Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The non-Muslim verdict on Muhummed (PBUH)

    "lf a man like Muhammed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness."

    George Bernard Shaw

    "People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense. People like Gandhi and Confucius, on one hand, and Alexander, Caesar and Hitler on the other, are leaders in the second and perhaps the third sense. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone. Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Mohammed, who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree, Moses did the same."

    Professor Jules Masserman

    "Head of the State as well as the Church, lie was Caesar and Pope in one, but, he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. ft ever a man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine, it was Muhummed. for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not tor the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.""

    Rev. R. Bosworth-Smith

    "Muhammad was the soul of kindness, and his influence was felt and never forgotten by those around him."

    Diwan Chand Sharma, The Prophets of the East, Calcutta 1935, p. 122.

    "Four year after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born at Mecca, in Arabia the man who, of all men exercised the greatest influence upon the human race . . . Mohammed . . . "

    John William Draper, M.D., L.L.D., A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, London 1875, Vol. 1, pp 329-330.

    "In little more than a year he was actually the spiritual, nominal and temporal ruler of Medina, with his hands on the lever that was to shake the world."

    John Austin, "Muhammad the Prophet of Allah," in T.P's and Cassel's Weekly for 24th September 1927.

    "Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator. Warrior, Conqueror of ideas, Restorer of rational beliefs, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammed. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"

    Lamartine, Historic de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol. 11 pp. 276-2727.

    "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he live,. to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher."

    Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p.4

    "Muhummed is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities."

    Encyclopaedia Britannica

    "I have studied him — the wonderful man — and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ he must be called the saviour of humanity."

    George Bernard Shaw in "The Genuine Islam"

    "By a fortune absolutely unique in history , Mohammed is a threefold founder of a nation, of an empire, and of a religion."

    Rev. R. Bosworth-Smith in "Mohammed and Mohammedanism 1946."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    if you confused whether God is real or not, then i have the answer, all you need to do is send me your msn email add, and ill send you the audio and beleive you me it is very useful
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    You are in the right room then.. athiesm.. lack of faith.. makes sense.. but I do wish you would continue debating about it.. its kinda interesting..
    Well, atheism isn't entirely without faith. After all, a huge number of Physicists believe that there must have been some sort of creator. Roger Penrose, a famous physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking concerning his singularity theorem and the creation of the universe, has shown how incredibly unlikely it is that the initial configuration of the universe and the magnitude of it's universal constants (charge of an electron etc) would allow any kind of life to develop by chance. Atheism can certainly be seen as quite irrational and requiring a leap of faith and very much like a religion such as Christianity – it’s just overly pessimistic rather than overly optimistic.

    Few scientists - perhaps those best suited and informed to consider logically whether a God could exist - deny the existence of a creator. Richard Dawkins, one of the few who do, is not very impressive either. He is a primarily a biologist, and his arguments for atheism run along the lines of evolution, and very little else. He also says that "the statistical probability" of such a being existing is very low, although seen as he actually has no figures or any kind of basis for this, and most physicists conclude that he's talking ********, his arguments aren't very convincing.

    It requires faith to believe that God is good, or that he is omniscient or omnipotent or omniscient, or that he even exists anymore, but it does not require faith to believe that there was a creator to this universe. Atheism is just as illogical as almost all religions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    Well, atheism isn't entirely without faith. After all, a huge number of Physicists believe that there must have been some sort of creator. Roger Penrose, a famous physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking concerning his singularity theorum and the creation of the universe, has shown how incredibly unlikely it is that the intial configuration of the universe and the magnitude of it's universal constants (charge of an electron etc) would allow any kind of life to develop by chance.

    Few scientists - perhaps those best suited and informed to consider logically whether a God could exist - deny the existance of a creator. Richard Dawkins, one of the few who do, is not very impressive either. He is a primarily a biologist, and his arguments for atheism run along the lines of evolution, and very little else. He also says that "the statistical probability" of such a being existing is very low, although seen as he actually has no figures or any kind of basis for this, and most physicists conclude that he's talking ********, his arguments aren't very convincing.

    It requires faith to believe that God is good, or that he is omniscient or omnipotent or omniscient, or that he even exists anymore, but it does not require faith to believe that there was a creator to this universe. Atheism is just as illogical as almost all religions.
    very well said, i cudnt argue the fact any more, but jus to add to your statement, islam is the only religion which not only logically ideal, but also the concepts are very so much true
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maximusmak)
    very well said, i cudnt argue the fact any more, but jus to add to your statement, islam is the only religion which not only logically ideal, but also the concepts are very so much true
    Why are most Islamic countries such toilets then?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Why are most Islamic countries such toilets then?
    because (mind the language) if you take the western tolietts and the islamic tolittes you will find that its much easier to excrete in the islamic tolittes then the western toliettes, cuz like i sad, islam teaches about everything.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maximusmak)
    because (mind the language) if you take the western tolietts and the islamic tolittes you will find that its much easier to excrete in the islamic tolittes then the western toliettes, cuz like i sad, islam teaches about everything.
    Is that because in Islamic countries the toilets are often just a large hole in the ground?

    Joking aside though, are you saying Islam is right because it's easier than christianity?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maximusmak)
    because (mind the language) if you take the western tolietts and the islamic tolittes you will find that its much easier to excrete in the islamic tolittes then the western toliettes, cuz like i sad, islam teaches about everything.
    That is the single greatest thing I've ever seen or heard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    Well, atheism isn't entirely without faith. After all, a huge number of Physicists believe that there must have been some sort of creator. Roger Penrose, a famous physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking concerning his singularity theorem and the creation of the universe, has shown how incredibly unlikely it is that the initial configuration of the universe and the magnitude of it's universal constants (charge of an electron etc) would allow any kind of life to develop by chance. Atheism can certainly be seen as quite irrational and requiring a leap of faith and very much like a religion such as Christianity – it’s just overly pessimistic rather than overly optimistic.
    I can't see how Penrose calculated what the conditions were for life to be created (or how this relates to the charge on the electron). There is a famous equation to do with this (whose name escapes me), which calculates the number of advanced civilisations in our galaxy. Depending on the differing assumptions they have made, scientists have produced answers ranging from 1 to 100,000. Quite simply, no-one's sure.

    In addition, even if we did know the conditions we would be unable to check. We can't even conclusively prove whether there was life on Mars or not - knowing whether there was life outside our solar system, or galaxy, is way, way, way beyond our capabiities.

    So basically, he's just thrown up a guess. No reason to support it just because he worked with someone famous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Is that because in Islamic countries the toilets are often just a large hole in the ground?

    Joking aside though, are you saying Islam is right because it's easier than christianity?
    i wopuldnt be arguin if i new it wasnt, u wana hear this thing i got about the purpose of life, real imoressive, if u got msn messenger i can send it ya
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maximusmak)
    i wopuldnt be arguin if i new it wasnt, u wana hear this thing i got about the purpose of life, real imoressive, if u got msn messenger i can send it ya
    No thankyou. I'll stick with christianity if it's all the same to you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    I can't see how Penrose calculated what the conditions were for life to be created (or how this relates to the charge on the electron). There is a famous equation to do with this (whose name escapes me), which calculates the number of advanced civilisations in our galaxy. Depending on the differing assumptions they have made, scientists have produced answers ranging from 1 to 100,000. Quite simply, no-one's sure.

    In addition, even if we did know the conditions we would be unable to check. We can't even conclusively prove whether there was life on Mars or not - knowing whether there was life outside our solar system, or galaxy, is way, way, way beyond our capabiities.

    So basically, he's just thrown up a guess. No reason to support it just because he worked with someone famous.

    Well I can't remember the exact figures, but it's been confirmed that it would be impossible for any kind of life exist if the charge of an electron had been something like 0.000000000000000001% greater than it actually is - heh, can't remember how many 0s. I'm not sure if that's because it would make all atoms unstable, or wouldn't allow certain types of chemicals absolutely essential for life to form, or whatever, but they're definitely quite sure of that. Plancks constant and virtually all the laws of nature would also not allow life to exist if their were even the most minute changes in them.

    The equations of which you speak are to do with the likelyhood of other forms of life being found in OUR universe - that is, with our the conditions of this universe being as wonderfully suitable for life as they are, how likely it is that life might actually go on to develop. Penrose's equations relate to completely different concept - how likely it is that our universe could have started off in such a way that would allow life to be in anyway physically possible. The odds he gives of it happening by chance are tremendous - the number itself is actually impossible to write down properly, as it even if you were able to somehow imprint a digit of the number onto every proton and neutron in the universe, there wouldn't be enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    Well, atheism isn't entirely without faith. After all, a huge number of Physicists believe that there must have been some sort of creator. Roger Penrose, a famous physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking concerning his singularity theorem and the creation of the universe, has shown how incredibly unlikely it is that the initial configuration of the universe and the magnitude of it's universal constants (charge of an electron etc) would allow any kind of life to develop by chance. Atheism can certainly be seen as quite irrational and requiring a leap of faith and very much like a religion such as Christianity – it’s just overly pessimistic rather than overly optimistic.

    Few scientists - perhaps those best suited and informed to consider logically whether a God could exist - deny the existence of a creator. Richard Dawkins, one of the few who do, is not very impressive either. He is a primarily a biologist, and his arguments for atheism run along the lines of evolution, and very little else. He also says that "the statistical probability" of such a being existing is very low, although seen as he actually has no figures or any kind of basis for this, and most physicists conclude that he's talking ********, his arguments aren't very convincing.

    It requires faith to believe that God is good, or that he is omniscient or omnipotent or omniscient, or that he even exists anymore, but it does not require faith to believe that there was a creator to this universe. Atheism is just as illogical as almost all religions.
    So what you are saying is that Atheism is purely based on scientific discoveries/beliefs?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    So what you are saying is that Atheism is purely based on scientific discoveries/beliefs?
    I've just said that most scientific discoveries contradict atheism and make theism and the existance of God more likely. Richard Dawkins has tried to say evolution somehow disproves the existance of God, but that is clearly wrong seen as a) at the absolute most, that would only disprove the existance of a God that created human beings in their current form rather than letting them evolve and b) most creation stories involving Adam and Eve type figures tend to be allegorical and metaphorical anyway.

    I think most atheists tend to have some kind of "faith" in the fact that God exists, or believe they are being logical in thinking God doesn't exist without realising the full facts or that there's a certain amount of rationality afforded to the belief in God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    I've just said that most scientific discoveries contradict atheism and make theism and the existance of God more likely. Richard Dawkins has tried to say evolution somehow disproves the existance of God, but that is clearly wrong seen as a) at the absolute most, that would only disprove the existance of a God that created human beings in their current form rather than letting them evolve and b) most creation stories involving Adam and Eve type figures tend to be allegorical and metaphorical anyway.

    I think most atheists tend to have some kind of "faith" in the fact that God exists, or believe they are being logical in thinking God doesn't exist without realising the full facts or that there's a certain amount of rationality afforded to the belief in God.
    Ahh.. I get you.. It makes sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    Well I can't remember the exact figures, but it's been confirmed that it would be impossible for any kind of life exist if the charge of an electron had been something like 0.000000000000000001% greater than it actually is - heh, can't remember how many 0s. I'm not sure if that's because it would make all atoms unstable, or wouldn't allow certain types of chemicals absolutely essential for life to form, or whatever, but they're definitely quite sure of that. Plancks constant and virtually all the laws of nature would also not allow life to exist if their were even the most minute changes in them.
    Not quite: all they say is that the universe wouldn't be the one we have now. No-one knows what such a universe would be, like for obvious reasons.
    It's thought- though again it's unprovable- that there is probably a multiverse. Every possible universe co-exists somewhere in it. To assume that the universe was created means you shift all the questions one stage up, to the universe makers. Even if you accept their existence, it requires enormous species vanity to suppose that the human race is anything but an insignificant part of the universe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    there's a certain amount of rationality afforded to the belief in God.
    Rationality? Perhaps. Heath Robinson's devices were rational too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Not quite: all they say is that the universe wouldn't be the one we have now. No-one knows what such a universe would be, like for obvious reasons.
    It's thought- though again it's unprovable- that there is probably a multiverse. Every possible universe co-exists somewhere in it. To assume that the universe was created means you shift all the questions one stage up, to the universe makers. Even if you accept their existence, it requires enormous species vanity to suppose that the human race is anything but an insignificant part of the universe.
    The anthropic principle would certainly point to that if the multiverse theory is correct, but physicists aren't sure. They may be things that can be supposed to exist for the sake of theories, but in reality don't - or at least might not really exist - like brains and other mathematical models used to describe our universe.

    Human significants isn't really to do with what I'm saying - I'm not arguing that we're somehow particularly special to God (although one would like to hope that we are!) but that there was a creator(s) who set up the laws of Physics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    The anthropic principle would certainly point to that if the multiverse theory is correct, but physicists aren't sure. They may be things that can be supposed to exist for the sake of theories, but in reality don't - or at least might not really exist - like brains and other mathematical models used to describe our universe.
    Brains don't really exist? I go with the mathematicians who maintain that mathematics would be just as real even if there were no universe.
    Human significants isn't really to do with what I'm saying - I'm not arguing that we're somehow particularly special to God (although one would like to hope that we are!) but that there was a creator(s) who set up the laws of Physics.
    The problem there is that the existence of the creator then has to be explained. One possibliity is something[strike] evolving with the universe altering it in a way that suits themslves/itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Not quite: all they say is that the universe wouldn't be the one we have now. No-one knows what such a universe would be, like for obvious reasons.
    Metaphor for you.. You take the normal 23 chromosomes in a human sex cell.. and add one.. if you have 23 joining with 24 then there will be a birth defect.. most likely Down Syndrome especially if it is in the 13th chromosome. We cannot possibly know all of the different combinations for human chromosomes.. its not possibly.. there would be to many. But some variations are good... they could be considered mutations.. but they could be for the bettering of the offspring.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.