The hackenslash Challenge (split)

[Sophus]

(27:88) You now see the mountains and consider them firmly fixed, but then they shall pass away even as clouds pass away. That will be the handiwork of Allah Who has created everything with perfect wisdom. He is well aware of what you do.

It means that mountains look solid and fixed on a steady place.
The same counts for clouds, but if you look at clouds well, they move a bit, so the same can be said about mountains.


Earth fixed?

(27:61) Who is it Who has made the earth a place of resort, and has caused rivers to flow in its midst, and has placed upon it firm mountains, and has placed a barrier between two masses of water? Is there any god associated with Allah (in these tasks)? Nay; but most of them do not know.

Also take a good look at the second part of the verse.

Now it comes down to a difference in the translations. I wouldn't have the first clue which one is more accurate.

[Whitney]

Yeah He could have, but I don't think that's the way it works.
He can also teleport to this planet so we will all follow the straight path.
It's about faith....

If it's about faith then why are you trying to pretend supposed clues left in the koran prove it is authentically divinely inspired?

[iSok]

Yeah He could have, but I don't think that's the way it works.
He can also teleport to this planet so we will all follow the straight path.
It's about faith....

If it's about faith then why are you trying to pretend supposed clues left in the koran prove it is authentically divinely inspired?

Because it's not just blind faith.
Like believe in fairy tales, and that's it.


It's like this way, a lot of dots appear and they seem to present a figure.
Faith connects all those dots, without faith the dots still stay dots with no connection
and no one knows how they came, I think that's the difference.


@Sophus,

This is probably the best translation --> http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php
It''s true that the translation is an interpretation (every translation is).
To really study the Quran in depth, one needs to learn Arabic.


@Recusant,

I got the source from a muslim website, so yes it's plausible that they made the third claim up, I won't deny that.
Maybe you can also search for the geophysics 'Tarbuck and Ludgens'

The verse claims three things here.

- Mountains move steadily
- Mountains have underlying roots (pegs)
- Mountains cause the earth to shake less

The first two, we both agree on.
I did read the link, so in 1960's it was a theory that mountains stabilise the Earth's crust.
And now there is a new theory, mountains are caused by plate colliding with eachother.
I wanted to point out, that the theory of stabilising mountains was popular in the late 60's.

However, it's peculiar that mountains do occur in regions where different plates collide.

[pilchardo]

Where is there scientific evidence that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates?"  What does that even mean? This sounds like something you got from that obfuscating purveyor of pseudo-science, Harun Yahya.  Show me a reputable geologist who agrees with this theory, please.  By the way, tectonic plates are not stable.  It's well known that they actually drift around quite freely, carrying their mountains with them, when viewed on a geological time scale.

If you don't know what it means, why don't you ask what it means first, and then if you're told what it means, then ask where's the evidence.

[Whitney]

Yeah He could have, but I don't think that's the way it works.
He can also teleport to this planet so we will all follow the straight path.
It's about faith....

If it's about faith then why are you trying to pretend supposed clues left in the koran prove it is authentically divinely inspired?

Because it's not just blind faith.
Like believe in fairy tales, and that's it.


It's like this way, a lot of dots appear and they seem to present a figure.
Faith connects all those dots, without faith the dots still stay dots with no connection
and no one knows how they came, I think that's the difference.

Faith by it's very nature is blind.  So you either value faith or you really don't.

Saying that you are in some gray area where faith has some proof is just a weak rationalization for why you feel the need to find evidence in your holy text.  If it were all about faith you'd believe for belief's sake.

[pilchardo]

That's quite incorrect, whitnay. Not all faith is blind.

[The Magic Pudding]

That's quite incorrect, whitnay. Not all faith is blind.

No "whitnay" recant, the faithful know just where they're leaping, whether it's there or not.

[iSok]

It’s an interesting question you rise here Whitney; blind faith?

The main point that atheists have against religion, I think consists out of two points.

- It teaches intolerance
- It stops the advancement of science

I do understand that, that they do reach out to these two points. The Dark Ages in Europe must not have been a pleasant time to live in.
However I think that oppression comes from man’s greediness.
Religion is just used as an excuse to say ‘the divine ordered so’, to control the mass for worldy gains.
If you take a look at certain religious figures now and in the past, they hijacked religion for their own purpose.
We can take a look at Pope Alexander VI in the past or our friend OBL who controls the mass with religion for their own purposes.

However this phenomenon can not only be found in religion, in recent times we can set the RUF as an example.
Or Adolf Hitler brainwashing the mass and controlling them by promising them certain
achievements, religion promises heaven, Hitler promised glory for Nazi-Germany. So this phenomenon of controlling the mass will always stay, even if religion disappears.
It is what makes us human beings, we’re not individuals but like cattle (there are exceptions), we follow the mass.
Even today, and even on this forum there are two groups of people; believers and non-believers.

Religion itself is perfect, the followers however are not. Religion itself teaches to treat the other the way want to be treated. It’s followers however neglect this.

The way Christians act today, do they resemble the teachings of Jesus Christ (pbuh)?
The way Muslims act today, do they resemble the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh)?
The way Pol Plot acted, does he resemble the teachings of Bhudda (pbuh)?

If the religious people of today would follow exactly what their key figures said, the world would be a much better place.
Their key figures never looked for worldy gains, their entire existence was meant to serve his fellow man.

We as mankind have always been divided, religion itself is not the cause.
If in everyone of us would be more mutual understanding.
The world would be a far better place, for both the believer and non-believer.

Today, there is a new group rising. This group claims that they have the truth and calls
everyone else; blind, foolish, ignorant, deluted..and what not?
While this group claims that they want tolerance and kindness in this world.

This phenomenon is not new if we study our history, but it’s the same old story
in a new coat.

[LegendarySandwich]

I think you're generally correct, iSok. That's why I'm against irrational thinking, blind faith, ideologies, etc., not just religion.

[iSok]

I think you're generally correct, iSok. That's why I'm against irrational thinking, blind faith, ideologies, etc., not just religion.

Why do you impose your rational thinking on other people?
Rational thinking can be the standard for you, but does that mean that rational thinking should also
be the standard for others?

There are a lot of people in the world who cannot practise science.
They don't have the intellect or don't have the opportunity.

What does life mean for you?
You answer is probably: Nothing or contributing to mankind.

I saw the documentary made by Richard Dawkins: 'God strikes back'.
He visits all types of people. christians, muslims, jews, astrologists, people who could talk with the dead..etc..
He was troubled by this, and asked them; why not just believe in science?

And I wondered; if it makes them happy and enjoy life, then why tell them to stop with it? Let them do whatever they enjoy.
Life itself is short, then why impose your own way of life on others?

Why would you call these peace-loving people; deluted, dumb, stupid and ignorant?
If they enjoy life, not harm society and contribute to society, then why can't you let them be with whatever they are doing?

Some people have other purposes in life, they would rather do something else.
I understand why Dawkins wants people to follow science rather than religion.

He basically wants to use as many minds as possible, so science can advance rapidly.
But does he have the right to do that? To seize/use the minds of others in order to
improve that in which he steadily believes.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation: For rational thinking
The Richard Dawkins Foundation: For Jesus

Both have the same concept.

[LegendarySandwich]

Why do you impose your rational thinking on other people?

I don't.

Rational thinking can be the standard for you, but does that mean that rational thinking should also
be the standard for others?

It should -- it won't, but it should.

There are a lot of people in the world who cannot practise science.

Rational thinking is not the same as science.

They don't have the intellect or don't have the opportunity.

Bullshit. Anyone can be a rational thinker.

What does life mean for you?
You answer is probably: Nothing or contributing to mankind.

I don't know.

I saw the documentary made by Richard Dawkins: 'God strikes back'.
He visits all types of people. christians, muslims, jews, astrologists, people who could talk with the dead..etc..
He was troubled by this, and asked them; why not just believe in science?

And I wondered; if it makes them happy and enjoy life, then why tell them to stop with it? Let them do whatever they enjoy.
Life itself is short, then why impose your own way of life on others?

Irrationality is potentially dangerous; rationality and science leads to improved quality of life.

Why would you call these peace-loving people; deluted, dumb, stupid and ignorant?
If they enjoy life, not harm society and contribute to society, then why can't you let them be with whatever they are doing?

I can.

Some people have other purposes in life, they would rather do something else.
I understand why Dawkins wants people to follow science rather than religion.

He basically wants to use as many minds as possible, so science can advance rapidly.
But does he have the right to do that? To seize/use the minds of others in order to
improve that in which he steadily believes.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation: For rational thinking
The Richard Dawkins Foundation: For Jesus

Both have the same concept.

One is improving the world. One isn't.

[Recusant]

Where is there scientific evidence that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates?"  What does that even mean? This sounds like something you got from that obfuscating purveyor of pseudo-science, Harun Yahya.  Show me a reputable geologist who agrees with this theory, please.  By the way, tectonic plates are not stable.  It's well known that they actually drift around quite freely, carrying their mountains with them, when viewed on a geological time scale.

If you don't know what it means, why don't you ask what it means first, and then if you're told what it means, then ask where's the evidence.

You have managed to be quite unhelpful here pilchardo, congratulations.  I was asking iSok to explain what he thought the idea that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates" meant, since if he's aware of modern geological theory, he already knows that tectonic plates are in more or less constant motion, yes, even as we speak. That is; the plates are not "stable" in a geological sense.  So if one is asserting that mountains stabilize them, and that modern geological theory backs up that assertion, I question what possible interpretation of those words makes the assertion valid. Your advice is gratuitous, considering the fact that iSok, in just the previous post, had basically settled that particular point of discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ISok, I must say that you impress me with your willingness to try to take a rational approach to this issue.

[iSok]

Where is there scientific evidence that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates?"  What does that even mean? This sounds like something you got from that obfuscating purveyor of pseudo-science, Harun Yahya.  Show me a reputable geologist who agrees with this theory, please.  By the way, tectonic plates are not stable.  It's well known that they actually drift around quite freely, carrying their mountains with them, when viewed on a geological time scale.

If you don't know what it means, why don't you ask what it means first, and then if you're told what it means, then ask where's the evidence.

You have managed to be quite unhelpful here pilchardo, congratulations.  I was asking iSok to explain what he thought the idea that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates" meant, since if he's aware of modern geological theory, he already knows that tectonic plates are in more or less constant motion, yes, even as we speak. That is; the plates are not "stable" in a geological sense.  So if one is asserting that mountains stabilize them, and that modern geological theory backs up that assertion, I question what possible interpretation of those words makes the assertion valid. Your advice is gratuitous, considering the fact that iSok, in just the previous post, had basically settled that particular point of discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ISok, I must say that you impress me with your willingness to try to take a rational approach to this issue.

The verse say does not say that because of mountains tectonic plates stop moving.
It says mountains move (we agree), have pegs (we agree) and they cause the earth to SHAKE LESS (we don't). (without mountains it would shake more).

But how do you explain the other verses?

[LegendarySandwich]

Doesn't the Qur'an claim the Earth is flat?
(Yes, I know that is a pro-Christian site, but the article itself seems to be sound.)

[Recusant]

Well, Recusant, I am of the opinion that science still has to discover this lol  Very well. I sincerely doubt that will occur, but we live in hope.

The verse say does not say that because of mountains tectonic plates stop moving.
It says mountains move (we agree), have pegs (we agree) and they cause the earth to SHAKE LESS (we don't). (without mountains it would shake more).

But how do you explain the other verses?

"The mountains move."  Considering that the Christian Bible, predating the Quran, says that "faith can move mountains," it would appear that concept of moving mountains does not originate with the Quran.  This was an image used to get across the idea that with faith, it's possible to achieve the seemingly impossible. I see nothing miraculous in another holy book using what was obviously a known concept of the era. Geologically, mountains do not plow through the surrounding earth like ships.  They can and do move in relation to their position on the globe, as the continents upon which they are situated move.  They also grow, either because of uplift and folding, or because of volcanism.  Does the Quran "predict" this also?  (Not that I would consider it miraculous if it did, I'm just curious.)

"Mountains have/are pegs"  If you've ever been to a desert you will see the roots of mountains quite clearly disappearing into the surrounding sand and earth.  This is an observation available to anyone with eyes to see, even if they lived in the 7th century.

ISok, I hope you're not wasting valuable study time disputing with us here, as much as I enjoy your presence on this forum.