• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Official Islamic Thread

Since I am not smart NIzar I will just post the things I found. You guys can discuss since my logic will never be enough :p

Big Bang?

When describing the creation of the "heavens and the earth," the Qur'an does not discount the theory of a "Big Bang" explosion at the start of it all. In fact, the Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30). Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (41:11). Thus the elements and what was to become the planets and stars began to cool, come together, and form into shape, following the natural laws that Allah established in the universe.

The Qur'an further states that Allah created the sun, the moon, and the planets, each with their own individual courses or orbits. "It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course" (21:33).

Six Days?

The Qur'an states that "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54). While on the surface this might seem similar to the account related in the Bible, there are some important distinctions.

The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). The word "youm" is thus understood, within the Qur'an, to be a long period of time -- an era or eon. Therefore, Muslims interpret the description of a "six day" creation as six distinct periods or eons. The length of these periods is not precisely defined, nor are the specific developments that took place during each period.

After completing the Creation, the Qur'an describes that Allah "settled Himself upon the Throne" (57:4) to oversee His work. A distinct point is made to counter the Biblical idea of a day of rest: "We created the heavens and the earth adn all that is between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us" (50:38).

Allah is never "done" with His work, because the process of creation is ongoing. Each new child who is born, every seed that sprouts into a sapling, every new species that appears on earth, is part of the ongoing process of Allah's creation. "He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then established Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters within the heart of the earth, and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven, and what mounts up to it. And He is with you wherever you may be. And Allah sees well all that you do" (57:4).

Life Came From Water

The Qur'an describes that Allah "made from water every living thing" (21:30). Another verse describes how "Allah has created every animal from water. Of them are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills, for truly Allah has power over all things" (24:45). These verses support the scientific theory that life began in the Earth's oceans

Creation of Adam & Eve

While Islam recognizes the general idea of the development of life in stages, over a period of time, human beings are considered as a special act of creation. Islam teaches that human beings are a unique life form that was created by Allah in a special way, with unique gifts and abilities unlike any other: a soul and conscience, knowledge, and free will. In short, Muslims do not believe that human beings randomly evolved from apes. The life of human beings began with the creation of two people, a male and a female named Adam and Hawwa (Eve).

The Qur'an describes how Allah created Adam: "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape..." (15:26). And, "He began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from a quintessence of fluid" (32:7-8). Thus, human beings have a fundamental attachment to the earth.

While the creation of Eve is not described in detail, the Qur'an does make it clear that a "mate" was created with Adam, from the same nature and soul. "It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her in love" (7:189). She is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an, but in Islamic tradition she is known as "Hawwa" (Eve).

From these two individuals, generations of human beings have inhabited the earth. "Oh humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured among you in the sight of Allah is the who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)" (49:13).
 
samven582 said:
Can you please post some "grammatical" errors from the Quran.
إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَٱلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَٱلصَّـٰبِـُٔونَ وَٱلنَّصَـٰرَىٰ مَنۡ ءَامَنَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَـٰلِحً۬ا فَلَا خَوۡفٌ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَلَا هُمۡ يَحۡزَنُونَ 

Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
[Quran 5:69]

The error here is the use of the word: ٱلصَّـٰبِـُٔونَ
This video explains it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-AZ6if0Qlw
 

Atrus

Gold Member
crazy monkey said:
And just to clarify I don't believe in Islam because of the science or peacefulness Nizar

You're previous post is misguided. I wouldn't recommend making the 'science in the quran' argument, it makes the religion and the claimant look weak.
 
Atrus said:
You're previous post is misguided. I wouldn't recommend making the 'science in the quran' argument, it makes the religion and the claimant look weak.

NO i don't claim anything I saw something that might be related to what Nizar was asking so I posted it. Infect this the first time I am seeing many of the things.
 
Zapages said:
Talk about a reliable source... >_> :lol
this is not a source, this is a video explaining the error in English.

I neither have the time nor the effort to sit here and explain everything to you word by word.
 
crazy monkey said:
Since I am not smart NIzar I will just post the things I found. You guys can discuss since my logic will never be enough :p

Big Bang?

When describing the creation of the "heavens and the earth," the Qur'an does not discount the theory of a "Big Bang" explosion at the start of it all. In fact, the Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30). Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (41:11). Thus the elements and what was to become the planets and stars began to cool, come together, and form into shape, following the natural laws that Allah established in the universe.

The Qur'an further states that Allah created the sun, the moon, and the planets, each with their own individual courses or orbits. "It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course" (21:33).
.......

This doesn't address the topic being discussed here, which is Earth being older than the stars according to the quran, so I don't see how this is supposed to disprove the argument that the quran states that earth is older than the stars or the scientific theory that earth is not older than stars.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
crazy monkey said:
NO i don't claim anything I saw something that might be related to what Nizar was asking so I posted it. Infect this the first time I am seeing many of the things.

You should take responsibility for what's posted then. If you won't even support what you've plopped down for others to read, then why should it be responded to? You can't simply drop nonsense and suddenly bear no responsibility for it. This isn't Fox News.
 
Now people can say atheists/agnostics outnumber Muslims in this thread. It took over 50 standard pages, but today, it finally came true on page 55.

I expect Muslims to come roaring back by tomorrow though!
 
Atrus said:
You should take responsibility for what's posted then. If you won't even support what you've plopped down for others to read, then why should it be responded to? You can't simply drop nonsense and suddenly bear no responsibility for it. This isn't Fox News.

That was only for Nizar. HE was asking about big bang or some thing so I posted it. The reason why I said about science is that I don't need science to told me what to believe in or not.

There is this one too Nizar .
http://www.scienceinquran.com/creation_phenomena.html
 

heidern

Junior Member
Nizar, cool, we'll stick with the absolutist definitions, although this is what's confused you.

Nizar said:
I like how you play with the words, you choose to say that Islam covers violence
instead of Islam asks its followers to commit violence.

My statement is wholly accurate. Islam is said to be a way of life, it covers everything.
Violence is part of life and thus covered. In some cases Islam speaks against violence,
in others cases it says it's acceptable. In the remaining cases violence isn't relevent
and not specifically covered.

Nizar said:
No, there is a difference between a philosophy that preaches its followers to
commit violence, and a philosophy that keeps its self out of violence and lets the follower
decide for his own.

The first example is an example of a violent philosophy, the second one is an example of a
nonviolent philosophy, do you see the difference?

Well, then the terminology is incomplete and your usage misleading. You have to add the
term anti-violent into the discussion. So you'd have Islam as a violent philosophy that
allows violence in one or more cases, antiviolent philosophies that speak against all violence
(imo stupid philosophies) and then these "nonviolent" philosophies which are neutral on
the issue and thus Adolph Hitler and Ghandhi would both fit in fine with nonviolent
philosophies. In this case violent and non violent philosophies cannot be compared since
it is comparing apples to oranges.

Nizar said:
I am reasoning here why Islam is not a peaceful religion as it claims to be but is a violent one.

The problem is that you've misunderstood what people mean when they say Islam is peaceful.
They are not using your absolutist definition of violence/nonviolence and whether Islam
allows violence in one or more cases. They are speaking in a general sense that overall
they believe Islam is peaceful. None of your arguments have had any relevence within this
context. In fact your stated philosophy is the same as Islam:

Nizar said:
Of course I believe that violence is accepted and is needed too in some situations.
 
crazy monkey said:
That was only for Nizar. HE was asking about big bang or some thing so I posted it. The reason why I said about science is that I don't need science to told me what to believe in or not.

There is this one too Nizar .
http://www.scienceinquran.com/creation_phenomena.html

The sequence of creation

Phenomenon Revealed in The Holy Qur'an:

The inner part of the earth [the part below the solid foundations (the tectonic plates)] was created in the first two thousand lunar years of the creation. The solid foundations and the earth's resources were put onto the inner part in the next four thousand lunar years. During the last two thousand lunar years of the creation, the seven heavens were created from the smoke that resulted from the disintegration of the primary entity, and the stars were made in the lowest heaven ONLY.

Man-made Theories and Observations

The big bang theory assumes that the heaven was formed first. Then after billions of years the earth was formed by itself!. Observations from Hubble Space Telescope showed that the earth and the rest of the universe (part of the lowest heaven) have the same age. That is, they were created at almost the same time.

Dr. Mohammad N. Wagdi, Ph.D.

Ph.D my ass, this guy doesn't know a shit and he has made up a whole website about science in the Quran.

The only thing this link proved, if any thing at all, is that this nutcase agrees that according to the Quran earth is older than the stars.

I know that you are trying to help here, but you aren't really doing anything useful, please stop spamming the thread with links that you haven't read or understood properly.
 

Zapages

Member
Nizar said:
Ph.D my ass, this guy doesn't know a shit and he has made up a whole website about science in the Quran.
.


Go ahead don't believe him... But his degrees and his occupancy at prestigious institutes and everything say otherwise.

Professor Mohammad N. Wagdi is a retired professor of Aerospace Engineering.

* Former Associate Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
* Former Dean of the College of Engineering, Suez Canal University, Port Said, Egypt.
* Former Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Riyadh University, Saudi Arabia.
* Former Professor of Systems and Control, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
 
Nizar said:
Ph.D my ass, this guy doesn't know a shit and he has made up a whole website about science in the Quran.

The only thing this link proved, if any thing at all, is that this nutcase agrees that according to the Quran earth is older than the stars.

I know that you are trying to help here, but you aren't really doing anything useful, please stop spamming the thread with links that you haven't read or understood properly.

at least I am not forcing you to follow what I follow. I guess I might be the only person who still believes in religion more than science or anything else :p enjoy
 
heidern said:
Well, then the terminology is incomplete and your usage misleading. You have to add the
term anti-violent into the discussion. So you'd have Islam as a violent philosophy that
allows violence in one or more cases, antiviolent philosophies that speak against all violence
(imo stupid philosophies) and then these "nonviolent" philosophies which are neutral on
the issue and thus Adolph Hitler and Ghandhi would both fit in fine with nonviolent
philosophies. In this case violent and non violent philosophies cannot be compared since
it is comparing apples to oranges.

How can you consider Hitler's ideology to be non violent?

The problem is that you've misunderstood what people mean when they say Islam is peaceful.
They are not using your absolutist definition of violence/nonviolence and whether Islam
allows violence in one or more cases. They are speaking in a general sense that overall
they believe Islam is peaceful. None of your arguments have had any relevence within this
context. In fact your stated philosophy is the same as Islam:

How can something be peaceful when it preaches on violence?
the definition of peaceful is being violence free.
 
Zapages said:
Go ahead don't believe him... But his degrees and his occupancy at prestigious institutes and everything say otherwise.

He just stated in his website that ''the earth and the rest of the universe (part of the lowest heaven) have the same age.'' ''That is, they were created at almost the same time.''

WTF?? wasn't he even bothered to at least check up with wikipedia before he published those statements?
 
Nizar said:
How can something be peaceful when it preaches on violence?
the definition of peaceful is being violence free.

Nothing in the world is peaceful man nothing. I don't know man we are all fucked.I need to do some yoga.
 
Nizar said:
He just stated in his website that ''the earth and the rest of the universe (part of the lowest heaven) have the same age.'' ''That is, they were created at almost the same time.''

WTF?? wasn't he even bothered to at least check up with wikipedia before he published those statements?

HOlyshit hahahahaha:lol :lol :lol :lol
 
crazy monkey said:
HOlyshit hahahahaha:lol :lol :lol :lol

Do you want me to prove your nutcase wrong? here you go, send this in an email to him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Structure_formation

20fyott.jpg


Formation of the oldest star HE 1523-0901 (13.2 billion years ago).

Formation of the first galaxies (13.2 billion years ago).

Earliest formation of I stars (10.1 billion years ago).

Formation of the Milky Way galactic disk (> 10 billion years ago, < 6.5 billion years ago).

Formation of Earth (4.54 billion years ago).
 

Althane

Member
Zapages said:
Go ahead don't believe him... But his degrees and his occupancy at prestigious institutes and everything say otherwise.


Just going to say this: People can get occupancy for reasons other than them being believable. One professor where I go to school is only a professor because he brings in so much research grant money.

Even though every student who's ever worked with him or even knows aobut his project, and all the teachers know that his research project is outdated, and worthless.


I guess I might be the only person who still believes in religion more than science or anything else :p enjoy

Out of curiosity, why? Everything that science says is subject to great discussion, scrutiny, and testing before its held as truth. Religion, on the other hand... well, you're taking their word for it.
 
Althane said:
Just going to say this: People can get occupancy for reasons other than them being believable. One professor where I go to school is only a professor because he brings in so much research grant money.

Did you hear what this nutcase is saying? earth and the rest of the universe have the same age and are created at the same time. seriously, wtf?
 

Prine

Banned
So now your going to discredit him with your own reasoning for his accomplishments? Talk about tripping up.

This is pointless, no-one is convincing anyone here.
 
Prine said:
So now your going to discredit him with your own reasoning for his accomplishments? Talk about tripping up.

This is pointless, no-one is convincing anyone here.

I am not discrediting him for his accomplishments, I only point out that the statement he made about everything in the universe is having the same age is a dumb ass statement.

If he would have at least checked up what wikipedia has to say about this before making such claims on his website he would have recognized what a stupid statement he is making.
 

Prine

Banned
Nizar said:
I am not discrediting him for his accomplishments, I only point out that his statement on everything in the universe has the same age is a dumb ass statement.

If he would have at least checked up what wikipedia has to say about this before making such claims on his website he would have recognized what a stupid statement he is making.

Im not sure about other universities but my university told us they would reject any paper we handed in if we cited wikipedia.

Just sayin!
 

Althane

Member
Nizar said:
Did you hear what this nutcase is saying? earth and the rest of the universe have the same age and are created at the same time. seriously, wtf?


I heard that. I recognize it's bullshit.

I'm also saying that credentials aren't always indicative of a person being a great mind. Which I believe suits your argument just fine.
 
Althane said:
Out of curiosity, why? Everything that science says is subject to great discussion, scrutiny, and testing before its held as truth. Religion, on the other hand... well, you're taking their word for it.
I am taking word for it. Count me in as dumb guy. Its not cool now a days to follow religion. I am actually very liberal guy. I believe what ever you believe its your choice. Don't force others to follow your ideology. I say this thing to both who are religious and atheist and everyone else.
See thing is I talked about violence with Nizar because I have seen wayyyy too much violence in my life. Not on tv or Internets.
 
Prine said:
Im not sure about other universities but my university told us they would reject any paper we handed in if we cited wikipedia.

Just sayin!

I never claimed that wikipedia is the ultimate error free source of truth.

I said that if this nutcase was even bothered to look up what wikipedia has to say on that matter he would have understood what a dumb ass statement he is making.
 

Althane

Member
crazy monkey said:
since we are discussing science. what the hell is dark matter? and why the hell scientist are looking for it in earth?

Dark Matter is the theoretical stuff that lets galaxies be shaped the way that they are. It's essentially undetectible except through gravitational attraction, and supposedly accounts for the greater amount of mass in the universe.

It's more or less what they use to explain the shape, rotational speed of galaxies, as well as other things I don't understand quite as well.

Why are they looking for it in earth? I don't know, this is the first I've heard of that.
 
Althane said:
Dark Matter is the theoretical stuff that lets galaxies be shaped the way that they are. It's essentially undetectible except through gravitational attraction, and supposedly accounts for the greater amount of mass in the universe.

It's more or less what they use to explain the shape, rotational speed of galaxies, as well as other things I don't understand quite as well.

Why are they looking for it in earth? I don't know, this is the first I've heard of that.

look at this dude.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=41582084

somehow if they find it in earth and can solve problems of universe.
 

Althane

Member
crazy monkey said:
look at this dude.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=41582084

somehow if they find it in earth and can solve problems of universe.


Ah, yeah, I remember reading something about that a ways back. In... Scientific American, probably. It was illustrated, so I'm gonna go with that.

Alright, after a few minutes reading, this is the answer I can give:

One of the leading ideas in explaining dark matter is found in the existence of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), which are fast little motherfuckers who, as their name suggests, don't really interact with matter. The slight amount that they do, however, means that as they pass through large, dense objects (Say, a large chunk of the earth's crust), they tend to slow down, just a tiny bit, which makes them easier to detect.

Oh, and the equipment you need to do that is absolutely freakin' massive. They use liquid gas as a detecting agent, one of the noble gases.
 
Althane said:
Ah, yeah, I remember reading something about that a ways back. In... Scientific American, probably. It was illustrated, so I'm gonna go with that.

Alright, after a few minutes reading, this is the answer I can give:

One of the leading ideas in explaining dark matter is found in the existence of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), which are fast little motherfuckers who, as their name suggests, don't really interact with matter. The slight amount that they do, however, means that as they pass through large, dense objects (Say, a large chunk of the earth's crust), they tend to slow down, just a tiny bit, which makes them easier to detect.

Oh, and the equipment you need to do that is absolutely freakin' massive. They use liquid gas as a detecting agent, one of the noble gases.

Thanks. I was like whoa dark matter is till to be found. sounds so mysterious. I need to get that wimp's ass now so we can finally solve the mysteries of big bangs and universe and religions cu guys tomorrow Inshaallah.
 

Althane

Member

heidern

Junior Member
Nizar said:
How can you consider Hitler's ideology to be non violent?

Nizar said:
No, there is a difference between a philosophy that preaches its followers to commit violence, and a philosophy that keeps its self out of violence and lets the follower decide for his own.

The first example is an example of a violent philosophy, the second one is an example of a nonviolent philosophy, do you see the difference?

You've defined non violent as a philosophy that keeps its self out of violence and lets the
follower decide for his own. So Hitler followed a non violent philosophy which kept itself
out of violence and he decided for his own that he'll support extreme violence.

Nizar said:
How can something be peaceful when it preaches on violence? the definition of peaceful is being violence free.
It's about the context. Islam is a way of life, people say it is peaceful because encourages
people to try to be peaceful and try to achieve a state of peacefulness. Yes it can allow
violence if necessary for example in a fight against injustice, but the aim is not to engage
in violence but to remove the injustice and achieve a state of peacefulness. It's not designed to be some pie in the sky utopian vision, but to be a practical guide that can actually be used in the real world.
 

Althane

Member
heidern said:
It's about the context. Islam is a way of life, people say it is peaceful because encourages
people to try to be peaceful and try to achieve a state of peacefulness. Yes it can allow
violence if necessary for example in a fight against injustice, but the aim is not to engage
in violence but to remove the injustice and achieve a state of peacefulness. It's not designed to be some pie in the sky utopian vision, but to be a practical guide that can actually be used in the real world.


77 out of eighty virgins say that they love pie in the sky.

The other three were either killed in suicide bombings done out of apolitical ambition driven by religious backing, forced to marry men due to a religion not helping a culture evolve, or were too busy brushing their teeth with new Oral-B-Fresh to answer!

You know who removed injustice? Martin Freakin' Luther King Jr.

You know what millitant leader attempted to remove injustice? Malcom X.

Guess which one was Christian and which one was Muslim.

Go on, guess.

Look, you can say that all you want, but the truth of the matter is that people don't see Islam as a religion of peace. They see it as a religion of nutcases who'd gladly blow themselves up to see a few jewish children dead, screaming men with unkempt beards shouting about how they hate America, burning flags, and death, fear, and opression.

Defenders of Islam need to stop sitting and saying "Yeah, we're a religion of peace". The injustice is in how your religion is being used to support terrorism and death around the world. REMOVE THAT INJUSTICE!

Otherwise, get used to people hating you, because you sat aside and let other people abuse your beliefs for their own gain. In that case, you deserve that.
 
heidern said:
You've defined non violent as a philosophy that keeps its self out of violence and lets the
follower decide for his own. So Hitler followed a non violent philosophy which kept itself
out of violence and he decided for his own that he'll support extreme violence.

Hitler was an ardent Social Darwinist, which means that he believed that the process of surivival of the fittest by natural selection should be artificially speeded up by the government, for example by killing 'incurables' and various 'undesirables'.

Now since his philosophy speaks of violence, even though it is justified according to him, it makes it a violent philosophy, but if his philosophy didn't preach on violence then it can't be considered a violent one.
However, his actions would be considered violent no matter what philosophy he followed, but again we are not discussing the followers actions but the philosophy its self.

If the philosophy preaches on violence, it is a violent one.
If the philosophy preaches against violence, it is an anti-violent one.
If the philosophy doesn't discuss matters such as violence, it is a nonviolent one.

The actions of a philosophy's followers have no impact on the philosophy its self hence they are two different things.

It's about the context. Islam is a way of life, people say it is peaceful because encourages
people to try to be peaceful and try to achieve a state of peacefulness. Yes it can allow
violence if necessary for example in a fight against injustice, but the aim is not to engage
in violence but to remove the injustice and achieve a state of peacefulness. It's not designed to be some pie in the sky utopian vision, but to be a practical guide that can actually be used in the real world.

We are not discussing peoples opinions of Islam here, we are discussing whether it is a violent religion or not, simply because a good part of it preaches on violence, no matter what the justification or the intention is, it is still violence and therefore it can't be considered peaceful simply because it preaches on violent thus it is considered a violent one too.
 

Dever

Banned
Althane said:
Defenders of Islam need to stop sitting and saying "Yeah, we're a religion of peace". The injustice is in how your religion is being used to support terrorism and death around the world. REMOVE THAT INJUSTICE!

Exactly this. Before convincing western countries that your religion isn't actually violent, convince the nutcases. They're making you look bad.
 

Zapages

Member
Nizar said:
We are not discussing peoples opinions of Islam here, we are discussing whether it is a violent religion or not, simply because a good part of it preaches on violence, no matter what the justification or the intention is, it is still violence and therefore it can't be considered peaceful simply because it preaches on violent thus it is considered a violent one too.

You do realize that every single Abrahamic religion discusses violence... So I don't really get what you are getting at all aside from repeating yourself over and over again.
 

SmokyDave

Member
Zapages said:
You do realize that every single Abrahamic religion discusses violence... So I don't really get what you are getting at all aside from repeating yourself over and over again.

I suspect it is because one of those religions repeatedly refers to itself as "The Religion Of Peace".
 

Stridone

Banned
crazy monkey said:
HOlyshit hahahahaha:lol :lol :lol :lol

Don't you think it's kind of ironic to laugh at Wikipedia as a source when your whole life is being influenced by a book of fairytales written by a hallucinating man that claimed to be talking to God?
 

Althane

Member
Stridone said:
Don't you think it's kind of ironic to laugh at Wikipedia as a source when your whole life is being influenced by a book of fairytales written by a hallucinating man that claimed to be talking to God?


Yeah, but Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! Those things can be wrong, didn'cha know?
 
Stridone said:
Don't you think it's kind of ironic to laugh at Wikipedia as a source when your whole life is being influenced by a book of fairytales written by a hallucinating man that claimed to be talking to God?

hi. Islam holds that the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jibr&#299;l (Gabriel) over a period of approximately twenty-three years. your first mistake I guess.
 

Althane

Member
crazy monkey said:
hi. Islam holds that the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jibr&#299;l (Gabriel) over a period of approximately twenty-three years. your first mistake I guess.

Well, that's what you hold. And he holds that it is "a book of fairytales written by a hallucinating man that claimed to be talking to god".

And to be fair, I can see where the hallucinating part comes from. I mean, being completely honest, if you saw a man talking about how God had him, and was saying strange things, professing to have a new religion, wouldn't YOU think he was completely off his rocker, or on drugs?
 
Althane said:
Well, that's what you hold. And he holds that it is "a book of fairytales written by a hallucinating man that claimed to be talking to god".

And to be fair, I can see where the hallucinating part comes from. I mean, being completely honest, if you saw a man talking about how God had him, and was saying strange things, professing to have a new religion, wouldn't YOU think he was completely off his rocker, or on drugs?

You never know what kind of gases can be released in these caves.
 
Althane said:
Yeah, but Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! Those things can be wrong, didn'cha know?

No one claimed that wikipedia is the ultimate error free source of truth, what is being pointed out is that wikipedia at least tries to backup its content with scientific researches and other sources, which makes it more reliable than the quran for example.
 
Top Bottom