Turn on thread page Beta

Religion is nothing more than a Demographic need? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    I certainly know a hell of a lot more about the science if nature than some illiterate moron from medieval Arabia.

    I certainly know a hell of a lot more about the science of nature than that ridiculously ill-informed book you called the Qur'an.

    I don't claim to be a genius, I don't claim to know everything. YOU are the one who claims that you are part of a religion that knows everything, and that everything is revealed in the Qur'an when it isn't.

    Gaps in human knowledge does not mean there is room for God. And it certainly doesn't count as evidence that God exists.

    Get real, you deluded idiot.
    A) I am appalled by the idea that Arabs are a bunch of desert nomads, who don't shower and shag sheep, incapable of any intelligent ability to present knowledge and science. A fair share of everything that modern science is firmed on comes from Islamoarabs, historically. You might want to look into what Ibn Hayyan, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Al-Khawarizmi, Ibn Rushd .. etc have provided throughout the years.

    We've grown up quite a bit from that image, it's time for you to do the same.

    B) The Quran is not advertised as a 'know it all, says it all' sort of book. You are mistaken to think so. What it does is provides a constitution of where to start, and does so through knowledge, history, religious doctrine, and yes, science. The Quran has verses which, before any modernly-respected scientific authority, hinted areas of science we take for granted now like the big bang, pregnancy, and childbirth.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Aeolus]
    (Original post by saalih)
    Oh please. That is absolute rubbish. Every single bit of the Qur'an came from a man, it is blatantly obvious.



    Like medicine? Why did god let so many billions of people die by witholding what is now basic medicinal knowledge? That is extrememly cruel isn't it?



    for the "medicine" excuse i think you should read this, it is more than enough for those who think like you..
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...l#JA6v4d3gDoS6

    Qur'an came from man...well that is your opinion and not a fact....

    Although there are expert scientists who have claimed Qur'an cannot be from man..
    http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)

    for the "medicine" excuse i think you should read this, it is more than enough for those who think like you..
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...l#JA6v4d3gDoS6

    If you want to argue my points, then write them out yourself instead of lazily linking me to some website. Otherwise i will assume you are not capable of answering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TI3GIB)
    A) I am appalled by the idea that Arabs are a bunch of desert nomads, who don't shower and shag sheep, incapable of any intelligent ability to present knowledge and science. A fair share of everything that modern science is firmed on comes from Islamoarabs, historically. You might want to look into what Ibn Hayyan, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Al-Khawarizmi, Ibn Rushd .. etc have provided throughout the years.
    I don't think anyone was really implying that - rather, compared to your average Arab/Whoever today, the average Arab/whoever back during the medieval times could quite easily be considered an 'illiterate moron'. I do think however, many people are a little misguided on the contributions the Islamic World made to science and culture during the dark ages - if anything dark age europe is a better example of religion surpressing science.

    (Original post by Phugoid)
    You. Definitely, definitely you.
    (Original post by saalih)
    no

    You. Definitely, definitely you.
    If it makes either of you or anyone reading this thread feel any better - this kind of exchange isn't just limited to TSR/Internet in my experience, just pretty much any religious/non-religious person trying to convince each other who is right.

    I don't think there is any 'need' for religion as much as there was any need for aparteid. My opinion of religion depends on which we are talking about, and in what context - but in general the Abrahamic religions are quite frankly, ******** - clearly designed for the weak and gullible. Religions such as Buddhism - on balance, I respectfully disagree on various ideas put forward. However, I would argue that basically religion is just a different flavour of a whole assortment of ways scared people are told what to do, there isn't anything especially wrong about religion in that context. Religion is just the most openly ridiculous, but in general, has millenia of global support behind it, so I guess that is why a lot of people feel threatened by the whole thing (but again, they are just giving in to fear). Personally, I feel little inclination to try fight against it unless it gets in my way. I think that kind of apathy is the reason religion still exists, but in some ways I think more moderate religious types are just being strengthened in their faith by the sheer amount of vitriol they get from uninformed people who get all worked up about religion.

    I think people need to realise, religious people don't really rely on facts or empirical evidence to justify their faith to themselves, only other people - any expectation that a rational argument is going to change a believers mind is grossly naive. It's like trying to argue with a woman (I just felt the need for some misogyny today :p: ).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TI3GIB)
    A) I am appalled by the idea that Arabs are a bunch of desert nomads, who don't shower and shag sheep, incapable of any intelligent ability to present knowledge and science. A fair share of everything that modern science is firmed on comes from Islamoarabs, historically. You might want to look into what Ibn Hayyan, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Al-Khawarizmi, Ibn Rushd .. etc have provided throughout the years.

    We've grown up quite a bit from that image, it's time for you to do the same.
    I did not imply that all arabs were illiterate, unscientific morons. I was referring explicitly and exclusively to Muhammad, who was indeed an illiterate, unscientific Arab, and as far as I can infer from his works, he was also a deluded moron. I am quite aware of the Islamic Golden age. However, the Islamic world has taken a nosedive towards anti-science once again - the Islamic world is nothing like it used to be. It used to be a liberal, tolerant and intellectual place. Now, it is a pit.

    You cannot rely on the Islamic golden age to big up Islam and the nations who worship Allah, for that was a long, long time again, and the Islamic world has lost everything it had going for it during that period - mostly because the Europeans threw off the shackles of the intellectual dark ages that were instigated by Islam's brother in arms - Christianity, and returned once again to philosophy and science.

    B) The Quran is not advertised as a 'know it all, says it all' sort of book. You are mistaken to think so. What it does is provides a constitution of where to start, and does so through knowledge, history, religious doctrine, and yes, science. The Quran has verses which, before any modernly-respected scientific authority, hinted areas of science we take for granted now like the big bang, pregnancy, and childbirth.
    Lol... see, you're doing it again. You tried to be rational about it with your first sentence, stating that the Qur'an is not a scientific authority... but you just couldn't help yourself from worming in the ridiculous idea that the Qur'an knew anything about the big bang, or fetal development.

    It is an absolutely laughable idea, and the verses you speak of do NOT 'hint' at science... they are merely extremely ambiguous and meaningless passages which idiots like you have tried your hardest to twist around science that we now know. If the Qur'an had truly spoke of big bang theory, and fetal development, then we wouldn't have needed to wait for contemporary scientists to make these discoveries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If you want to argue my points, then write them out yourself instead of lazily linking me to some website. Otherwise i will assume you are not capable of answering.
    Many people blindy follow their parents faiths etc
    many people believe in athiesm etc because of the advancement of science and technology and therefore they dont see the need of a religion

    However i ask you,suppose there is a peice of machinery no one has ever seen before and put before you and asked who will be the first person who will be able to tell you the mechanism of the machinery,the athiest will say the 1st person to tell you will say the manufacturer/inventor........athiest will say there was a primary nebula ..a big bang..giving rise to glaxies ..moon and the earth where we live.athiest will back this up with scientific facts which were discovered 30-40 years ago etc.

    Th big bangs mentioned in the quran in surah ambiya 'the heavens and earth will join together and we close them asunder' mentioned over 1400 years ago
    who could have mentioned it
    athiest will say mabye its coincidence .. a fake?
    then if you ask he athiest how is the moon lit ? athiests belived it was lit by itself
    however the quran proves it is illuminated by the sun..surah furqaan
    'blessed is he who placed a constellation in the sky and placed therein a lamp/sunhaving its ownlight and the moon having a reflected/borrowed light'
    Who could have mentioned this 1400 years ago?
    the athiests will just answer muhammed was either intelligent or stole information etc
    athiests will say the earth is spherical however they come to know this when sir francis drake sailed around the world in 1597 proving the earth was round.
    Quran mentions surah naziat 'and thereafter we have made the earth egg shaped' and it doesnt refer to any egg but to an ostrich egg
    which is nearer to round that it is oval who could have mentioned this 1400 years ago?..athiest?
    surah ambiya'it is allah who has created the night and the day the sun and the moon each one travelling in orbit with its own motion'
    Besides the sun resolving it even rotates on its own axis
    im asking you who could have mentioned this 1400 years ago
    today scientists say the earths expanding
    1400 years ago quran mentions numerous accounts this is the case need i say more!!
    hundreds of verses in the quran mention only that of the world cycle
    we can carry on with the fact scientists have recently discovered plants have sexes
    surah taha 'the plants have sexes male and female'
    .............surah furqaan..surah rehmaan 'it is allah who has let free 2 bodies of flowing water though they meet they dont mix their is a barrier between them'
    Proving fresh water and salt water do not mix . why oh why do scientists discover these all now? question yourself
    im using science to compare with islam,because science is the most authentic source so far to date rather than another religion which have been corrupted.
    The quran speaks about biology that allah has created every living thing from water(surah ambiya chapter 21 verse 30)
    need i say more....
    those who have read this why dont they talk about these signs
    there are over 1000 verses in the quran which talk about scientific facts and then ask the athiest who could have mentioned that in the quran
    the athiest will say the creator?
    the manufacturer
    producer
    inventor
    we muslims call him Allah(arabic word for god)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    X

    I am sorry if your english is not very good. But that is incomprehensible. I tried to answer it point by point but it just doesn't make sense. :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I am sorry if your english is not very good. But that is incomprehensible. I tried to answer it point by point but it just doesn't make sense. :dontknow:
    what dont your understand my friend?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    what dont your understand my friend?

    It's just a huge unpunctuated block of text.

    What does this even mean?

    However i ask you,suppose there is a peice of machinery no one has ever seen before and put before you and asked who will be the first person who will be able to tell you the mechanism of the machinery,the athiest will say the 1st person to tell you will say the manufacturer/inventor........athiest will say there was a primary nebula ..a big bang..giving rise to glaxies ..moon and the earth where we live.athiest will back this up with scientific facts which were discovered 30-40 years ago etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    Th big bangs mentioned in the quran in surah ambiya 'the heavens and earth will join together and we close them asunder' mentioned over 1400 years ago



    Anyway, i have heard the scientific Qua'ran argument before, and it can be refuted quickly:

    Apologies for the massive copy pasta.

    By the same trick, I can make almost any lengthy ancient text predict something amazing. Michael Corey said he would be "amazed" if someone thousands of years ago had predicted scientific facts that would not be proven until today--implying this would be evidence to him of divine inspiration. Well, let's test that principle. Are there any nondivine texts in antiquity that make amazingly prescient predictions of scientific facts, facts that would not be proved until the modern age? Certainly. The best example is a famous Latin poem summarizing Epicurean philosophy, which far outdoes the Koran in both clarity and quantity of marvelous scientific predictions.

    Epicurus predicted (as reported by Lucretius in his poetic summary De Rerum Natura) the existence of the atom and the molecule (the binding of two atoms to produce a different chemical); the law of inertia (unless retarded by a blow, objects are in constant motion--not proved until Galileo); the principal of universal natural law (the same principles of behavior that apply on earth apply the same everywhere in the universe--a theory denied by Aristotle, and by the Christian Church until Galileo challenged the Church's view and Newton proved him right); the rain cycle (that rain comes from water that has evaporated from seas and lakes, due to the heat of the sun and the motion of the air, and is stored in clouds, then falls when those clouds are heated or saturated); that sound is a pressure wave of air molecules whose shape determines the sound; that light is comprised of particles; that the sense of smell is caused by the shape of molecules fitting the shape of receptors in the nose; that lightning is caused by friction between storm fronts and consists of rapidly-moving particles (which we now call electrons) that are smaller than the atoms that comprise visible matter; that earthquakes are caused by slipping fault lines; that the Nile rises every year because of snow melting at its source; that animals, including humans, evolved by natural selection; that matter is mostly empty space; that magnetism is the result of a constant discharge and absorption of particles between magnetic objects; that fire is not an element; that there is no center of the universe but many different solar systems with their own planets; and that the speed of light is finite. He also predicted relativity, arguing that motion is relative, and time does not exist except as the relation of objects and events to each other, and hence time is also relative to the observer.

    I don't think the Koran comes anywhere near such a long list of dead-on predictions. One might draw up longer lists of far vaguer or more dubious predictions in the Koran. But nothing like this. For Epicurus declared all of these facts in far less ambiguous terms than anything purportedly prescient in the Koran. So the conclusion must be that mere human reason is better than divine inspiration at predicting the truth about the world. Epicurus beats Mohammed. Man beats God. Epicurus wasn't divinely inspired. He was just a clever man. After all, like the Koran, he got a lot wrong, too. But he got a heck of a lot more right--in part by using the same trick: if you make enough guesses, some will turn out right just by chance, and if you ignore all the misses, you can make Epicurus look miraculously prescient. Likewise, just as proponents of the Koran do, we are liberally "interpreting" things he said in a manner more in agreement with modern facts than Epicurus may have intended. But in the main, we need no tricks: Epicurus really did get many things right, by making some intelligent guesses, and reasoning things out from there. Very much unlike the Koran.

    Let's take one other example for our concluding point. Epicurus predicted quantum indeterminism: he said atoms will sometimes randomly swerve, which is the same thing as saying that they sometimes randomly change their momentum or location, which has been confirmed. Was Epicurus therefore inspired by God? No. He just got lucky. He knew nothing of Wave Mechanics, the Compton Radius, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. He was simply trying to solve what he perceived to be the problem of free will, drawing on the empirical observation that particles suspended in a medium appear to move at random (which would also later become a proven scientific theory called Brownian Motion). So, too, Isaiah was simply trying to state what was obvious to him: that God is the one who made both the earth and the heavens so vast, and separated them from each other, and he alone keeps them that way.

    This is quite probable, since neither Isaiah nor Mohammed knew anything about the difference between stars and galaxies, for example, and yet only the latter are expanding away from each other. The stars within our galaxy, which comprise by far most of what Mohammed and Isaiah would have imagined as the visible 'heavens' (and hence what they would have understood by that word), are not expanding, but are held in place by gravity. Just imagine the lost opportunity here: Allah could have given Mohammed the most incredible proof of scientific prescience by having him describe the difference between star systems and galaxies, or even stating Hubble's Law of expansion, perhaps with exact figures or at least the added point that this rate of expansion is accelerating. But no, all he gave him was the incredibly vague 'we are the ones who make it vast.' There is nothing scientific about that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry for my bad english i have corrected myself i hope you understand now

    However i put forward to you,suppose there is a peice of machinery no one has ever seen before and it is put before you and you are asked,

    'who will be the first person who will be able to tell you the mechanism of the machinery?'
    ,the athiest will say the manufacturer/inventor........

    In regards to the beginning of time athiest will say there was a primary nebula ..a big bang..giving rise to galaxies ..moon and the earth where we live.
    athiests will back this up with scientific facts which were discovered 30-40 years ago etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Anyway, i have heard the scientific Qua'ran argument before, and it can be refuted quickly:

    Apologies for the massive copy pasta.

    By the same trick, I can make almost any lengthy ancient text predict something amazing. Michael Corey said he would be "amazed" if someone thousands of years ago had predicted scientific facts that would not be proven until today--implying this would be evidence to him of divine inspiration. Well, let's test that principle. Are there any nondivine texts in antiquity that make amazingly prescient predictions of scientific facts, facts that would not be proved until the modern age? Certainly. The best example is a famous Latin poem summarizing Epicurean philosophy, which far outdoes the Koran in both clarity and quantity of marvelous scientific predictions.

    Epicurus predicted (as reported by Lucretius in his poetic summary De Rerum Natura) the existence of the atom and the molecule (the binding of two atoms to produce a different chemical); the law of inertia (unless retarded by a blow, objects are in constant motion--not proved until Galileo); the principal of universal natural law (the same principles of behavior that apply on earth apply the same everywhere in the universe--a theory denied by Aristotle, and by the Christian Church until Galileo challenged the Church's view and Newton proved him right); the rain cycle (that rain comes from water that has evaporated from seas and lakes, due to the heat of the sun and the motion of the air, and is stored in clouds, then falls when those clouds are heated or saturated); that sound is a pressure wave of air molecules whose shape determines the sound; that light is comprised of particles; that the sense of smell is caused by the shape of molecules fitting the shape of receptors in the nose; that lightning is caused by friction between storm fronts and consists of rapidly-moving particles (which we now call electrons) that are smaller than the atoms that comprise visible matter; that earthquakes are caused by slipping fault lines; that the Nile rises every year because of snow melting at its source; that animals, including humans, evolved by natural selection; that matter is mostly empty space; that magnetism is the result of a constant discharge and absorption of particles between magnetic objects; that fire is not an element; that there is no center of the universe but many different solar systems with their own planets; and that the speed of light is finite. He also predicted relativity, arguing that motion is relative, and time does not exist except as the relation of objects and events to each other, and hence time is also relative to the observer.

    I don't think the Koran comes anywhere near such a long list of dead-on predictions. One might draw up longer lists of far vaguer or more dubious predictions in the Koran. But nothing like this. For Epicurus declared all of these facts in far less ambiguous terms than anything purportedly prescient in the Koran. So the conclusion must be that mere human reason is better than divine inspiration at predicting the truth about the world. Epicurus beats Mohammed. Man beats God. Epicurus wasn't divinely inspired. He was just a clever man. After all, like the Koran, he got a lot wrong, too. But he got a heck of a lot more right--in part by using the same trick: if you make enough guesses, some will turn out right just by chance, and if you ignore all the misses, you can make Epicurus look miraculously prescient. Likewise, just as proponents of the Koran do, we are liberally "interpreting" things he said in a manner more in agreement with modern facts than Epicurus may have intended. But in the main, we need no tricks: Epicurus really did get many things right, by making some intelligent guesses, and reasoning things out from there. Very much unlike the Koran.

    Let's take one other example for our concluding point. Epicurus predicted quantum indeterminism: he said atoms will sometimes randomly swerve, which is the same thing as saying that they sometimes randomly change their momentum or location, which has been confirmed. Was Epicurus therefore inspired by God? No. He just got lucky. He knew nothing of Wave Mechanics, the Compton Radius, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. He was simply trying to solve what he perceived to be the problem of free will, drawing on the empirical observation that particles suspended in a medium appear to move at random (which would also later become a proven scientific theory called Brownian Motion). So, too, Isaiah was simply trying to state what was obvious to him: that God is the one who made both the earth and the heavens so vast, and separated them from each other, and he alone keeps them that way.

    This is quite probable, since neither Isaiah nor Mohammed knew anything about the difference between stars and galaxies, for example, and yet only the latter are expanding away from each other. The stars within our galaxy, which comprise by far most of what Mohammed and Isaiah would have imagined as the visible 'heavens' (and hence what they would have understood by that word), are not expanding, but are held in place by gravity. Just imagine the lost opportunity here: Allah could have given Mohammed the most incredible proof of scientific prescience by having him describe the difference between star systems and galaxies, or even stating Hubble's Law of expansion, perhaps with exact figures or at least the added point that this rate of expansion is accelerating. But no, all he gave him was the incredibly vague 'we are the ones who make it vast.' There is nothing scientific about that.
    I am not saying the quran is the know it all science book because god put us on this earth to discover the realms of science.
    in the quran it says there is a cure for everything in this world
    so the muslims went out in search for cures for mankind
    the quran is a manual of life
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    I am not saying the quran is the know it all science book because god put us on this earth to discover the realms of science.
    Oh so all of those billions of women and children who died in pain of disease, which these days would be cured simply. Died for their own good?

    What a gracioous and loving lord you have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Oh so all of those billions of women and children who died in pain of disease, which these days would be cured simply. Died for their own good?

    What a gracioous and loving lord you have.
    Its not about where is god where are we
    god put us on the earth to earn our place in heaven in the eternal life
    we have the power to discover the unknown and help mankind
    blaming god just gets you no where
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    Sorry for my bad english i have corrected myself i hope you understand now

    However i put forward to you,suppose there is a peice of machinery no one has ever seen before and it is put before you and you are asked,

    'who will be the first person who will be able to tell you the mechanism of the machinery?'
    ,the athiest will say the manufacturer/inventor........

    So what if the mechanism or machinery was god himself? Who is gods manufacturer/inventor?

    In regards to the beginning of time athiest will say there was a primary nebula ..a big bang..giving rise to galaxies ..moon and the earth where we live.
    athiests will back this up with scientific facts which were discovered 30-40 years ago etc
    Yes. Facts which have undergone rigorous scrutiny every year since. Facts which fit and can be proved to be the most probable. If we find anything which refutes these facts, then the facts will be replaced.

    That is not so for relgion. In fact, your religion forbids, replacing it's faulty facts. Apparently a text written thousands of years ago, i perfect and unalterable?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So what if the mechanism or machinery was god himself? Who is gods manufacturer/inventor?



    Yes. Facts which have undergone rigorous scrutiny every year since. Facts which fit and can be proved to be the most probable. If we find anything which refutes these facts, then the facts will be replaced.

    That is not so for relgion. In fact, your religion forbids, replacing it's faulty facts. Apparently a text written thousands of years ago, i perfect and unalterable?
    The Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal. If any created being "causes" anything, that capacity "to cause" was created within that being, for only the Creator is Self-Existent and Self-Subsistent.

    Only the Creator truly creates and determines possible causes and effects for His creation. Therefore, we speak of God as the Sustainer, who holds and gives life to all of His Creation.


    the quran is flawless
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    The Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal. If any created being "causes" anything, that capacity "to cause" was created within that being, for only the Creator is Self-Existent and Self-Subsistent.
    Sorry i don't buy that. You are telling me that no complex organism can exist without a creator. Except for God.

    That is just double standards. If you are going to employ the creation argument then you must be consistent or it defeats itself.

    Only the Creator truly creates and determines possible causes and effects for His creation. Therefore, we speak of God as the Sustainer, who holds and gives life to all of His Creation.
    If God was able to exist without a creator then why not the Big Bang? You cannot say that an event in which the laws of space and time were reversed and twisted cannot have happened without a cause. But then say an omnipotent and omniscient being able to traverse a universe 74 billion lightyears while telling us what to eat and how to have sex wasn't created, and just randomly came into being.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    Its not about where is god where are we
    god put us on the earth to earn our place in heaven in the eternal life
    we have the power to discover the unknown and help mankind
    blaming god just gets you no where

    So the suffering of countless millions is a test? God forces us to live in pain and terror, just to satiate his own ego? To prove that we do indeed love him. If not he gets jealous and angry(much like a human being) We must serve him and pray to him and thank him for the suffering he has forced us to endure.

    The daughter of hanz fritzel is supposed to be gratefull for enduring a life locked in a basement and raped daily by her father, to bear his children and see them raped aswell? Because apparently she gets a place in heaven? And all this time, your loving god looked on at these events with indifference? Perhaps he even enjoyed it? But he certainly didn't help her.

    Yet he has the time to tell others what to eat and how to have sex, which animals to kill and how. He has time to make rules and give orders. But when there is an innocent human being in genuine need, suddenly we must sort out our own lives?

    I will say to immortal dictators what i would say to mortal ones who demanded my slavery: Go **** yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If you want to argue my points, then write them out yourself instead of lazily linking me to some website. Otherwise i will assume you are not capable of answering.
    that is not fair, if something is well written and supports my view, i give a link for and you should read it...

    if you do not want, i assume you are unable to answer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    that is not fair, if something is well written and supports my view, i give a link for and you should read it...

    if you do not want, i assume you are unable to answer

    Ok fair enough. I will answer your scientific Qu'ran link with my own link refuting those ridiculous claims.

    http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=362

    And your claims that god is not cruel or evil with another.

    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...minal-god.html


    :top2:
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.