Quran burning: Obama apologizes

In addition, for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one has succeeded.

•MilanDevil• wrote:

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:To those who do not believe in God may I ask you this: Are the things you see in this world exist on their own? Does the computer that you are using just exits? Personally, I see a creator behind everything in this world and thus it would make sense that there is a creator of this universe. I also believe in only one God since, the world has shown me that those who are in power are the fewest. For example, the food chain, and the social hierarchy of our world (rich, middle class, and poor).

Also do you think that prophets were a lie? If so, how did they convince a number of people to follow their religion, keep in mind that most of them started very small and very weak.

First of all, you said " does the computer you use just exists". Of course not. You need to understand the process of natural selection, and the bigger picture of evolution to understand that. The basic idea is that living things change over time to better adapt to certain conditions. For example, people in Africa have darker skin, whereas few people who live in the Antarctic are able to withstand colder temperatures. The point of this being that over the years humans learned how to make fire, how to use tools, and slowly but surely grew more intelligent.

Doesnt your highschool teach evolution? If you understand the bigger picture of evolution, you will not have those questions.

You also said were the prophets liers? If so, how did they convince so many people? Think about it this way. I am going to assume that you believe in Islam. So you will probably believe that Mohammed was the messanger from God.

Jesus was a prophet for Christians, Krishna was a prophet for Hindus, Joseph Smith was a prophet for Mormons. You clearly dont believe that all of them are right do you? They all did manage to convince a lot of people to believe in them. It was easier in those days to convince people because all of them were uneducated. They all thought sun was the center of the solar system (let alone the concept of evolution).

I am familiar with evolution and think it is possible but here must be someone who have started it. And about the prophets, I do not think it was easier, I think it was much harder. People had brains at that time and found more spare time, a smart person is a smart person no matter what date or place.

Why would a God just start the process of big bang? And let the world evolve for billions of years, and only interfered some 6000 years ago?

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:To those who do not believe in God may I ask you this: Are the things you see in this world exist on their own? Does the computer that you are using just exits? Personally, I see a creator behind everything in this world and thus it would make sense that there is a creator of this universe. I also believe in only one God since, the world has shown me that those who are in power are the fewest. For example, the food chain, and the social hierarchy of our world (rich, middle class, and poor).

Also do you think that prophets were a lie? If so, how did they convince a number of people to follow their religion, keep in mind that most of them started very small and very weak.

First of all, you said " does the computer you use just exists". Of course not. You need to understand the process of natural selection, and the bigger picture of evolution to understand that. The basic idea is that living things change over time to better adapt to certain conditions. For example, people in Africa have darker skin, whereas few people who live in the Antarctic are able to withstand colder temperatures. The point of this being that over the years humans learned how to make fire, how to use tools, and slowly but surely grew more intelligent.

Doesnt your highschool teach evolution? If you understand the bigger picture of evolution, you will not have those questions.

You also said were the prophets liers? If so, how did they convince so many people? Think about it this way. I am going to assume that you believe in Islam. So you will probably believe that Mohammed was the messanger from God.

Jesus was a prophet for Christians, Krishna was a prophet for Hindus, Joseph Smith was a prophet for Mormons. You clearly dont believe that all of them are right do you? They all did manage to convince a lot of people to believe in them. It was easier in those days to convince people because all of them were uneducated. They all thought sun was the center of the solar system (let alone the concept of evolution).

I am familiar with evolution and think it is possible but here must be someone who have started it. And about the prophets, I do not think it was easier, I think it was much harder. People had brains at that time and found more spare time, a smart person is a smart person no matter what date or place.

Why would a God just start the process of big bang? And let the world evolve for billions of years, and only interfered some 6000 years ago?

We do not know but we know that there is a wisdom behind it. You may discover it now or later. A question like this would apply to the people of the past: "Why is the Earth round?" Do you think they had an answer at that time?

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one have succeeded.

I sense you clearly feel that Quran is superior to Bible or Baghavad Gita. Why is Quran superior to any of these books? Just because Muhammed says so? Why should the Christians believe that?

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition, for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one has succeeded.

Yea exactly. It's been ages since this challenge was set. But not one person has created anything like it. And i'm very sure that there are tons of people out there who are willing to disprove Islam once and for all...

This world is vast and I fail to believe that it has no creator. There are way more than a million things that we do not know and are yet to be discovered. At some point in life, everyones faith in God will fade and that day the world will end and the answers will be unveiled to mankind. Why were we created? Only God knows the answer to this question.

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one have succeeded.

I sense you clearly feel that Quran is superior to Bible or Baghavad Gita. Why is Quran superior to any of these books? Just because Muhammed says so? Why should the Christians believe that?

I shall not discredit any Prophet in anyway nor would I discredit the people of the book. However, I will tell you what I believe and what seems the most logical. After the death of Moses and Jesus, people started to loose faith and their human nature allowed them to ruin the message of the prophets. This would have happened with Islam as well had God not ordered Muhammad to put his wisdom in a book, therefore, I do not believe in all hadiths since they can be misguiding.

And also I do not think that Muhammad would have been sent if Christians thought of all prophets as equal. Christians ranked Jesus very highly until he reached a very high status which shouldn't have been so.

I must say though that I am enjoying this debate since I am providing people with knowledge and getting to understand this community more, therefore, I thank you and I find your curiosity of importance to me since it will only guide you to answers. You are a very open-minded person.

•MilanDevil• wrote:I must say though that I am enjoying this debate since I am providing people with knowledge and getting to understand this community more, therefore, I thank you and I find your curiosity of importance to me since it will only guide you to answers. You are a very open-minded person.

Man, I used to be a Muslim, some 10 years ago, I am 27 now. Maybe a little too old to be in this forum. I know I am a very open-minded person, you see I have looked at both sides of the argument. Then I came to a decision.

I hope someday you look at both sides of the argument fairly but I promise that will come with age. I only really looked for these answers when I was 19/20, before that, I had defended Islam too, not fully understanding the concept of evolution, not realizing all the teachings of Islam.

I am glad you think you are guiding me to answers, but someday you will look for answers yourself, rather than believing in what you have been told. Peace.

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:I must say though that I am enjoying this debate since I am providing people with knowledge and getting to understand this community more, therefore, I thank you and I find your curiosity of importance to me since it will only guide you to answers. You are a very open-minded person.

Man, I used to be a Muslim, some 10 years ago, I am 27 now. Maybe a little too old to be in this forum. I know I am a very open-minded person, you see I have looked at both sides of the argument. Then I came to a decision.



I hope someday you look at both sides of the argument fairly but I promise that will come with age. I only really looked for these answers when I was 19/20, before that, I had defended Islam too, not fully understanding the concept of evolution, not realizing all the teachings of Islam.

I am glad you think you are guiding me to answers, but someday you will look for answers yourself, rather than believing in what you have been told. Peace.

I see what have happened to you my brother. Islam is in its worst state right now. I beg you not to judge this religion by its people. Please read the Quran alone, not even interpretations. I have said it before, this is what I believe destroyed Christianity, it is human nature to add to the words of people if we are supporting them strongly, but we are oblivious to the fact that we are actually harming them. Love your religion and accept its people. Religion doesn't decided people's personality. God gave us all a brain and that why there is Heaven and hell, your religion does not decide where you are going but it is your actions and how you follow the religion.

Finally, if God wanted he would have made us all Muslims but he gave us the freedom to explore and exploit this world.

If God would not exist then we wouldn't have the feeling of hope, since without God, this feeling is unnecessary. This is the same as love, if those who we are supposed to love do not exist, then there is no need to have the feeling of love.

•MilanDevil• wrote:If God would not exist then we wouldn't have the feeling of hope, since without God, this feeling is unnecessary. This is the same as love, if those who we are supposed to love do not exist, then there is no need to have the feeling of love.

One of the more arrogant statements in this thread. Kudos. Not. This is blatantly ridiculous, I don't even feel like dignifying it with a response at the moment. Maybe tomorrow.

I will say this: I am not deep into religion, but I strongly believe in God and only one God's existence. Religion is only a tool to prove his existence, life is a test, and most of you are familiar with this. God made this world to be a test and if he wanted, he would have shown himself years ago. We do not know why God gave us this world to explore, and we do not know what we would do with our life experience in the after-life, but most of all we do not know why we EXIST!

VivaStPauli wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:If God would not exist then we wouldn't have the feeling of hope, since without God, this feeling is unnecessary. This is the same as love, if those who we are supposed to love do not exist, then there is no need to have the feeling of love.

One of the more arrogant statements in this thread. Kudos. Not. This is blatantly ridiculous, I don't even feel like dignifying it with a response at the moment. Maybe tomorrow.

What you might see as arrogance, I see as logical. Each person judges things by their own perspective, this is why each and every human is unique.

Logic has a clear definition... that that post most certainly does not fit. It's nothing to do with perspective at that point.

•MilanDevil• wrote:

I see what have happened to you my brother. Islam is in its worst state right now. I beg you not to judge this religion by its people. Please read the Quran alone, not even interpretations. I have said it before, this is what I believe destroyed Christianity, it is human nature to add to the words of people if we are supporting them strongly, but we are oblivious to the fact that we are actually harming them. Love your religion and accept its people. Religion doesn't decided people's personality. God gave us all a brain and that why there is Heaven and hell, your religion does not decide where you are going but it is your actions and how you follow the religion.

Finally, if God wanted he would have made us all Muslims but he gave us the freedom to explore and exploit this world.

You are asking him to not judge Islam based on its followers, yet, you are judging Christianity and saying it has been destroyed. I am guessing you arrived at this conclusion based on it followers?

Ima guess that he's trying to say that Christianity's image has been destroyed, jsut as Islam's image has been tarnished...

If that is what he is saying, then it's okay. But, somehow, i doubt it.

zizzle wrote:this is exactly the argument that is keeping me from becoming an athiest. To me the infinity is a mathmatical concept and thus i find the need to question beginings and pre beginings, i cant accept a concept i cant understand, and eventhough i have little understanding of god it's the nature of god to be ambiguous and unnatural and if you say the same thing about the universe then god is universe or vice versa and thus im back to point zero. Same thing goes when it comes to causuality, eventually there is an initial mover or a super natural event that do not conform with the laws of the physical world, be it god or whatever name you might assosiate with it. There is something i cant comprehend, and same thing goes to you (athiests who know their shit) i say it's god, you say we dont know yet. i can live with that

I totally agree. That's why I really have no issues with deism:

"Deism is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it."

If religious people would come to terms with deism I'd really have no issues with faith and belief. Theism is the one I have issues with.

zizzle wrote:Person A: who created the universe

Person B: No one created the universe, there was a big ball of energy and it became exteremly hot and dense and started expanding rapidly. This expanding caused the energy to cool down and energy started forming subatomic particles and here forces like gravity came into play and these sub particles started forming into atoms and matter started forming.

Person A: wow that's amazing Person B, but where did that ball of energy come from ?

Person B: You ignorant fool, this is a long and comlicated process that we can only understand through science, what i just told you is cold facts how dare you question what we came to know through long reseach when we can support every claim with unrefutable evidence.

Person A: *poker face*

There are actually quite a lot of theories of why did the universe start. One of them is that quantum fluctuations in the void allow for a universe to start. Others are based on the existence of a multiverse and the clash of different branes.

They have not yet been tested but especially the quantum fluctuations one, has some small evidence on it's side (eg that in the void there are particles popping in and out of existence, and that the total amount of energy in the universe is actually 0!).

•MilanDevil• wrote:Also do you think that prophets were a lie? If so, how did they convince a number of people to follow their religion, keep in mind that most of them started very small and very weak.

Lie in what way? That they didn't actually create miracles and were not prophets of God? Most definitely. There is no doubt in my mind that the prophets were psychotic and hallucinating when they received their "revelations" from God. If they were not, then they were lying in order to achieve power. We have people today who proclaim to be prophets but we know better than to believe such nonsense. Why do we not apply the same standards to archaic prophets, who left no traces of actual evidence of any sort of miracle?

Historically the power of belief is without a doubt a strong force. Apart from prophets, there have been many tribes throughout history who were indeed psychotic and as a result of their belief turned psychopathic (today we have fundamentalists, most notably Al Qaeda, doing this job). The Aztecs, for example, genuinely thought they had to make human sacrifices to God in order to appease him. They had to tear open the chest of a man every single day to make sure that the wrath of God wouldn't hit them.

As for the prophets convincing large amounts of people to follow their religion ... I hope that you do not believe this is of any true validity. If the following of a crazy person is large and thus has a validity, then that would make Hitler quite the prophet. In fact, if you read his book, "Mein Kampf", you'll find that he actually believed that he was doing God's will when eradicating the Jews and that the people of Nazi Germany addressed him as a God.

Today we have the North Korean regime in which the people of Pyongyang (their capital) genuinely believe that their leaders are Gods (and so do the leaders themselves). Kim il-Sung is still the president - in fact, the ETERNAL president - of North Korea despite being DEAD. They praise him and his son (who recently passed away) as Gods. Do we hold these people to the same standards as middle eastern prophets? No. We believe they're insane.

•MilanDevil• wrote:

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one have succeeded.

I sense you clearly feel that Quran is superior to Bible or Baghavad Gita. Why is Quran superior to any of these books? Just because Muhammed says so? Why should the Christians believe that?

I shall not discredit any Prophet in anyway nor would I discredit the people of the book. However, I will tell you what I believe and what seems the most logical. After the death of Moses and Jesus, people started to loose faith and their human nature allowed them to ruin the message of the prophets. This would have happened with Islam as well had God not ordered Muhammad to put his wisdom in a book, therefore, I do not believe in all hadiths since they can be misguiding.

Woah, woah, woah, where did you get this nonesense? That somehow Islam is pure and every other religion is corrupt? Both Christianity and Islam branched off Judaism, no matter how much you argue about it. If there is one true religion it would be it.

VivaStPauli wrote:

zizzle wrote:this is exactly the argument that is keeping me from becoming an athiest. To me the infinity is a mathmatical concept and thus i find the need to question beginings and pre beginings, i cant accept a concept i cant understand, and eventhough i have little understanding of god it's the nature of god to be ambiguous and unnatural and if you say the same thing about the universe then god is universe or vice versa and thus im back to point zero. Same thing goes when it comes to causuality, eventually there is an initial mover or a super natural event that do not conform with the laws of the physical world, be it god or whatever name you might assosiate with it. There is something i cant comprehend, and same thing goes to you (athiests who know their shit) i say it's god, you say we dont know yet. i can live with that

And that, sir, is how religion and science can coexist. A statement like that is the perfect example of being moderately religious, if all religious people thought about science like that, there wouldn't be a debate.

I have zero, I repeat, zero problem with calling whatever caused the big bang or makes gravity work "god". It doesn't add or take away anything from the pursuit of explanations. You might even be a religious physicist seeking to better understand god with that kind of attitude.

I wish more people were like that.

I agree with this, the problem that we have is that there is a loud majority on both sides, religious and atheist, who will never accept this. People like Richard Dawkins and religious fundamentalist nuts will always stand in the way, we can do nothing about it sadly, because that are the ones most people listen to.

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

Jonathan28 wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

Jonathan28 wrote:The offer more explanation to those who want to believe in them. You will never get a religious fundamentalist to believe in evolution, and vice versa you will never get someone like Richard Dawkins to believe in a creator. But saying that, there have been people from both sides who have changed thier views, many of them well known. Which ever way we look at it, nobody will be truely sure either way until the day we die.

It is still painfully wrong to use that as a basis to make those two world views appear equal in terms of present evidence.

Yes, you will probably not convince a fundamentalist that his nutjobbery has no basis, but it's not like there's any evidence for the creation myth. It's a matter of faith. You either believe it or don't.

Evolution is an observable process that you can literally see happen in front of your eyes - if you own a microscope and some bacteria. It is based on observation, hasn't been disproven or seriously challenged since his inception and is universally accepted among scientists, AKA the people who gather knowledge for a living.

I refuse to pretend they're equally likely world views.

*sigh* This is why Science and Religion will never have peace. One side see's the other just myth the other see's the other side as a garbage theory.

Science and Religion can happliy co-exist, its the people involved in them who cannot.

But Dear Ordinho, how can you call it as a garbage theory? (You are a Christian, and so I am putting you on that "other side"). Evolution is a fact. No ifs or buts. Any sane person would tell you that. All I want to you do is read or watch documentaries on Evolution, open your mind.

Bible says GOd created us in 6 or 7 days, do you believe that? We know for a fact that it is not true. I hope you realize that. If you dont, I can refer you to many documentaries which explain that throughly.

I cant change your opinions, I can only hope to open your mind to new ideas. IT is upto you to decide. And I am willing to bet that when you look at both sides of the argument fairly, you will see the inconsistencies and problems with religious arguments. Whereas, Science primarily cannot answer one fundamental question how did the big bang started, but they are working hard to find out.

No, I do not believe God created the world in 6 days. The word "days" were used because that is what humans would comprehend. God is not limited by time like we are, a day to him is millions of years. Fundamentalists do not understand it, in fact, very few people do.

Woah, Evolution is fact now? I see people are taking bold steps these days.

Jonathan28 wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one have succeeded.

I sense you clearly feel that Quran is superior to Bible or Baghavad Gita. Why is Quran superior to any of these books? Just because Muhammed says so? Why should the Christians believe that?

I shall not discredit any Prophet in anyway nor would I discredit the people of the book. However, I will tell you what I believe and what seems the most logical. After the death of Moses and Jesus, people started to loose faith and their human nature allowed them to ruin the message of the prophets. This would have happened with Islam as well had God not ordered Muhammad to put his wisdom in a book, therefore, I do not believe in all hadiths since they can be misguiding.

Woah, woah, woah, where did you get this nonesense? That somehow Islam is pure and every other religion is corrupt? Both Christianity and Islam branched off Judaism, no matter how much you argue about it. If there is one true religion it would be it.

Not really. Judaism is a plagiarized compilation of earlier myths but was original in the sense that it was more or less the first monotheistic religion.

VivaStPauli wrote:

zizzle wrote:this is exactly the argument that is keeping me from becoming an athiest. To me the infinity is a mathmatical concept and thus i find the need to question beginings and pre beginings, i cant accept a concept i cant understand, and eventhough i have little understanding of god it's the nature of god to be ambiguous and unnatural and if you say the same thing about the universe then god is universe or vice versa and thus im back to point zero. Same thing goes when it comes to causuality, eventually there is an initial mover or a super natural event that do not conform with the laws of the physical world, be it god or whatever name you might assosiate with it. There is something i cant comprehend, and same thing goes to you (athiests who know their shit) i say it's god, you say we dont know yet. i can live with that

And that, sir, is how religion and science can coexist. A statement like that is the perfect example of being moderately religious, if all religious people thought about science like that, there wouldn't be a debate.

I have zero, I repeat, zero problem with calling whatever caused the big bang or makes gravity work "god". It doesn't add or take away anything from the pursuit of explanations. You might even be a religious physicist seeking to better understand god with that kind of attitude.

I wish more people were like that.

I agree with this, the problem that we have is that there is a loud majority on both sides, religious and atheist, who will never accept this. People like Richard Dawkins and religious fundamentalist nuts will always stand in the way, we can do nothing about it sadly, because that are the ones most people listen to.

Are you kidding me? You're putting Richard Dawkins in the same boat as people who blow themselves up on a regular basis?

Dawkins has a problem with religious fundamentalists and religious people who corrupt science, education and government. That's about it. Watch any documentary of his and it's obvious what is agenda is - to lessen corruption caused by religion.

I think evolution has enough evidence behind it to be considered a fact now.

I got a few paragraphs from a few different websites regarding evolution. Let me know why you guys disagree with this....

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Same thing as one of the other points but it's a little more in depth:

They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4