Religion, what's the point?

Commadus said:
Tackle the big issues, this issue re religion people are always going to disagree - you think you will convert anyone to your values and beliefs or do you feel that if you win the argument against a person of faith you can bask in your own warm glow of self righteousness the same warm glow of self righteousness you condemn that religious people have.

I'm not knocking anyone be they atheists or religious but it seems too many are hung up on being right. Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Click to expand...

I agree there are some people who are over the top in their hatred of religion but for most its not for the warm glow as you put it but the actual real world effects religion has on society. It shapes laws, starts wars and does a whole lot of ugly shit. Its not all bad but it is all wooo wooo.
 
Just to make sure I understood what you said, religion (generic term as you use it) is keeping millions of people, mostly women, down. At best it's a very sloppy statement, at worst it's incredibly ignorant, indicative of a /r/atheism ripoff.
 
I'm not downplaying the destructive effect theocracies have on millions. I'm questioning your blanket dismissal, which just comes off as lazy. If we're bashing modern theocracies hand me an axe.
 
So what's your argument here? That religions do some good? Even then, it's a load of bollocks really. In the western world it's the religions that often oppose any progressive moves. During the gay marriage debates in the UK recently the only reason to be opposed to them was the religious argument. They're outdated, brutish, discriminative, divisive tools. They serve no real purpose in modern society and the sooner they piss off the better.
 
Revan said:
Science didn't mistake a planet for a dwarf planet. Science added a new category, dwarfs planet and NASA decided that Pluto is more like a dwarf planet than like the other planets. It's just a classification, not a theory. I repeat, it is just an arbitrary classification.

In Quran it's written that it is perfect and it is the word of God. It also challenges humans to find a single mistake on it (am I correct) and it says that every word on it is true. So yes, Quran must not make a mistake in any part of it, or else it is entirely discredited.
Click to expand...

You are discrediting an entire book, that transformed a nation btw, because you failed in your attempt to understand its 'scientific' remarks in a different language? I don't think you are being fair to it and to yourself.

You're missing the point of what it is. Its challenge is not about 'scientific' phenomenons or deciphering mathematical patterns (as some are trying to do today) because Arabs then had no way to prove or disprove such things hence there is no point in that. If a verse has some 'scientific' reference then try and understand how it is described in Arabic within the boundaries of language, knowledge and culture of the time. But the challenge is:

Language. Arabs are very proud people of their language and it's very sophisticated. The reason for this 'high level' is that they were isolated linguistically between Two Empires - Persia and Rome. This allowed them to refine their language to very high degree. They used to gather in Mecca and exchange poems to challenge each other and perhaps to gloat. Back then one could memorise 1000 verse poem after hearing it just once. Another proof is the ten poems hung up on the Kaaba. Those were poems they were proud of in terms quality, style etc. Note: They didn't build pyramids or any wonder but simply words or language. That's was their wonder.

[2:24] And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.

Challenge 1: You Arabs, who are very good at your language, bring a surah like this. There are surahs with only 4 verses btw and they couldn't. So they started to attack his (Mohammed) character etc. but that's another story. Note also the word Quran (derived from: Read - past tense) never existed in Arabic before Mohammed 'spoke' those words. To the then Arab, who is far more eloquent than I would ever be, that word (Quran) would have at least grabbed his attention.

Challenge 2 we have:

[4:83] Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.

Again remember the audience and their culture of poetry and story telling. A trait of a story teller who is telling the truth is that the story is 'water tight'. We all know that if someone is lying we would find many holes in their story and contradictions especially when it's a 23 years story. Contradictions here are not just about content but also syntax. If one word was out of place or misused, Arabs then would've jumped on it. I'm talking about things like grammar, melody, rhyme etc.

The simplest way I could think to describe it would be like Shakespeare describing De mundi systemate to 5 year olds. For example when it says:

[36:40] It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming.

We know planets don't swim but we can associate with running and swimming. It's describing how planets 'float' in space, relationship between night and day etc. Remember the audience here. There were not cosmologists and didn't have the knowledge of the Egyptians but desert dwellers and travellers whose use of the stars were predominantly for navigation and soothsaying.

In a nutshell:
1. The Quranic style of delivery, structure and syntax. (Think poetry to put it simply)
2. Arabs and their language and culture at the time.
3. 20 odd years for the whole Quran to be revealed not all in one go. It's an education. A progressive spiritual and intellectual purification.
4. What's 'timeless' about it is the spiritual human conditioning. Not about 'scientific' observations of which we give ourselves the luxury to credit and discredit upon discovery of newer data. If it had nothing to say about the cosmos, it wouldn't have an affect on an earthling's quality of life on this planet; which is its main goal.

Bonus question: Why didn't Mohammed have extraordinary visual miracles like Noah with his ark, Moses in splitting seas, locus etc. and Jesus in raising the dead, speaking in his infancy etc.?

Feel free to present those 'right now and maybe changed later scientific facts'.
 
Silva said:
Shakespeare didn't pretend that his poems were the unchangeable word of god, everyone acknowledges that it's fiction.
Click to expand...

That's a different topic sorry, no game.

Point here is judging a text written in a different language for its 'scientific' inaccuracies.
 
Abbsta said:
You are discrediting an entire book, that transformed a nation btw, because you failed in your attempt to understand its 'scientific' remarks in a different language? I don't think you are being fair to it and to yourself.

You're missing the point of what it is. Its challenge is not about 'scientific' phenomenons or deciphering mathematical patterns (as some are trying to do today) because Arabs then had no way to prove or disprove such things hence there is no point in that. If a verse has some 'scientific' reference then try and understand how it is described in Arabic within the boundaries of language, knowledge and culture of the time. But the challenge is:

Language. Arabs are very proud people of their language and it's very sophisticated. The reason for this 'high level' is that they were isolated linguistically between Two Empires - Persia and Rome. This allowed them to refine their language to very high degree. They used to gather in Mecca and exchange poems to challenge each other and perhaps to gloat. Back then one could memorise 1000 verse poem after hearing it just once. Another proof is the ten poems hung up on the Kaaba. Those were poems they were proud of in terms quality, style etc. Note: They didn't build pyramids or any wonder but simply words or language. That's was their wonder.

[2:24] And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.

Challenge 1: You Arabs, who are very good at your language, bring a surah like this. There are surahs with only 4 verses btw and they couldn't. So they started to attack his (Mohammed) character etc. but that's another story. Note also the word Quran (derived from: Read - past tense) never existed in Arabic before Mohammed 'spoke' those words. To the then Arab, who is far more eloquent than I would ever be, that word (Quran) would have at least grabbed his attention.

Challenge 2 we have:

[4:83] Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.

Again remember the audience and their culture of poetry and story telling. A trait of a story teller who is telling the truth is that the story is 'water tight'. We all know that if someone is lying we would find many holes in their story and contradictions especially when it's a 23 years story. Contradictions here are not just about content but also syntax. If one word was out of place or misused, Arabs then would've jumped on it. I'm talking about things like grammar, melody, rhyme etc.

The simplest way I could think to describe it would be like Shakespeare describing De mundi systemate to 5 year olds. For example when it says:

[36:40] It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming.

We know planets don't swim but we can associate with running and swimming. It's describing how planets 'float' in space, relationship between night and day etc. Remember the audience here. There were not cosmologists and didn't have the knowledge of the Egyptians but desert dwellers and travellers whose use of the stars were predominantly for navigation and soothsaying.

In a nutshell:
1. The Quranic style of delivery, structure and syntax. (Think poetry to put it simply)
2. Arabs and their language and culture at the time.
3. 20 odd years for the whole Quran to be revealed not all in one go. It's an education. A progressive spiritual and intellectual purification.
4. What's 'timeless' about it is the spiritual human conditioning. Not about 'scientific' observations of which we give ourselves the luxury to credit and discredit upon discovery of newer data. If it had nothing to say about the cosmos, it wouldn't have an affect on an earthling's quality of life on this planet; which is its main goal.

Bonus question: Why didn't Mohammed have extraordinary visual miracles like Noah with his ark, Moses in splitting seas, locus etc. and Jesus in raising the dead, speaking in his infancy etc.?

Feel free to present those 'right now and maybe changed later scientific facts'.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation.

Anyway, I completely disagree. In 4:83 it doesn't say that the challenge is for poetry, it says 'Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.' The moment we find contradictions - not exclusively in the structure of poem - well we have a contradiction, which mean that the book is not perfect. I gave a lot of scientific errors in the last page and both Danny and MoneyMay although promised to find evidence that they aren't scientific errors, have yet to reply for it.

Finally, because you say that Quran challenges had to do with poetry, now we should ignore all scientific errors in Quran? If that is the case, why Quran bothered anyway with some scientific explanations. Also, it says that Quran is a book for all humanity in all times, not for Arabs in Mohammed's time, so I don't think that the argument 'it explained some things only for that time, because people were in that time' is not valid considering that Quran is an 'omniscient' book forever.
 
Revan said:
Thanks for the explanation.

Anyway, I completely disagree. In 4:83 it doesn't say that the challenge is for poetry, it says 'Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.' The moment we find contradictions - not exclusively in the structure of poem - well we have a contradiction, which mean that the book is not perfect. I gave a lot of scientific errors in the last page and both Danny and MoneyMay although promised to find evidence that they aren't scientific errors, have yet to reply for it.
Click to expand...

Please take it slow.

Yes the first thing (level 1) is the quality of language as highlighted in my post above. Then (level 2) how 'tight' that story is, in flow. Not the story itself (I'll come to that). Does that make sense?

For example: If I start talking about a boy wearing united kit. Then few years later I mentioned the same boy wearing a city kit. Boom, I failed level 2 test regardless if that boy existed or not. Clear?

I wil look at those questions and if I have something to contribute then I will, otherwise I will also say so.

Revan said:
Finally, because you say that Quran challenges had to do with poetry, now we should ignore all scientific errors in Quran? If that is the case, why Quran bothered anyway with some scientific explanations. Also, it says that Quran is a book for all humanity in all times, not for Arabs in Mohammed's time, so I don't think that the argument 'it explained some things only for that time, because people were in that time' is not valid considering that Quran is an 'omniscient' book forever.
Click to expand...


No. I wasn't saying that at all. What I was saying is one has to bear in mind the style of language of that specific time so one can understand its true meaning and what is its equilivant in today's language and most importantly if it was translated from a non latin based language.

In Italian the word Negro was neutral until of late. Now it's considered an offensive word. But if I read book written 100 years ago littered with that word, I can't say the culture at the time was racist.

The Quran was addressed to the Arabs so therefore it would be in Arabic but the message is for mankind. You could ask, as I did when I was a kid, why in Arabic? Part of the answer is in my bonus question above.

A quick example: Arabs would use the same word for ground and earth. Or would say.. my head gone white referring to his hair. One has to understand how other people use their language.

So to clarify: the message is not exclusive to Arabic (remember prev Abrahimic prophets). They spoke different languages but it's the same message.
 
Silva said:
Not a different topic. You can't compare religious texts to works of fiction without admitting that they're both fictitious.
Click to expand...

What works of fiction? Shakespeare? he is a man. I wasn't talking about his work but his style of delivery.

De mundi systemate? sorry I didn't realise it was fiction. Again, that wasn't the point. The point was telling a story to which the audience were ignorant to.
 
How's it going Silva, still trolling around? Are you actually unemployed, if you don't mind me asking?
 
Mihajlovic said:
How's it going Silva, still trolling around? Are you actually unemployed, if you don't mind me asking?
Click to expand...

I'm freelancing at the moment, which is close enough to unemployed. Even though that's not what you were getting at, obviously.

Are you actually going to make any worthwhile contribution to this thread or are you just going to carry on popping in every now and again to tell us how awesome you are? Because frankly, it's getting tiring now. If this is the level that you and Mockney discussed religion at, I can see how he got the reputation of being a good poster and you didn't.

Abbsta said:
What works of fiction? Shakespeare? he is a man. I wasn't talking about his work but his style of delivery.

De mundi systemate? sorry I didn't realise it was fiction. Again, that wasn't the point. The point was telling a story to which the audience were ignorant to.
Click to expand...
Newton and religious works aren't comparable, Newtons work has been peer reviewed and found to be quite a good contribution, the same can't be said of religious works.
 
Silva said:
Newton and religious works aren't comparable, Newtons work has been peer reviewed and found to be quite a good contribution, the same can't be said of religious works.
Click to expand...

Err I think you misread my post, sorry for not writing it better.

Please allow me to rephrase:

It's like ....Shakespeare describing Jungle Book to 5 year olds.

It's about the audience who are desert dwellers who never saw a jungle in their lives. But since that verse was about planetary objects hence Newton's work. Is that clearer now?
 
Abbsta said:
Err I think you misread my post, sorry for not writing it better.

Please allow me to rephrase:

It's like ....Shakespeare describing Jungle Book to 5 year olds.

It's about the audience who are desert dwellers who never saw a jungle in their lives. But since that verse was about planetary objects hence Newton's work. Is that clearer now?
Click to expand...

Okay, so if they audience was 6th Century Arabia, what relevance does the Quran have now?
 
Silva said:
So what's your argument here? That religions do some good? Even then, it's a load of bollocks really. In the western world it's the religions that often oppose any progressive moves. During the gay marriage debates in the UK recently the only reason to be opposed to them was the religious argument. They're outdated, brutish, discriminative, divisive tools. They serve no real purpose in modern society and the sooner they piss off the better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll leave you guys to it.
 
Silva said:
Okay, so if they audience was 6th Century Arabia, what relevance does the Quran have now?
Click to expand...

You already have a lighter why do you need to learn how to start a fire with sticks? Because without understanding some principles (for example ignition) my child wouldn't know how to build a lighter should I lose mine. And what often happens is the child will built a better lighter and so his child and so on.

With regards to the Quran, it's about a way of life (law) and salvation of your soul (spirituality). If one understands the principles, the newer laws would be better suited to us today. An example would be how drinking alcohol was banned. Muslims would tell you that some countries in the West are more 'Islamic' than some countries in the ME today. Things like equality, justice etc.
 
on the font thing, if you go to edit it, click the BB Code Editor (the little A on the top right corner) and give rid of the [size] code, it'll change it to average text.
 
Abbsta said:
You already have a lighter why do you need to learn how to start a fire with sticks? Because without understanding some principles (for example ignition) my child wouldn't know how to build a lighter should I lose mine. And what often happens is the child will built a better lighter and so his child and so on.

With regards to the Quran, it's about a way of life (law) and salvation of your soul (spirituality). If one understands the principles, the newer laws would be better suited to us today. An example would be how drinking alcohol was banned. Muslims would tell you that some countries in the West are more 'Islamic' than some countries in the ME today. Things like equality, justice etc.
Click to expand...

But that renders the Quran itself pointless, principles dictating societies at any given time are better reached through secular means than through religious ones. That's not to say that all secular ideas are good, just that books written hundreds and thousands of years ago should play no part in discussions about the world today.

The spirituality thing is fine, people can believe what they want, but the laws of the religious books should play no part in wider society and should certainly not be imposed on people who don't believe those religious books.
 
Silva said:
But that renders the Quran itself pointless, principles dictating societies at any given time are better reached through secular means than through religious ones. That's not to say that all secular ideas are good, just that books written hundreds and thousands of years ago should play no part in discussions about the world today.
Click to expand...
How are they better reached through secular means? In your opinion how long would it have taken us to reach this level today, secularly speaking?

I can tell you for sure, from history, that this book (Quran) transformed a bunch of no bodies (speaking from old world POV) in almost everything into world super power in a very short time. And if we both conduct a study group and give one the Quran and the other any 'secular' book you want, history tells us who would win. I can understand if you don't like part or all what's in it. But I find it difficult to ignore its influence and I am speaking secularly here.
Silva said:
The spirituality thing is fine, people can believe what they want, but the laws of the religious books should play no part in wider society and should certainly not be imposed on people who don't believe those religious books.
Click to expand...

See above.

The Quran is not imposing anything on you. It's a book. One has to distinguish between a book and its teacher. If a teacher is imposing something that you feel uncomfortable with or simply don't agree, then just avoid his tutorship. Unfortunately, one will always find people who enforce 'dogmatic' views regardless of the field.
 
Abbsta said:
I can tell you for sure, from history, that this book (Quran) transformed a bunch of no bodies (speaking from old world POV) in almost everything into world super power in a very short time.
Click to expand...

So, considering the Christian West has been in the ascendancy since the 1600s, you will then agree that the Bible is the superior book? No, of course you won't, because the entire premise you set out is completely retarded.
 
Abbsta said:
How are they better reached through secular means? In your opinion how long would it have taken us to reach this level today, secularly speaking?
Click to expand...
I don't know, it depends on who would have taken the power in place of the religions.

I can tell you for sure, from history, that this book (Quran) transformed a bunch of no bodies (speaking from old world POV) in almost everything into world super power in a very short time. And if we both conduct a study group and give one the Quran and the other any 'secular' book you want, history tells us who would win. I can understand if you don't like part or all what's in it. But I find it difficult to ignore its influence and I am speaking secularly here.
Click to expand...
See Nimics objection. Also, the second question doesn't make sense. Are you saying that people who read the Quran would be better than people who read Beyond Good and Evil? And what do you even mean by win?

The Quran is not imposing anything on you. It's a book. One has to distinguish between a book and its teacher. If a teacher is imposing something that you feel uncomfortable with or simply don't agree, then just avoid his tutorship. Unfortunately, one will always find people who enforce 'dogmatic' views regardless of the field.
Click to expand...

Not me personally, sure, I'm lucky enough to be living in 21st century England, but religions have always sought to (and still do) enforce their ideals on people who they have power over. See theocracies around the world and other countries where religion is prevalent in politics. The people in those countries can't avoid these tutors.
 
niMic said:
So, considering the Christian West has been in the ascendancy since the 1600s, you will then agree that the Bible is the superior book? No, of course you won't, because the entire premise you set out is completely retarded.
Click to expand...

1. I like how you associated ascendancy with the 'Christian West'. Not.
2. What are on you about? what premise? You have not said anything but calling me retarded. Your statement is mixed up. Think about it. Ascendancy since 1600 because of the Bible. Jesus was before Mohammed for 500 years. So maybe you meant to say 1100s? wait that's can't be right. You meant to say since 0 AD?

So I am asking you. What made you associate ascendancy with the 'Christian' West?

Edit: Sorry, you didn't call me retarted. I meant to say my premise.
 
Silva said:
I don't know, it depends on who would have taken the power in place of the religions.
Click to expand...
We could take a guess. But to be clear. What do you mean 'the religions'. The Abrahamic ones or all? Because there were some civilisations I would guess were outside the scope of the Abrahamic ones like the Mayans for example.

Silva said:
See Nimics objection. Also, the second question doesn't make sense. Are you saying that people who read the Quran would be better than people who read Beyond Good and Evil? And what do you even mean by win?
Click to expand...
TBH I have not read that book but thanks for the tip I will read it when I get a chance. Looking at its structure (from Wiki) I would say yes. Because the Quran doesn't just talk about after life, what's noble and abstract concepts it also deals with the daily running of a normal human being. Things like inheritance, revenge, war, peace, farming and so on. Depending on your intention and intellect it will teach you something.

That's what I mean by 'wining' ie survival on this earth. It's a complete system that cover abstract concept like what is God and practical daily stuff that a simpleton can benefit from.

Silva said:
Not me personally, sure, I'm lucky enough to be living in 21st century England, but religions have always sought to (and still do) enforce their ideals on people who they have power over. See theocracies around the world and other countries where religion is prevalent in politics. The people in those countries can't avoid these tutors.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that's lucky but if you're happy that's good.

I agree with you totally about the enforcing part. I couldn't avoid those tutors and I have scars on my hands to prove it (from corporal punishment) and I have every reason to hate them on so many levels but I never blamed the Quran. If anything it spurred me on to fight for the truth (improve the educational system) until the police came and threatened my family that they will put me 'behind the sun'.

---

Guys give me a break to reply to Raven's questions. Peace.
 
Abbsta said:
1. I like how you associated ascendancy with the 'Christian West'. Not.
2. What are on you about? what premise? You have not said anything but calling me retarded. Your statement is mixed up. Think about it. Ascendancy since 1600 because of the Bible. Jesus was before Mohammed for 500 years. So maybe you meant to say 1100s? wait that's can't be right. You meant to say since 0 AD?

So I am asking you. What made you associate ascendancy with the 'Christian' West?

Edit: Sorry, you didn't call me retarted. I meant to say my premise.
Click to expand...

I, personally, associate the ascendancy of the west with secularism and enlightenment, but many will claim it for Christianity. Whatever the reason, history has shown the recent ascendancy of the west. I picked the 1600s, but I could easily have picked earlier dates. The reason I picked the 1600s is that the century marks the absolute height of the Ottoman Empire. From there on out I don't think it's a very adventurous claim to say that the West is in the ascendancy in the world.

I wouldn't attribute it to the Bible, but then that is my point. The very premise is flawed. It was never meant as a serious argument, it was meant to show how meaningless your own argument about the Koran was.
 
Abbsta said:
We could take a guess. But to be clear. What do you mean 'the religions'. The Abrahamic ones or all? Because there were some civilisations I would guess were outside the scope of the Abrahamic ones like the Mayans for example.
Click to expand...
Guessing is pretty pointless, we don't know what would have happened when, we only (partially in same cases) know what did happen when. And I mean the religions which had power to either run or strongly influence civilizations. You would hardly consider the Mayans sacrifices as a good way of living.

TBH I have not read that book but thanks for the tip I will read it when I get a chance. Looking at its structure (from Wiki) I would say yes. Because the Quran doesn't just talk about after life, what's noble and abstract concepts it also deals with the daily running of a normal human being. Things like inheritance, revenge, war, peace, farming and so on. Depending on your intention and intellect it will teach you something.

That's what I mean by 'wining' ie survival on this earth. It's a complete system that cover abstract concept like what is God and practical daily stuff that a simpleton can benefit from.
Click to expand...
There's a plethora of books written on law, philosophy, ethics, the arts, agriculture and so on which are much more detailed in their concepts than any of the religious books. You don't need to consolidate everything into one book, there's more to the world than that.

I'm not sure if that's lucky but if you're happy that's good.

I agree with you totally about the enforcing part. I couldn't avoid those tutors and I have scars on my hands to prove it (from corporal punishment) and I have every reason to hate them on so many levels but I never blamed the Quran. If anything it spurred me on to fight for the truth (improve the educational system) until the police came and threatened my family that they will put me 'behind the sun'.
Click to expand...
It's pretty lucky, if I walked around Saudi Arabia talking about how religion is a load of bollocks I'd eventually have my head cut off.

Guys give me a break to reply to Raven's questions. Peace.
Click to expand...

It's alright, take all the time you need, the new alert system makes that much easier.
 
Revan said:
Verse 81:2 And when the stars fall, dispersing,
My interpretation is: Likely the Quran writers thought that meteoroids are stars
The scientific fact it contradicts is: Stars doesn't ever fall, they can go supernova and then became black holes, or they can become white dwarfs. but they can't fall

Verse 67:5 And We have certainly beautified the nearest heaven with stars and have made [from] them what is thrown at the devils and have prepared for them the punishment of the Blaze.
My interpretation is: One of the functions of the stars (other than guiding voyagers and making the sky more beautiful, according to a hadith) is to thrown them at devils.
The scientific fact it contradicts is: Star doesn't fall. Also, they are very big, could be million of times bigger than Earth. How they are used to thrown at devils?

Verse 16:68-69 - And your Lord inspired to the bee, "Take for yourself among the mountains, houses, and among the trees and [in] that which they construct.Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down [for you]." There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing for people. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.
My interpretation is: Bees eat fruits
The scientific fact it contradicts is: Bees doesn't feed on fruits. They feed on pollen and nectar from flowers.
Click to expand...


Sorry, didn't have time to answer this.. I'm quickly taking the first three to give you an example of how those "errors" are actually wrong interpretations, and they are far from being an "evidence" that proves the Quran was wrong.

The first two: The word "meteoroid" is just a name. You can make subcategories for anything you want, and name them differently, but it doesn't change the fact that the Quran used the name that was used for them at the time. It would be a stupid idea to think that the Quran should have called them "meteoroids" when nobody knew what a meteoroid is at the time, as they were simply calling them "stars".

Also, while you're trying your best to be as literal as it comes, I've read recently an article about the "Fall of the Soviet Union".. Can you please explain to me how the soviet union actually "fell"? I mean it can probably "disintegrate" or "cease to exist" but "fell"? How the hell did it "fall"?!

The third one: Althamarat does not mean fruit. Alfakiha in Arabic = Fruit. Althamarat means product (and it can be actually used for anything else, for example: The success was the "thamara" (=product) of my work.). For trees, any usable product of a tree (for eating) can be considered a "thamara".
 
I think your explanation for the first one is the same as a disbeliever's would be. They didn't know any better, and they couldn't know any better because the scientific knowledge didn't exist at the time. But you're going to have to do better than that when "they" actually means the eternally true words of a supreme divine being. Being as ignorant as can be expected for an early middle age culture doesn't cut it.

I suspect your answer would be that that's how it had to be said so that the primitive people would be able to understand it. But then it's not a very perfect book if it accepts ignorance and simply furthers it. It could have tried to explain that "stars" aren't all the same thing, but it didn't. It conveniently carried on their ignorance. Almost as if they were the ones who wrote it in the first place.
 
niMic said:
I think your explanation for the first one is the same as a disbeliever's would be. They didn't know any better, and they couldn't know any better because the scientific knowledge didn't exist at the time. But you're going to have to do better than that when "they" actually means the eternally true words of a supreme divine being. Being as ignorant as can be expected for an early middle age culture doesn't cut it.

I suspect your answer would be that that's how it had to be said so that the primitive people would be able to understand it. But then it's not a very perfect book if acknowledges ignorance and furthers it.
Click to expand...

Not knowing something is one thing, and using the name used by the people at the time to describe it is another thing.

If you go back in time and try to tell them something about those meteoroids, you will use the name stars too to make your point, because that's the name the people used at the time.. Like when you talk to little kids, even though you know more than the kids, you still use the kids vocabulary to try and explain things for them. Otherwise you're just a bad teacher.
 
Danny1982 said:
Sorry, didn't have time to answer this.. I'm quickly taking the first three to give you an example of how those "errors" are actually wrong interpretations, and they are far from being an "evidence" that proves the Quran was wrong.

The first two: The word "meteoroid" is just a name. You can make subcategories for anything you want, and name them differently, but it doesn't change the fact that the Quran used the name that was used for them at the time. It would be a stupid idea to think that the Quran should have called them "meteoroids" when nobody knew what a meteoroid is at the time, as they were simply calling them "stars".

Also, while you're trying your best to be as literal as it comes, I've read recently an article about the "Fall of the Soviet Union".. Can you please explain to me how the soviet union actually "fell"? I mean it can probably "disintegrate" or "cease to exist" but "fell"? How the hell did it "fall"?!

The third one: Althamarat does not mean fruit. Alfakiha in Arabic = Fruit. Althamarat means product (and it can be actually used for anything else, for example: The success was the "thamara" (=product) of my work.). For trees, any usable product of a tree (for eating) can be considered a "thamara".
Click to expand...

Good about third one. Read Quran in my native language and in Quran, don't know about Arabic so I guess it's just a lazy translation.

Doesn't agree with the stars one, simply because at the time when Quran was written there was no difference between Stars and other objects there. Heck, humanity didn't know that the Sun is a star. The problem is that Quran is a book for all the time, and yet seems to be as much ignorant as humanity of that time. It's good to say that there wasn't a word for meteorids but from the context it doesn't differentiate the objects that fall from the stars.

The missile for devils is as bizarre reasoning, so better to not even speak about it.

Important Edit: Is there a verse (of a hadith, I am not remembering correctly cause it has been some time last I read) that says that the function of stars is :1)to guide travelers, 2)missile for devils, 3)to make sky more beautiful. Even if we accept that meteorids are missile for devils (we know that they are not, of course) the problem is that we know that point 1 and arguably point 3 is about stars. So, here is a big contradiction, and something that lead me to believe that Quran didn't know that the 'falling stars' are not stars and made their 'functions' together.

Edit 2: Here is a video about this from a Muslim scholar


It's absolutely clear that Quran didn't know what Stars are. There is no explanation saying that there wasn't a word for meteorits considering that the Quran is making together the 'functions' of Stars and meteorits.

Edit 3: Actually, the other two stars functions are probably even more bizarre reasoning. 'Guiding travelers'. So Allah created hundred of billions of galaxies with hundred of billions of stars (if you prefer 6000 visible stars from both hemispheres) some billions of years ago, with the function of guiding travelers for about 4000-5000 years (now we use compasses in place of stars). The other problem is that if he created stars to guide travelers and to make the sky more beautiful, then why he created all of those stars 1000000000000000000+ while there are only about 6000 of them who guide the traveler and make sky more beautiful. Doesn't make sense at all.
 
Danny1982 said:
Not knowing something is one thing, and using the name used by the people at the time to describe it is another thing.

If you go back in time and try to tell them something about those meteoroids, you will use the name stars too to make your point, because that's the name the people used at the time.. Like when you talk to little kids, even though you know more than the kids, you still use the kids vocabulary to try and explain things for them. Otherwise you're just a bad teacher.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am a teacher, so I know a little bit about it. And one thing I do know is that you won't actually teach them anything if you only use their vocabulary. Or she's going to grow up thinking cows are moo's and stars fall from the skies.

Revan makes a good point. The Koran's knowledge should surely be eternal. If it isn't, then how can it be perfect? The scientific knowledge (or lack thereof) in the Koran is suspiciously similar to the scientific knowledge (or lack thereof) of the people in which the Koran first appeared. You read that as "God used their vocabulary", I read that as "they wrote an imperfect book".

There's certainly nothing in it that could ever convince me to become a Muslim. Which, when I think of it, puts me rather at a disadvantage from 7th century Arabs. Their scientific ignorance made it much easier for them to accept the truths of the Koran than it is for a 21st century Norwegian. This doesn't seem fair? Now I am likely going to hell just for using the faculties God bestowed upon me, and for being taught about all of the scientific progress that happened between the 7th and 21st centuries.
 
niMic said:
I, personally, associate the ascendancy of the west with secularism and enlightenment, but many will claim it for Christianity. Whatever the reason, history has shown the recent ascendancy of the west. I picked the 1600s, but I could easily have picked earlier dates. The reason I picked the 1600s is that the century marks the absolute height of the Ottoman Empire. From there on out I don't think it's a very adventurous claim to say that the West is in the ascendancy in the world.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining. I agree with you about the ascendancy of the West from around then and maybe up to now. But here is my problem. If you took out the Muslim contribution towards science (from that point) say, give or take, 800 years do you think we would be at the same level we are at now, higher or lower?


niMic said:
I wouldn't attribute it to the Bible, but then that is my point. The very premise is flawed. It was never meant as a serious argument, it was meant to show how meaningless your own argument about the Koran was.
Click to expand...

I wasn't defending the Bible. I replied to Ravens comment about the Quran. The events that transpired around them were not the same. Also the Muslim contribution, at least towards science, can not be ignored. Because if you do, there won't be many platforms for the ascendancy to start from. But you said you could have picked earlier dates hence my question above.
 
Danny1982 said:
Not knowing something is one thing, and using the name used by the people at the time to describe it is another thing.

If you go back in time and try to tell them something about those meteoroids, you will use the name stars too to make your point, because that's the name the people used at the time.. Like when you talk to little kids, even though you know more than the kids, you still use the kids vocabulary to try and explain things for them. Otherwise you're just a bad teacher.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Quran has not been written for only Arabs of 7-th century but for the humanity till the end of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.