I've decided to become atheist AMA

Reply 120

3121

21

Care to make a post on here? https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4756694

Reply 121

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by YourGoddamnRight

How could Muhammad who was in fact unlettered, create Allah, how could he have written the Quran?

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Because it tends to be the very young apologists, usually in the mid teen age range, and who also tend to be fairly ignorant (scientifically speaking), who think the so-called Quranic miracles are convincing evidence of its divine authorship. You may be interested to know that even Muslims are now distancing themselves from these, with Hamza Tzortzis calling them an "intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists".

How could he have known about the human embryo?

Oh, dear, showing your historical ignorance already. Please don't tell me you're one of these apologists that believes nothing was known about anything until Islam came along? The Greek and Roman worlds were the centres of learning and the Ancient Greeks had already done work on embryology. Coincidentally, the Quran contains many of the same errors on the subject that the Greeks made.

in the Quran the word used for embryo has 3 meanings, leech, bloodclot, and suspended.

And these terms aren't correct, proving once again, that the Quran is not the work of an all-knowing deity. The embryo is not a leech, nor anything like it and is most certainly not a blood clot.

Alaqa

is the word used for the embryo.

"Then we made the drop into an Alaqa"

There is no "drop". What an odd and vague way for God to describe something that he should have used much more precise, convincing vocabulary for, don't you think? On the other hand, using vague terms like "blood clot" and "leech" is exactly what you'd expect from 7th century Arabs whose knowledge of embryology wasn't that great.

in the earliest stages of the human embryo:

Look, posting superficially similar pictures is not proof of anything. You think no one had seen an embryo before Muhammad? Women would have miscarried all the time. And superficial resemblance does not by any stretch of the imagination make two things similar.

For starters, leeches are protostomes, humans are deuterostomes. Leeches also don't have a notochord and pharyngeal arches which human embryos do have. An omniscient god clearly wouldn't have selected such a clumsy comparison. Furthermore, embryology is hardly the best section of "Quranic science" you want to be using when in addition to the aforementioned errors, it completely fails to mention the female ovum, and erroneously claims that semen originates from between the backbone and ribs.

or the two seas that do not cross?

"He has let loose the two seas (the salt water and the sweet) meeting together. Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress"

Ahh, the good old "saltwater and freshwater don't mix" baloney. Seriously, this nonsense has been debunked a million times before. Firstly, they do mix, not very well, but they do and this mixing can easily be shown at home with a glass of tap water and another of saltwater.

Secondly, that photo there, that you've no doubt pulled straight from one of those apologia websites, is actually showing the freshwater from melting glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska flowing into the ocean. The difference in density gives rise to this initial barrier, but then mixing occurs and the barrier disappears. Moreover, even if this photo actually did show a permanent marine barrier, how would this prove divinity? Wouldn't it just prove that people have eyes, can see things, and then record them?

Or the orbit of planets and other things, or how they spin to create night and day?

There is no original science concerning these phenomena. In fact, the Quran mentions the orbits of the sun and moon in reference to night and day, which is clearly an error. Night and day are not caused by either's orbit, but by Earth spinning, revealing once more the primitive and commonly held beliefs that the Earth was at the centre of the universe and that other celestial bodies spun around it.

And by the way, a lot of work on celestial orbits had already been conducted in the Ancient World, or were you unaware of that too?

"It is he who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit flow."

See above, night and day are not due to any orbit, but rather the Earth's spin, so another error.

how could he have known about the big bang? and it's expansion?

"then We clove them asunder"

"And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."

The Quran mentions no Big Bang. It makes some vague claim about a single point "expanding". In fact, before the discovery of the Big Bang, the translations of the Quran actually referred to an "expanse" (i.e. something big, anyone with eyes can see the universe is big) and it only changed to "expanding" after the discovery had been made. Furthermore, many translations now say that the universe is steadily expanding, which is another error as we know the rate of universal expansion is not constant, but in fact accelerating. Many civilisations have had myths about the origins of the universe resulting from explosions and cataclysmic events, hardly anything novel there.

Moreover, nothing was "cloven asunder". The Earth and the "heavens" were not joined and then parted as planets did not form until billions of years after the initial expansion.

And btw, the Quran has remained the same for 1400 years, it wasn't revealed as a book, it was revealed through Gabriel who taught the Quran through speech.

A claim often made, but which hasn't been substantiated. Not that an unchanging text would be proof of anything by the way.

Is that not enough for you?

You're going to have to try a lot harder than that I'm afraid.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 122

YourGoddamnRight

15

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

x

Mate, you're doomed. lol.

Reply 123

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by YourGoddamnRight

Mate, you're doomed. lol.

Given that hell doesn't exist, I'm not. Also nice to see you can't address the actual points.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 124

username3118454

19

Original post by YourGoddamnRight

I was born religious, then became an atheist, then reverted back. You see fear and love as two very distant feelings whereas I see them almost as the same thing. Once you fear God, you love him, and his love for you is beyond comprehension. But God will put trials in front of you to see how strong your faith is, but clearly your faith was too small.

where's the line?

Reply 125

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by YourGoddamnRight

looool, why are you so salty mate? :eek3:

And I thought you couldn't sink any lower, yet I'm proven wrong. It's really embarrassing that you had to use insults to back up your points.

Where are the insults in that post? What's embarrassing is you being unable to address the actual points raised.

Reply 126

ChemEngineer

3

Original post by _gcx

The fact that evolution occurs is absolutely irrefutable; it can quite easily be observed; just look at how rodents have developed resistance to some poisons. .

1. Darwinian evolution is extraordinarily refutable.
2. Resistance to some poisons is adaptation, NOT evolution in the sense of Darwin's tautology: "The fit survive, and they survive because they're fit."

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - Charles Darwin, in letter to Harvard professor Asa Gray

"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

Original post by ChemEngineer

1. Darwinian evolution is extraordinarily refutable.
2. Resistance to some poisons is adaptation, NOT evolution in the sense of Darwin's tautology: "The fit survive, and they survive because they're fit."

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - Charles Darwin, in letter to Harvard professor Asa Gray

"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

You say that, yet you have not provided any refutation. Quotes by individual scientists are irrelevant. It's also of note that,

•

Gish and Flemming were YECs, so their position only the matter can easily be predicted.

•

Bounoure's "quote" was fallaciously attributed to him by creationists.

Reply 128

ChemEngineer

3

Original post by _gcx

You say that, yet you have not provided any refutation. Quotes by individual scientists are irrelevant. It's also of note that,

•

Gish and Flemming were YECs, so their position only the matter can easily be predicted.

•

Bounoure's "quote" was fallaciously attributed to him by creationists.

Yes, and all the quotes by scientists of your choosing are not just relevant, but absolute and irrefutable, right?
What anyone's "position" is is quite immaterial to facts and analysis. Yours is a logical fallacy, but you will not acknowledge as much. Your every comment "can easily be predicted."

The quotes by these learned men of science cannot all be dismissed as much as you would like to do so. There are many hundreds more like them.

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

Reply 129

ChemEngineer

3

Original post by King's Avatar

If I were to convert back, it would be to Islam, because it does not have as many logical flaws as Christianity.

Indeed, and because you approve of throwing homosexuals off of rooftops?
And beheading *infidels*?
And Sharia Law?
And treating women like cattle, breeding them like flies?
Drinking camel piss?
Brainwashing children and sending them off with bombs strapped to their bodies?

"I have been made victorious through terror." - Mohammad (Bukhari 2.52-220)

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” – Houari (Mohamed) Boumedienne, President of Algeria, 1965 – 1978, in a 1974 speech at the UN

Reply 130

username3474574

2

Original post by ChemEngineer

Indeed, and because you approve of throwing homosexuals off of rooftops?
And beheading *infidels*?
And Sharia Law?
And treating women like cattle, breeding them like flies?
Drinking camel piss?
Brainwashing children and sending them off with bombs strapped to their bodies?

"I have been made victorious through terror." - Mohammad (Bukhari 2.52-220)

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” – Houari (Mohamed) Boumedienne, President of Algeria, 1965 – 1978, in a 1974 speech at the UN

Note this: I will not return to religion. Also, please state your faith so I can produce a more personalised response. Also, considering that extremist views are shared between many people, regardless of religion, certainly the President's speech can be interpreted as a simple manifestation of his views. For the sake of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Donald Trump is equally extreme.