Why are we here? - Islam

[Asmodean]

The Canon of Medecine, completed by ibn Sina in 1050, was still used in the 19th century in Europe.

19th century medicine SUCKED.

Still the same past tense problem though.

[iSok]

The Canon of Medecine, completed by ibn Sina in 1050, was still used in the 19th century in Europe.

19th century medicine SUCKED.

Still the same past tense problem though.

Never mind the other fields of science I guess.
Can you tell me how advanced medicine was in the 19th century?
Or do you only know that it just sucked?

As for the verse about the speed of light.
No one has yet replied.
Does this mean that the divine origin of the Qur'an is around 99,5%?

I'm working on a summary of evidences, as you may call it.
I will give a 'short list' of everything, It won't be short, but I'll try my best.
And I hope people will read it. I'm sure that it the very least it'll make you think again...
Expect his in the next three weeks.

[Gawen]

Man...overnight this thread blossomed several pages. So I'm not going back to dredge and reply. But I will say this pertaining to so-called science in the Quran; one may to find numerous debunkings of Quranic pseudo sciences.

And then there is this:

We regard the Qur'an as the final relevation of God towards mankind.

Muslims also believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed at many times and places before, including through the prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Muslims maintain that previous messages and revelations have been partially changed or corrupted over time, but consider the Quran to be both unaltered and the final revelation from God.

Final revelation, eh? Well, let's start waaaaaaay back at the beginning, but after the primordial soup of faith, shall we. You know, where it all started. The Tanakh is seen as presenting moral, ceremonial and civil laws. But here we deal with the Moral Laws. The moral law (most prominently the Ten Commandments) remains in full force. All of the laws are binding forever.  
Psa 119: 152: Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.  153: Consider mine affliction, and deliver me: for I do not forget thy law. 154: Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word. 155: Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. 156: Great are thy tender mercies, O LORD: quicken me according to thy judgments. 157: Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158: I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word. 159: Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy loving kindness. 160: Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

The Law is perfect:
Psa 19:7: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

There are mayhaps another dozen examples of this type of scripture throughout the Tanakh. But when will Christians and Muslims and Mormons start reading them? When will they consider the implications of belittling God’s Law?

Ezek 37:24: And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Ezek 36:27: And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Psa 111:7-8: The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.
Exo 15:18: The LORD shall reign for ever and ever
Psa 10:16: The LORD is King for ever and ever...

Christians want to keep saying over and over and over again that the bible is the word of God. Muslims say the Quran is the word of God. That's a lot of words of God. But it all started in the Tanakh. If they love this God then they should not ignore the instructions he gave to his followers long before some guy named Paul showed up with his new doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice. The same can be said of Islam and Mormonism.
Deut 11:1: Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.
Deut 6:2,5,24-25: That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Even Allah says this:
Quran, 2: 21: "O people, worship your Lord who created you and those before you and those before you. With this, you may have Taqwaa".
Quran, 16:36: "We have surely sent into every nation a messenger telling it, "Worship Allah and avoid false gods."

Notice as you read your Hebrew portions of your Bibles that it does not say "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever until some guy named Saul comes along and talks out his ass and then later another guy named Muhammad comes along and trumps Saul/Paul and then another guy named Joe Smith comes along and then L. Ron Hubbard will appear with a new revelation called "Dianetics" which may or may not be the Lords final revelation..."

Notice that we do not read in the Hebrew Bible "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us until further revelations exempt us from doing so".

I could go on until I get 40 pages written. But let's sit back and watch as the Christians and Muslims huff and puff their way out of Deut 4:2: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

[Existentialist]

Can I ask why an atheist needs to know anything about religion?

What, seriously now?

(I do wish people wouldn't keep asking that)  Yes, seriously.

You're saying that in a discussion about religion, you don't really need to know anything about religion?

Nowhere is there prior agreement that the discussion is about religion.  The heading of the forum is "The set of beliefs, rituals, and practices founded on specific supernatural and moral claims about reality and often associated with worship of a deity" but there is nothing that requires the participants to have prior knowledge of these things.  As an atheist I may be interested in what religious people have to say, but to say that I as an atheist have to have any prior knowledge of religion is not acceptable to me.  I can question, reason with, probe and discuss religious issues with a religious believer and still participate in the conversation without any prior knowledge at all.  I find your question very dismissive.

In other words, you don't need to know anything about the subject matter at hand because you're going to refute everything immediately anyway since you're an atheist? If that's the case, I don't understand what you're even doing here. You're not being open minded, nor are you going to take any discussion value inherent in this thread seriously. I hope you can change that.

That isn't the case.
 

I hope you don't mind if I put forward a third.  That despite all the proof you're putting forward, someone else holds a different position on the existence of God.  We shouldn't really need proof either way, if you think that what you believe is important, proof has no impact

It's fine that we're all holding different positions on the existence of God and your last sentence is definitely correct. But you're not going into iSok's arguments much.

iSok's arguments are long and hard work and it is very difficult to see how they form a convincing basis for belief.  I rather lost the will to carry on trying when iSok's claim that the Quran describes foetal development weren't accompanied by references to the passages in the Quran specifying the location of the description.  But that was last night, this is today and I see that lots of people are quoting long passages to each other and even writing in red font.

[Asmodean]

Can you tell me how advanced medicine was in the 19th century?
Or do you only know that it just sucked?

Oh, it is an educated opinion. I am comparing to the medical science of today, which will probably suck in a few decades itself.

Let me see... 19th century medicine...

Treatment of viral infections was largely ineffective. Treatment of bacterial and fungal infections was sketchy at best. Precision surgery and transplantation were science fiction at best. Radiography... What radiography? Compartmentalization of medicine was (until reasonably late 19th century) basically "treat or pray". Chances of successful treatment were far slimmer than chances of serious complication due to wrong, ineffective and often dangerous treatment.. The list goes on...

So yeah, seen from today's perspective, 19th century medicine did, indeed, suck. One has to give that period of time some historical credit, but a nineteenth century doctor would probably be fired from a modern healthcare facility within minutes of encountering the first patient.

As for the verse about the speed of light.
No one has yet replied.
Does this mean that the divine origin of the Qur'an is around 99,5%?

Must have missed that one, otherwise, I'd probably poke a hole in it...    

I'm working on a summary of evidences, as you may call it.
I will give a 'short list' of everything, It won't be short, but I'll try my best.
And I hope people will read it. I'm sure that it the very least it'll make you think again...
Expect his in the next three weeks.

Well, such lists of evidence have been debunked before... I hope you manage to include something new and unexpected.

[iSok]

[Asmodean]

No matter how unaltered your book might be, it's still the same fiction as the other books.

[Whitney]

For anyone that wants to debate these "proofs" but doesn't know where to start; the last time I actually debated a  Muslim the easiest way to debunk was to go find the quoted verse and present it in context, then explaining why it's nothing special.

I know I'm not going to really bother because I think the OP is just regurgitating stuff from memory rather than thinking about it...after all, what busy person has time to post that much?

[Whitney]

iSok...when are your finals over and when can we expect you to not be busy?

[iSok]

Maybe you should start with that whitney.
Find the verses and quote them here, then we can have a reasonable debate.

Rather do that.
My finals will be over at the end of January.

No matter how unaltered your book might be, it's still the same fiction as the other books.

Beautiful.

[Whitney]

Maybe you should start with that whitney.
Find the verses and quote them here, then we can have a reasonable debate.

I was merely commenting for those who are interested in discussing the verses.  The only reason I have even kept an eye on this thread was for moderation purposes.

My finals will be over at the end of January.

Ok, the reason I asked is because if I think you aren't paying attention to people's responses (and I don't think your responses to those replying to your proofs are indicative of someone who is being mindful) I needed a way to determine how long to suspend your account.  So, when replying, be mindful that you need to reply fully otherwise simply wait till you have more time (or you'll be provided with having to wait till you have more time).

[Simonsimon]

Can I ask why an atheist needs to know anything about religion?

What, seriously now?

(I do wish people wouldn't keep asking that)  Yes, seriously.

Yeah, my bad. Allow me to explain my misinterpretation of your question. It's a lot more sophisticated than I thought it was last night. I thought that you meant that, if you're a convinced atheïst (in other words, you don't believe in god and that's final), you wouldn't need to know anything about religion because you weren't going to believe in it anyway. I now see that I was wrong I have however found it to be pretty hard to reason with believers who start quoting from scripture if I have no idea what quoted scripture even means and have to rely on the interpretation of others. And in order to talk about things like evil, angels, how the koran says the world came to be, or things that like iSok says that have been foretold in the Koran while only recently scientists have made formulas that describe said foretold phenomenon, it would be necessary to have some prior knowledge of these things...This knowledge doesn't have to come from religious texts, but if you have no idea what they're even talking about it's pretty hard to debunk anything.

Case in point: If I hadn't known that the Koran says it's the final revelation, I wouldn't be able to debunk Gawen's argument. Now I may just be able to: Whatever the Hebrew Bible says about this is irrelevant, because the Koran has stated it's the final revelation, in other words, the Hebrew Bible is outdated, an old, 'corrupt' version as long as the Koran is concerned. But I'll let iSok go into that. Point is, I wouldn't have known this if I hadn't read about the Koran.

I hope you don't mind if I put forward a third.  That despite all the proof you're putting forward, someone else holds a different position on the existence of God.  We shouldn't really need proof either way, if you think that what you believe is important, proof has no impact

It's fine that we're all holding different positions on the existence of God and your last sentence is definitely correct. But you're not going into iSok's arguments much.

iSok's arguments are long and hard work and it is very difficult to see how they form a convincing basis for belief.  I rather lost the will to carry on trying when iSok's claim that the Quran describes foetal development weren't accompanied by references to the passages in the Quran specifying the location of the description.  But that was last night, this is today and I see that lots of people are quoting long passages to each other and even writing in red font.

Yeah, a lot of people have joined in and have started pretty elaborate posts for which I'm thankful.

@Whitney, I really don't think he's ignoring posts on purpose or something. He's not flaming, preaching, or trolling as far as I'm concerned, instead he's trying to have a discussion and perhaps failing at it a bit

[Simonsimon]

No matter how unaltered your book might be, it's still the same fiction as the other books.

Whitney, I'd appreciate it if you would take care of posts like these. Really, I can't find anything of discussion value in this posting. If you're already convinced it's fiction anyway, what are you doing in this thread...?

[Asmodean]

Whitney, I'd appreciate it if you would take care of posts like these. Really, I can't find anything of discussion value in this posting.

Use "report"-button.

If you're already convinced it's fiction anyway, what are you doing in this thread...?

You missed the point somewhere in the beginning of the statement I wrote.

I said, in different words, that it doesn't matter if the Quran is less altered than the Bible or the Torah or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Being unaltered does not suggest better quality of information. Many a book had to have been altered with changing facts or revised for other reason.

In the world of fictitious writing though, the original story as told millenia ago may just be the most entertaining one.

So, just to re-emphasise my point, being "unaltered" does not give the Quran more factual credibility than it would give a cliché love novel. The most one can hope from such a book is a higher degree of historical correctness, yet even that is debateable.

[Simonsimon]

Whitney, I'd appreciate it if you would take care of posts like these. Really, I can't find anything of discussion value in this posting.

Use "report"-button.

If you're already convinced it's fiction anyway, what are you doing in this thread...?

You missed the point somewhere in the beginning of the statement I wrote.

I said, in different words, that it doesn't matter if the Quran is less altered than the Bible or the Torah or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Being unaltered does not suggest better quality of information. Many a book had to have been altered with changing facts or revised for other reason.

In the world of fictitious writing though, the original story as told millenia ago may just be the most entertaining one.

So, just to re-emphasise my point, being "unaltered" does not give the Quran more factual credibility than it would give a cliché love novel. The most one can hope from such a book is a higher degree of historical correctness, yet even that is debateable.

Simply being unaltered wouldn't mean anything, I agree. I think iSok's point with that was that since the Koran (according to him) is perfect, there are no internal contradictions in it thus it has not needed to be adjusted. Which in turn means that it was written by God, not by man because man would make errors (which man has with the bible). Is that making any sense? iSok, have I paraphrased you properly?