reveal any truthful thing that we don't already know. It may reveal "fantasy" things (things that are not from reality).



It does not. Give me one prediction from the Qur'an that has come true. Just one.

And to top all of this off, you in particular, Dooley, cannot even be sure of ANYTHING that you find in the Qur'an because YOU do not even read Arabic! In one of the other threads some GameStudio users that do read Arabic corrected your quotes. So, how can you even be sure that the Qur'an does not contradict itself, reveals a truth we could not know or predicts the future?

Now, that is a "low blow" and I admit that. I am fairly sure that the English translations give enough of the sense of the original Arabic that English speakers can understand the vast majority of the Qur'an. But I just wanted to bring up that point because it does give another level of uncertainty to the non-Arabic speaker/reader.

OK Tiles. I agree not to discuss this with you. I apologize if I've offended you, it was not my intent.

Dan, thank you for responding to my questions. Regarding point #2, you said the Quran contradicts itself. I have not found any passage which contradicts another. Please provide the verses of which you speak.

As for point #3, hmmm those do seem strange. I will admit that they do seem like pretty unscientific things. I will look into these, and get back to you regarding them.

Number 4 is a strange point also. I meant to say that it would explain things which we were unable to know from reality. Such as how the universe was created, and what happens to us after we die. Certainly these are not fantasy things, they are just things we cannot yet know.

To go a little further on this, it is the fact that we cannot know them which has motivated me to seek religion. Does that sound crazy? I think Pascal's wager is still a strong argument in favor of religion. The only problem with it, is that it doesn't indicate which religion.

Point five: I've provided one example, which is the verse about how mountains are described as 'pegs'. The depths of mountain 'roots' was an unknown phenomenon until very recently.

As far as Arabic is concerned, you're right to a degree. Some translations are off, and do not capture the whole meaning of the original. However, there are plenty of translations available, as well as dictionaries which explain the meanings of the root words. So far these have been sufficient to clear up any texts which have fallen under dispute.

The Arab speaker on the other thread did criticize my translation, but never bothered to provide a better one. I'm sure there probably is a better translation, but he didn't even indicate how the verse was wrong, he just said it was wrong. I can't spend too much time worrying about that kind of comment.

Again, I will have to do some study now, you've put me on the spot with point #3 above.

Do you know what the difference is between an atheist and a Christian? Or the difference between an atheist and a Muslim? It is only the rejection of one more god. The Christian has rejected all the gods out there except the Christian god. The Muslim has rejected all the gods out there except the Muslim god. There are millions of supposed gods. Does the Christian realize that he is only one god away from being an atheist? Does the Muslim realize this as well?

Pascals wager is not convincing. As you pointed out, it does not give evidence for which god is true. Therefore, the likelihood of being on the wrong end of the wager is immense.

Concerning point five: When you said "predictions" I thought you meant prophecy. Shouldn't the "mountain" thing be a part of point 4 (revealing things that they could not know at the time)? In any case, what the Qur'an says about mountains (according to what you have said) is not anything new, was a poetic way that many ancients described mountains and is so loose in how it is written that it is about as far from scientific as the east is from the west. This is the case for most "scientific" things in any ancient holy writing (the Bible included).

As far as contradictions, do some research. There are literally pages and pages of information on the subject.

As far as a book pointing out things we could not know (i.e. the afterlife, etc) I still maintain that I could write a book that states these things. Here is an example:

Know for certain that there is a life hereafter for the faithful. Those who bow their knee to me, the great God of gods, and have faith in my word, will enjoy an eternity of bliss in an eternal place of bliss. There the faithful who never defile my holy name will possess bodies of spirit that can travel to other realms yet unimagined by the minds of flesh. There the faithful will be transformed into beings of light whose radiance will fill the heavens. They will sprout wings and fly through the heavens swiftly! Their visage will be changed into a radiant beauty that will radiate colors making even the rainbow ashamed! Rejoice for your glory will be great in the kingdom to come! There you will ride ethereal pink unicorns!

But woe to the unbeliever and the defiled! They shall suffer an eternity at the hands of the purple minotaur, who shall gauge them with his cruel horns, prepared before the foundation of the world to torment those that stray from my ways! Woe to them! They shall suffer and be transformed into dung beetles, forced to collect dung for all time as they avoid the cruel hooves of the purple minotaur who seeks to crush them, yet they cannot die! Do not be unbelieving! Repent and ascent to glory!

Now, prove to me that there is not a purple minotaur created to cause suffering for the unfaithful. Prove to me that there are not pink unicorns for the riding pleasure of the faithful in eternity. Disprove anything that I had just written above. You see, the fake story I made above makes the claim that it is being spoken by a god and gives us information that we cannot know about. Perhaps I wrote this, thinking I was making a fake story, but perhaps some god took possession of me for a moment and caused me to write his or her sacred words! Can you prove otherwise?

Now, if you say that what I wrote above is not true and you base this on your book ... well .. that would prove nothing.

The word which you're translation calls a "drop emitted", clearly refers to semen, not sperm. Sperm are small cells which swim in the liquid we call semen.

A simple search on wikipedia illustrates that semen is a mixture of several fluids, which are produced by different glands in the lower abdomen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen

The testicles do produce the sperm, which is a part of the semen, but the fluids are produced by glands which lie deeper within the abdomen.

'between the back-bone and the ribs' indicates this area of the lower abdomen, and is therefor very accurate, and actually indicates that the writer of the Quran knew that semen was produced by more than one organ, giving an area rather than a specific location for its production.

I will look up those references you mentioned about a flat earth.

You have got to be kidding me. But let's examine this, OK? Let's look at the verse from the Qur'an again:



And let's focus in on one part:



According to this verse, a person is created by this drop that is emitted. According to you, the phrase "drop emitted" is semen and not sperm. Since this is what you said, let's replace the phrase "drop emitted" with your word "semen"
and read the verse again"



Does this sound scientifically correct to you? Is a man (or a woman) created by semen or by sperm (when it couples with a female egg)? Therefore, if your interpretation is correct, then this verse from the Qur'an is doubly incorrect.

Secondly, let's look at where the semen is produced in the male body. Here are some images to help out:



Do you see the area labeled Seminal Vesicle? It is behind and almost beneath the bladder. Do you see the bone toward the back? This is the Coccyx (tailbone). This bone is barely parallel with the Seminal Vesicle and is almost above it. Also, do you see any ribs anywhere near this area? None? Me neither. The Seminal Vesicle is not between the backbone and the ribs. An organ like the heart or the lungs are, but not any of the male reproductive organs.



Bull crap. And I think you know it. If I said that someone took a bullet between the backbone and the ribs, would you honestly think they got shot in the abdomen? No way! You would think heart and lungs ... the chest cavity.