Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

In his latest book, Robert Spencer states that prophet muhammad did not even exist and that the quran is a fiction. Again all pointers go the demise of this cult.

Well, there are indeed many issues with religion being misused and leading to people to hold bizare beliefs. This occurs in Islam and Christianity, and also other religions too.

A true religion for me should be logical and should not ask adherents to hold illogical beliefs - for me, God does not require people to hold beliefs contrary to logic. This applies to scientific as well as sociological explanations/commandments of religion.

The most extreme religious fanatic posting here has justified the killing of babies and enslavement of 32,000 virgins - on the grounds that as those doing the killing thought God told them to do it, it is ok:

philosophy-dubai/most-extreme-religous-fanatic-here-t41961.html

The same person also believes in Talking donkeys and that the earth stopped rotating in the past:

philosophy-dubai/biblical-confusion-t47353.html

Some people believe in Rapture, some people believe that the world is flat (we have funny examples in Muslims too) - and there's even people who are adamant that evolution did not occur and that there is a big conspiracy theory that is misleading people to believe that the earth/universe is older than a few thousand years.

However, religion is still relevant today as it was always. I have yet to find one teaching of Islam relating to how Muslims should live their lives and worship God that is incompatible with modern day life or is illogical. There are harsh punishments and metaphorical verses in the Quran - but on the practical side on how to live one's life, treat others, principles with which to be just etc - and how to worship, meditate etc - no conflict with logic or laws at all.

Yes, we can all laugh at the Biblical literalists, extremist bloggers/posters and the fewer Muslim equivalents - but you don't judge science by the kooky few - so don't apply this rule to religion.



Cheers,

Shafique

DFT wrote:Most of what is written in religious books has no hard evidence to back up the facts so may be considered fiction.

Bibble, Torah, Bhagavad Gita and other religious scriptures are no exceptions.

Here I disagree. The Bible has proven to be an important historical book backed up by archeology to at least 2000 B.C. An amazing feat. The Quran on the other hand is worthless as a historical book.

FD - epic wishful thinking there. Shame it is just a statement of your belief rather than being based on reality.

Can you show where a Quranic description of a historical event differs from the Biblical and the archaeological record shows that the Biblical description is correct? Give us specific examples to back up your claim.

For example, the Quran says that Lot's wife was not turned into a pillar of salt but just stayed behind in and did not emigrate. This is talking of the same event - is there any evidence that a lady was turned into salt?

There are many claims in the Bible that haven't been backed up by archaelogical evidence. On the contrary, from the 18th century many European archaeologists have assumed the Bible is historically correct and tried to make the archaeological findings fit in with what the Bible says... not the other way round.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:Can you show where a Quranic description of a historical event differs from the Biblical and the archaeological record shows that the Biblical description is correct? Give us specific examples to back up your claim.

Last time we went there, you ended up with your absurd claim that Dutch is directly derived from Arabic.

I guess the answer is 'no, I can't back up my claim' then. I thought so.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I guess the answer is 'no, I can't back up my claim' then. I thought so.

Guessing is not your best trait.

I was right though - your belief is not based on evidence. Personal attacks is all you have left.

Coming to herve's post above about Bob Spencer's new theory that the Prophet Muhammad did not exist. That's raises some interesting points - Spencer has often argued in favour of Islamophobic views about the Prophet, from paedophillia to war crimes. If the new stance is that the Prophet never existed - how does that fit in with his prior theories? Weird, eh?

This will just be another case of one Islamphobic blogger coming up with a theory that no historian or other expert will agree with. Apart from comedic value and helping keep herve happy in his delusions about Islam being a cult and being on the decline, it's hard to see the value in Spencer's theories any more.

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting, any historical/archeological proof with sources outside Islamic relgious literature for the existence of
Mohamed?

Yes, and quite easy to look up (search for Historicity).

But surely you need to ask herve about Spencer's new theory that Muhammad didn't exist. It seems as credible as your statement that the Bible is a more archaeologically sound book than the Quran - i.e. nothing more than wishful thinking.

Are really all the historians etc wrong that Muhammad not only existed, but founded one of the worlds greatest religions, united the tribes of Arabia etc?? The onus is on Spencer and his believers to explain their oddball theory.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:Here I disagree. The Bible has proven to be an important historical book backed up by archeology to at least 2000 B.C. An amazing feat. The Quran on the other hand is worthless as a historical book.

By a strange coincidence, when reading the thread on Palestinians - the board listed the 'Demystifying the Palestinian Issue' at the bottom of the screen. This was thread from 2008.

A certain Flying Dutchman has this to say back then:

Flying Dutchman wrote:Interesting enough, there is no archealogical evidence of the precense of the Hebrews or Israelites in Egypt. Not saying that it didn't happen, but many large groups of slaves left something something behind, not the Israelites. Our only reference is the OT and should we use that as a histrical book?

dubai-politics-talk/demystifying-the-palestinian-issue-t25254.html



(And note, FD and both agreed that Finkelstein's analysis was right - the issue is quite simple.)

At least my answer is consistent with the one I gave today - but note I agreed with FD back then:

shafique wrote:You are right FD - that is why I referred to Biblical accounts. A lot of the archaeological investigations done in the area have been based on Biblical accounts - trying to find evidence of the places and peoples mentioned in the Bible. ...

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, there is no contradiction in saying there is evidence for events after 2000 BC and that there is no archeoligical evidence for an event alledegly taken place before 2000 BC.

And about Finkelstein. I don't really know what the relevance for this thread is. Yes, a few years ago you might say that I had more symphaties for the Palestinian cause. After reading more about it and reading what kind of complete BS is written by the anti Israel group, I changed my mind.

Some historical and archeological errors in the Koran:

http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/20 ... rians.html

All experts agree that the quran is full of contradictions, the only muslimic defense is name calling (loon, islamophobe, fantasy etc...), denial and calls to censor those who are pointing fingers at these contradictions.
Funny thing is that muslums who deny these contradictions have not even read the quran.

FD - I asked you to back up your claim that the Bible is more historically accurate than the Quran, you didn't do so. However, you have now clarified the point that before 2000B.C. the Bible's claims/descriptions aren't that accurate - indeed I remember you stating here that you weren't sure that Moses even existed when we discussed the war crimes described in the Bible. To be fair to you, you did question the use of the OT as a historical document.. and on this I agreed with you.

Your claim in this thread is that the Quran is 'worthless' as a historical document - so I presume you meant in describing events between 2000 BC and when the Bible was written down (as events after this would not be in the Bible and events before this would not be accurate according to you).

I understand why you want to cut off the time line at 2000 BC - before that the Biblical claims are full of problems and are not supported by archaeological evidence. But even this claim doesn't stand close scrutiny - for the NT is problematic when it comes to historical details and is full of contradictions, from genealogies that differ to the number of days that Jesus stayed in Palestine after the crucifixion. But I agree with you, much of the OT is not supported by archaeological evidence - as you yourself pointed out in relation to the accounts of Israelites in Egypt.

However, I did want to highlight that you haven't actually provided any evidence that the Bible is a more accurate historical document than the Quran. To do so, you'd have to show that Biblical accounts mentioned in the Quran are more accurate in the Bible and perhaps show that alleged errors in the Quran outnumber those in the Bible (pre and post 2000 BC). I think you will not be able to show this - the Bible's errors/unsupported accounts by far outnumber the alleged errors in the Quran.

As for herve's latest theory about Muhammad not existing - it is interesting to note that Bob Spencer DOES believe Muhammad existed. herve again showed he can't really be trusted when he states his beliefs:

herve wrote:In his latest book, Robert Spencer states that prophet muhammad did not even exist

Does anyone agree with herve's mistaken view that Muhammad did not exist?

Cheers,
Shafique

PS - FD, it is interesting to read that you've changed your mind about the Palestinian cause over the past few years because of 'BS' written by the anti-Israeli side.

Why do I say this? Well, the article that you said you agreed with completely back then was about Israeli spin and misinformation:

Resolving the Palestinian issue? It's as simple as one, two, three.

Well, relatively simple when we strip-away Israeli rhetoric and look clearly at the key legalities of the situation.

Israel cynically portrays the issues as being deeply complex, part of its long game of evading international criticism while trying to break the Palestinians. Alongside the perpetuated myths of 'Palestinian intransigence' that followed Oslo, Olmert and his predecessors have sought to foster the notion of fiendishly difficult peace details bogging-down negotiations, requiring some kind of Olympian effort on their part to resolve it.

It seems you have gone from denouncing Israeli spin to now believing it? Fascinating.

(Oh, and the issue of your views on Palestine aren't directly relevant to this thread - but your post about validity of the OT as a historical record was in the thread on Palestine.. so treat this as an interesting aside.. hence I've put this as a post script)

shafique wrote: 'BS' written by the anti-Israeli side.

Yes, there is not really a pro-Palestinian side, but merely only an anti-Israel side.

Well, in 2008 you agreed with Finkelstein pointing out the fallacy of the Israeli spin. I also note that you were advocating more non-violent means of resisting the occupation. And yet now you don't seem to be that pleased with the Palestinian diplomatic moves - such as at the UN.

That said - your flip-flop (and any excuses for it) is a side-note in this thread.

I agreed with you back in 2008 that the Old Testament is not a good source of historical facts. I'm still curious as to why you would state that the Quran is worse and which particular accounts of the Quran make it worse than the Bible.

I wonder also whether anyone agrees with herve's new theory that Muhammad did not exist? I doubt anyone will join him in this latest conspiracy theory.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman ,Here I disagree. The Bible has proven to be an important historical book backed up by archeology to at least 2000 B.C. An amazing feat. The Quran on the other hand is worthless as a historical book.

LOL FD. Someone who doesn't even believe in a creator can proclaim such strong statements about quran. well I feel it's utter nonsense, before you can distinguish the right from wrong you have to try hard to work out your creator first, eh..

I'll help you a little..

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/?page_id=161


.

Berrin , so the univers can not exist forever or be uncaused, or selfcaused but god can?
It's the same as saying I don't understand this, lets just call it god and don't even try to ask questions about its nature.

The idea of god only complicates the true understanding of universe.

DFT - according to Islam and the other mono-theistic faiths (and quite a few others), yes God does exist outside the universe and is uncaused and not created.

God is the programmer of the sim programme that we experience as the Universe. He is not bound by the laws of His creation (the Universe), but can communicate with the creations.

He is distinct from His creation.

I do happen to believe in evolution and believe it is what God describes in the Quran - but I believe that God created the universe and laws of nature and set in place the process that led to life and ultimately to mankind. I fully agree that it is a valid theory to believe there is no creator and that we are here by chance - I just don't have faith strong enough to believe this. The chances of this being true are so infinitiesmally small that I can't put my faith in this theory - rather I think that the universe can be better explained by an intelligent creator.

BTW - my favourite creation theory is 'we were all created 5 minutes ago with ready-made memories'. It can't be disproven, and is very convenient. Everything we see around us was created 5 minutes.. hold on 4 minutes ... ago, but we were created with memories too.

(This is not the creation theory I believe in, just my favourite one of the many out there)

Cheers,
Shafique

It is very annouying many people here enjoy to attack Islam in every topic in this forum.

So people here hate Islam and everything about it very much and hate Palestinians they want to erase them from history, and this is all they talk about here. Why dont you change the website name from dubaiforums to attack-islamforums? Some of you even live in Dubai a Muslim city and these are your views. I challenge you to talk like this in public.

shafique , how an entity more complex than the universe we know can exist without external cause but an universe that can develop from the very simple things like hidrogen gas only, can not?

From what I see in nature inteligence can not just exist. It should be developed, even a child that already have the potential when he is borned requires lots of time and interaction with the physical world to develop intelligence.
To create an inteligence similar to ours, the universe spent billions of years of trial and error.

How come an inteligent being like god can just exist without cause? Where does his intelligence and powers come from?

I know what you are talking about when saying about a separate god like a programmer and the universe is a program. I used to believe in something similar myself. But with time and experience and more knowledge I just realized that the probability that such a god exists is very very small and usability of such a belief = 0. Everything that exists in the current universe can be explained with much simpler concepts that can actually be applied in practice.

Yosef wrote:It is very annouying many people here enjoy to attack Islam in every topic in this forum.

What I write is not about islam, it's about all religions and the idea of god in general. If you can not handle this, I am sorry but that is what I think. As somebody wrote "Internet is the place where religions come to die" and I think it's accurate.

DFT - by definition, the God of the monotheistic religions is not of this universe - so is not made of matter or energy. Complexity or simplicity only have meaning for us within the universe. Science tells us that everything outside the universe is 'undefined' - i.e. what was there before the big-bang? It is a meaningless question, because science says that time was created at the big bang - there is no 'before'. Similarly, as the universe expanded - what was outside the universe has no meaning, as it is 'undefined'.

Your theory that the universe spent billions of years of trial and error is indeed the theory I was referring to as a valid one, but one I do not have enough faith to believe in.

If someone showed me a table and chairs and said it was created by random events over millions of years - I'd say 'yes that is possible, however I don't believe you - I believe some intelligent being constructed it from the wood from trees and designed it that way'.

Life is infinitely more complex than some pieces of wood put together to form a table and chairs.

To me, at least, the probability that the table was assembled by chance is far, far, far, far, far less likely than someone making it. The probability that the universe was created by chance and not by an intelligent being/force is far, far, far,far, far, far, far... far, less likely to me. Do you see my view point?

Cheers,

Shafique

Just to be more accurate the universe spent about 4 billions years of trial and error from the beggining of life on earth, from the first living cell, to the intelligence we humans have. That is what I was refering to - the evolution on earth, which is nothing more than unconscious trial and error by nature which already is alive.

Now regarding the life itself, can you imagine how huge is the univers?
Number of stars in the Visible universe = 30 billion trillion (3x10^22;)
Now imagine all the atoms and molecules in all these solar systems. For example 1 gram of water = 3.333*10^22 molecules. That is a lot. If you could count 1 billion molecules per second, you'd still need a million years to count them all.
Now imagine the mass of the oceans water on earth only (~1.4×10^24 grams)
And imagine the age of universe, how much time these molecules can interact (move, bond, separate).

Considering this ENORMUOS amount of chances even with the tiniest probability, life is possible under such circumstances and it most probably exists on other planets in other galaxies as well.

DFT, the age of universe is calculated quantity subject to a variety of errors, technically a thing comes into "Existence" when you become "aware" of it , meaning when, you perceive it with your senses, so when one dies, the universe perishes for that person , moreover I think Alizee is still hot.

shafique wrote:If someone showed me a table and chairs and said it was created by random events over millions of years - I'd say 'yes that is possible, however I don't believe you

Chairs are made from pieces of wood. Have you often seen pieces of wood freely interact, bond, separate?
Because the simplest forms of life are made from molecules that behave like this and the average speed of a water molecule at 25 degrees c is 640 m/s.

Can you imagine this speed of interaction for such a tiny particle? Have you ever seen wood pieces interact with such speed? That's why you don't believe in random chair theory.

--- Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:51 am ---

But I would say even more. Life is not about form its about function. And there are huge amount of stones of exactly the size and temperature you can sit on.

--- Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:01 am ---

shawagma wrote:technically a thing comes into "Existence" when you become "aware" of it , meaning when, you perceive it with your senses, so when one dies, the universe perishes for that person

Thats not technically - thats subjectivelly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity wrote:Subjectivity frequently exists in theories, measurements or concepts, against the will of those attempting to be objective, and it is a goal in most fields to remove subjectivity from scientific or mathematical statements or experiments. Many fields such as physics, biology, computer science, and chemistry are attempting to remove subjectivity from their methodologies, theories and results and this is a large part of the process of experimentation in these fields today.

shawagma wrote:I think Alizee is still hot

She deffinitely is

DFT - I have not indeed seen a table spontaneously erect/construct itself.

I put it to you that a protein membrane is about 10 million times more complex than a wooden table. It is not even alive.

When someone can show me that a 'simple' protein membrane can be spontaneously constructed from underlying elements, then I'll consider it plausible that proteins then spontaneously came together with other proteins and somehow a basic life form was formed.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying that a wooden table has much more chance of coming together - say via a cyclone going through a forest, than a protein membrane being formed from a post-primordial-soup. I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing for the very small probability that the requisite amino-acids can be shown to be formed by random events.

I'm also discounting the calculations made by some scientists on the odds of life (or even the universe with its current set of physical constants) being formed by chance. Even Dawkins acknowledges the infinitisemally small odds of this occuring and just argues (in God Delusion) that whilst the odds are very small, they must have happened because we are here. That's some circular reasoning - and brings me back to the lack of faith. Dawkins is happy to believe that we were put here by chance, even though the odds of there being no creator are vanishingly small.

I don't have faith enough to believe a table was put together without a maker, let alone Dawkin's faith that an even more remote occurence happened.



As I tried to state earlier - we have to choose what to believe. My favourite creation theory is simple, understandable and fits the facts. It isn't logical though and most people would reject it as the true explanation of creation.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:When someone can show me that a 'simple' protein membrane can be spontaneously constructed from underlying elements, then I'll consider it plausible that proteins then spontaneously came together with other proteins and somehow a basic life form was formed.

The following video is not about proteins, but watch it to the end.

Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life


--- Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:43 pm ---

Christoph Adami: Finding life we can't imagine

Thanks DFT, I enjoyed that TED presentation.

I have admit that it does reinforce my view - that whilst possible, the odds of life occuring by chance are too small for me to have enough faith to believe in it. As he says early on, a cell has about 1,000,000 types of molecules and they are still at the stage of proto-cells with 5 to 10 molecules.

I would be impressed when we can artificially create a 'simple' protein membrane from scratch, let alone a functioning virus or cell.

A membrane is complex, but no where near as complex as a complete cell with 1m molecules:





What the TED talk did was highlight a possible path, not the liklihood that this was how life was created. Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:What the TED talk did was highlight a possible path, not the liklihood that this was how life was created. Just my opinion.

Yes, a possible path. The complexity you see in the modern cells is probably due to billion years of evolution of the very basic protocells that were formed in the beginning.

But this is not the point. This theory at least tries to explain how a complex thing like life was formed through much simpler processes present in abundance in our universe. The intelligent design argument just invents another unknowable complexity that explains everything - which in reality doesn't explain anything. The knowledge we get from ID is useless. It's the same as explaining that the thunders are created by Zeus, this type of knowledge would never lead to understanding of electricity.