I can dismiss the assertion that mermaids exist without examining every detail of every claim that they do. Thus far the sum total of evidence you've gleaned despite the hyperbole you entered this forum with, from your Koran is a story about flies. Which rather ironically didn't match in any way the reference to the Koran you gave, which was about snakes???? Which you tried to justify because you were tired???? Which makes the hilarity of derogating Dawkins for not properly researching the koran hilarious. The burden of proof is still urs btw, any credible evidence is still eagerly awaited.
O O.Binladen makes me wonder if you are cherry picking or you need glasses. Did I not also give you a reference about the basic effects of a nuclear attack? I also gave you links to a website for further reading. The reference to the fly was from Sahih Bukhari not the Qu'ran(!). Did you miss the post where I stated that the reference I originally gave with regard to the example of the fly was a typo on my part?
Lol I didn't justify that I was tired, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt for not doing a quick control find(".......You may also be mixing your scripture up as a brief search online for Sahih Bukhari vol 4 book 54 number 534 gave this(TYPO ON MY PART - S/BE number 537 - QUICK GOOGLE AND CTRL F THE PAGE FOR "FLY" - BUT GRANTED IT WAS 23:02:20 BST WHEN YOU REPLIED SO ONE MAY HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY EXHAUSTED AFTER A LONG WEEK AT WORK):)" - It was 3 hadith numbers down on the webpage.
Which makes your remark that "...the hilarity of derogating Dawkins for not properly researching the koran hilarious" all the more hilarious!!!
So far KEY points you've made is that blind evolution is a fact (when in fact it's just a widely accepted theory amongst Atheists in general) implied that the gnat has no intricate design(I'll have to get a microscope out for this one just to make sure if all I see really is just a blur) and that carbon dating is a reliable method albeit not to prove if God exists(which I've always agreed with except you kept thinking I didn't even although it's a given). And...oh yes that you don't have to prove that unicorns exist (especially pinks ones as per Dawkins' analogy I take it?)..sorry forgot the mermaids too...
If the burden of proof is still mine please can you explain to me who threw the ball into my court? Did the ball just suddenly appear in my court at the start of the game? If you're trying to suggest that because theists believe in a God the onus is on them to prove His existence then how far do you want to go back on the origins of this arguement? Was the first intelligent man that ever lived a God-fearing man or was he an athiest? I don't see your logic in your prickly rhetoric of who's burden it is to provide proof. Please enlighten me.
So now proven scientific fact is just theory, and the next bit is priceless, it's accepted by Atheists. An utterly transparent attempt to suggest some sort of Atheist agenda. Two outright falsehoods coupled with quotes from the koran, the latter repeatedly touted as proof, and then my favourite referencing islamic theistic web sites. Well, what more proof could we need.
Again you've missed a lot of my points and completely ignored what I've stated in earlier posts.
Give me at least one shred of evidence to prove that without a shadow of a doubt blind evolution is a fact. It is still a theory. Always has been. Just do your homework. Otherwise your just as bigoted as the hardcore creationists who believe life began literally c6000 years ago.
"An utterly transparent attempt to suggest some sort of Atheist agenda" - what on earth are you on about?!
Anyway for the benefit of the readers the mission statement of Richard Dawkins's website is: "Our mission is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering." A noble quote because I for one abhor extremist views from the religious far right who do not represent the majority of non-extremist theistic believers like myself. I'm with Dawkins on this but I'm afraid he's taken it a bit too far by unjustifiably placing believers of a diety in all of the four categories("religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering").
Be impartial and open-minded - look at both religious and non-religious sources of reference. Shocked this still hasn't registered with you yet as the fact that you are questioning religion and reading athiestic literature illustrates you are indeed of capable mind.
Itīs clear you havenīt the remotest idea of what constitutes evidence, or the weight of evidence required to establish something as solidly as evolution has been validated by scientific research. I donīt need to be a scientists to know that anecdotes from mythical religious texts are so much pie in the sky by comparison. If however you want to continue to be supercilious whilst making yourself look very foolish then by all means continue. Itīs registered with me that like a great many theists you will believe that Thomas the tank engine is divinely inspired if it lends, in your eyes anyway, credence to your superstition of choice. That mission stament by the way is a fairly noble one by any standards, for any half objective reader.
One last point, I donīt need to prove what science has established as correct, if you disagree then publish your "ecvidence" to disprove evolution if you like, good comic literature is never a waste.
Dont waste yourself with your factoids. The missing link is what keeps your belief floating within the realm of theory. Scientists are still mesmerized on how little they still know about the bio universe of the human body and yet you keep repeating the mantra that you have all the evidence that blind evolution occured. You ask me where God is and youdon't even know where you are.
Itīs plain, as indeed it has been from the start, that you have the same characteristic grasp of what does, or does not, constitute evidence as so many theists have. As for me being blinkered or closed minded, if the empirical evidence to refute a scientifically accepted truth, even one as solidly established as evolution, was available, I would accept it unequivocally. You on the other hand would never abandon your chosen superstition, no matter where the evidence points, you've proved it again and again in this discourse, and all the while ignoring the irony that there are more theists who think you're denying gods existence whilst heading for eternal damnation than share your own superstition. Evolution is not a mantra and the scientific evidence is beyond doubt, unlike the fairly tales and myths in the Koran, which despite your claim of 1400 years of antiquity has not provided any empirical evidence that has been scientifically verified, odd that, coming as it does from the mouth of an omniscient being, it must take an enormous amount of faith, to ignore that. The bizarre attempts theists make to rationalise such beliefs that run contrary to so much evidence, some of which we can all read from you in this discourse makes fairly sad reading.
Mr T says: "The missing link is what keeps your belief floating within the realm of theory."
Another blatant falsehood. It's not a belief either, it's an acceptance of the overwhelming scientifically gathered empirical evidence to support it, so that's very poor from you, again. If evolution can be falsified by evidence then do it, publish away, theists have had almost 200 years, yet the evidence is all stacking up to confirm evolution, what can we read into that? If any single thing in the Koran can be empirically validated to indicate it's origins as anything other than human then again, publish and let science do it's worst, you've had, according to you anyway, 1400 years. What can the hold-up mean?
Are there no Ontological arguments out there, to help this poor lad out? He's floundering, badly.
Whoa! DON'T CONFUSE MY BELIEF WITH THOSE THEISTS WHO BELIEVE MAN FIRST CAME INTO BEING c4000 to 6000 YERS AGO. Not all theists are the same.
I believe in guided evolution but not blind evolution so please don't tar me with the same brush.
I get that you are parsimonious, hence, why you keep asking me to provide you with examples of empirical evidence that there is a God.
To sum it up I share the view of the author of an article on HowStuffWorks on human evolution as follows:
"One of the most persistent myths, however, concerns the relationship of humans to great apes, a group of primates that includes the gorilla, orangutan and chimpanzee. Someone who believes the myth will say, "If evolution exists, then humans must be descended directly from apes. Apes must have changed, step by step, into humans." This same person will often follow up with this observation: "If apes 'turned into' humans, then apes should no longer exist." Although there are several ways to attack this assertion, the bottom-line rebuttal is simple -- humans didn't descend from apes. That's not to say humans and apes aren't related, but the relationship can't be traced backward along a direct line of descent, one form morphing into another. It must be traced along two independent lines, far back into time until the two lines merge.
The intersection of the two lines represents something special, what biologists refer to as a common ancestor. This apelike ancestor, which probably lived 5 to 11 million years ago in Africa, gave rise to two distinct lineages, one resulting in hominids -- humanlike species -- and the other resulting in the great ape species living today. Or, to use a family tree analogy, the common ancestor occupied a trunk, which then divided into two branches. Hominids developed along one branch, while the great ape species developed along another branch" Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm
Moreover, I share the same belief of the movement in the following excerpt:
"The Ahmadiyya Movement is perhaps the only denomination in Islam that actively promotes evolutionary theory. Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Qur'an to support the concept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike more orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard Adam as being the first Prophet of God - as opposed to him being the first man on Earth. Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis promote the idea of a "guided evolution", viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God. Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
If that were all true why would an omniscient being communicate the story of Genesis? It's an absurdity to assert that a being with limitless knowledge and power would give us falsehoods. Just as it's an absurdity to suggest such a being couldn't communicate its message with absolute clarity. On the other hand it's palpably obvious that Genesis is exactly the kind of myth you'd expect bronze age humans to come up with. Since all of that fits precisely the evidence, whereas there is no evidence to support your assertions only blind belief or faith can support your position.
Im muslim - I don't believe in the biblical version in the book of Genesis. I never have, I never will.
I believe the universe was created over a billion years ago from nothing NOT c6000 yrs ago in 6 days and that God had to rest on the seventh. Latter contradicts the very essence of an All-Perfect Being and the former contradicts the very laws of nature and of modern day scientific discoveries.
Man was not the first living creature on earth, period.
I don't merely believe the aforementioned because it is stated in the Quran. I use a scientific empirically based judgement to come to these conclusions. In life there are absolute truths and the laws of physics and the basic laws of biololgy are as such.
I believe the QURAN is the WORD of God and SCIENCE is the ACT of GOD.
No book can claim any kind of scientific validation if it's contents are protected from all criticism. There is nothing in the Koran that couldn't have been created entirely by humans. Nor has the world of science validated any of it as having a metaphysical origin.
I am aware that science, not scientists, is entirely objective. If there was any empirical evidence to support a metaphysical deity we wouldn't be discussing it. Every theist is convinced that their Scripture is true.
1, Have you read every piece of Atheistic literature refuting the Koran? 2. If the claims of divine origin are valid where's the proof?
After all I'd not heard of mass conversions from all other religions to Islam.
You see how asking loaded questions is a two way street.
The little I've read of the Koran made little sense to me, and no I've not read the other items you refer to. Then again I've not read the Harry Potter books either, but I have nonetheless no reason to believe them true.
Quite clearly they are not loaded at all. If i asked if you stopped beating your wife or if you stopped being ingenious then that would be asking loaded questions.
I've simply asked you if you've read two books I mentioned not a whole library of books on Islam.
Then I suggest you further your reading using the books I suggested if you want guidance as to where the empirical evidence is.
For one who criticises Islam you seem to appear to be very ignorant of the religion.
You've presupposed that the Quran is fictitious like the books on Harry Potter. Again you walked into this blind. The more I read your comments the more I feel your level of ignorance on Islam and indeed science has a negative influence on you more than it does on others.
Carry on living in darkness at the bottom of the sea.
I am perfectly calm I assure you. They were loaded, and I did answer them. Try reading my post. I presuppose that anything that has not turned up one shred of compelling empirical evidence to validate it in hundreds of years is a fiction, yes. That's simple common sense, especially when it's making claims for divine origin, for which there is also not one shred of evidence. Tell me have you spent the same amount of time and effort on all other religions as on your own? If not then I could level the same accusation of ignorance at you. As for me living in darkness, nothing could be further from the truth, it's you who are sadly living under a delusion, it's a shame to waste the one life you'll ever have on such a sham.
Yeah is that why 2 billion people accept it and is that why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. The Islamic empire was the biggest and greatest of empires. Just check the bbc for that.
Like all the major religions Islam rejects terrorism so before anyone plays the terrorist card and try doing some homework on false flag attacks. And again if people had read the Quran there is no death penalty for adultery or apostasy.
And yes I have read up on the major religions and quite happily have their sacred books to hand for comparative study and I even have atheistic literature which I have read and continue to read. My point is again I've listened to both sides of the story unlike some folk out there.
Now have you done the same or does it still irritate you when I ask you if you've been impartial?. If you haven't then you shouldn't be on this discussion and others where you are slating religion. The same goes for religious people who haven't read atheistic literature.
You are living in the darkness but you perceive it not. If you sincerely said to me that yes I will read the Quran and other major religious texts as well as atheistic literature then I would have said otherwise and respected you for it.
So what? 100 of Millions of people worshiped Zeus, what does that validate? Billions of people believed the world was flat, IS THE WORLD FLAT?
Maybe some Muslims reject terrorism, but many do not.
So how come countries that have strict Muslim theocracies almost always have the death penalty for adultery and apostasy?
No you haven't, you may have read some of both sides of the story, you've certainly not listened to both, that's not how faith works, you're deluding yourself.
Why do you keep touting the lie that I'm irritated?
I've neither read nor could I understand Einstein's theory of relativity either, but I am happy to defer to science, not individual scientists, where this is the case. In the case of religious texts however they're such a mixture of vague, contradictory, subjective, and errant myths that no two people seem able to agree, hence their value as evidence is virtually nil. Though I said some time ago though that if you or anyone else has compelling empirical evidence to validate any religious texts then publish your work and let science do it's worst, I'll happily accept the decision of mainstream science, your religion's had enough time after all.
You're living under a delusion, but you don't perceive it, but then that's the nature of a delusion. I don't require the respect of theists on the internet who chafe when I refuse to buy into their delusional beliefs, so it's of no consequence how you feel about my Atheism.
To O.Binladen: Lol "100 of millions of people worshipped Zeus" - what a ridiculous unfounded statement - the 1 billion milestone of world population is the year 1804(http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/) and I'm sure most of the billion were not Greek pagans!
Many muslims reject terrorism only a handful(so to speak, of course!) do not. If you don't believe this then please check global poll statistics rather than repeating the same empty words of the Islamophobes out there.
Those countries you refer to are led by power hungry maniacs who don't know the religion of Islam which has no death penalty for adultery and apostasy. No verse in the Quran exists to prove the penalty should be carried out so again this is why I stress it is important to read the book.
Whether you've read or listened it's the same thing - by reading I've "listened" to the main proponents viewpoint. Reading is just another means of communicating.
Because if you weren't irritated then you would read and reflect on what I've stated in previous replies/posts rather than making silly unfounded statements about me allegedly hitting you with loaded questions etc.
Yes I agree re science so please don't defer to individual scientists like Dawkins if you ever have or may. Absolute science is what guides us and in this I see the Majesty of God in His creations even down to the "invisible" bacterium. When I see an intricate order in nature which had more chances of going wrong than right then I can't say that there was no Devine Hand that guided it. To say otherwise, in my opinion, is madness.
I stated that you are living in the darkness not under a delusion.
You believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. Let's agree to disagree.
O.Binladen says: No book can claim any kind of scientific validation if it's contents are protected from all criticism. There is nothing in the Koran that couldn't have been created entirely by humans. Nor has the world of science validated any of it as having a metaphysical origin.
Another torrent of factoids you keep repeating to yourself.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is." Albert Einstein.