Re: God Thread, Pt. III

[Mamad]

Is there any reliable convert rate for religions?

[stevieg8]

Is there any reliable convert rate for religions?

Yeah, it's generally around 1% for all religions. It's pretty low regardless of who.

Anyway, @rwo, I was referring to the hebrew text and the Jewish translations, which haven't been altered in the ways you were talking about. The Council of Nicias and similar events didn't have an impact on the Jewish texts that are still studied today, and those are the versions (with the words that I'm referring to) that I'm talking about.

Everything else you said made sense though. The multiple people part doesn't contradict what I was saying about the wisdom of it, and there's very little evidence that the Tanach specifically was originally an oral source. Obviously there are clear connections with OTHER oral traditions, but there's no record like we have with Homer/Hesiod of this text or versions of this text having been an oral mythological tradition.

[RealGunner]

The highest conversion rate i have heard is in China atm where people are converting to Christianity.

[rwo power]

Anyway, @rwo, I was referring to the hebrew text and the Jewish translations, which haven't been altered in the ways you were talking about. The Council of Nicias and similar events didn't have an impact on the Jewish texts that are still studied today, and those are the versions (with the words that I'm referring to) that I'm talking about.

Well, the Jewish translation is probably closest to the original re-tellings, but even the Hebrew language underwent changes over time, especially as it died out as spoken language during Late Antiquity and was only re-invented during modern times. While this is an interesting undertaking, you still have to look at the problem that the continued usage of other local languages/dialects during that time led to a change of pronunciation plus new additions to the word pool and thus of course contaminations by foreign words and concepts in the current Hebrew (Ivrit).

So while the texts might still be rather original, the problem is whether the readers actually read the same things into them by association and cultural background as the writers did put in and intended (e.g. if you have a medieval text in Middle English that talks about a "nice maid" or a "gay man" it then meant a somewhat stupid girl and not a neat (or pretty) servant or a cheerful guy and not a homosexual one).

Everything else you said made sense though. The multiple people part doesn't contradict what I was saying about the wisdom of it, and there's very little evidence that the Tanach specifically was originally an oral source. Obviously there are clear connections with OTHER oral traditions, but there's no record like we have with Homer/Hesiod of this text or versions of this text having been an oral mythological tradition.

The problem of oral traditions unfortunately is that they don't leave solid proof until they are written down. In a way the early religious texts (especially the commandments) are of course the first proper codifications of some common social laws.

As soon as there are a number of people living together, there need to be laws of any kind, or you wouldn't have a community (even the law of the stronger one is a kind of social law to ensure some kind of order after all). Laws containing rules like "Thou shalt not kill" are for the benefit of a society as otherwise possibly useful members might get lost and especially in small societies one cannot underestimate the relevance of diminishing the gene pool and number of workers to gather food, build shelter and defend against outside dangers.

I think even though there was no solid evidence about the Tanach originally being an oral tradition or not, I would consider it unlikely that it was started as a written work, especially if you look at the evolution of writing as it is currently researched and the age of the texts.

[Adit]

What is religious stance on overpopulation? since such an event was unthinkable for God in the middle age i assume it is not mentioned at all in any religions ..

those scientific evidences

There is more scientific evidence in Vedas written in BC 4000. Man didnt invent science all of a sudden in 19th century..science is the result of hard work of thousands of years of generations.
Of course the middle age science is going to be pretty good..does any holly book explain cosmic ray ? cloaning? evolution by survival of the fittest? Mutation? genetic engineering? quantum mechanics? gyroscopic theory? of course they cant..because the science wasnt developed enough in the middle age and obviously the book written in middle age isnt going to have it.

[VivaStPauli]

Since, I love reading about others beliefs, and opinions, and why they think that or this way. Can you Atheists give me a reason, on why you think, that God does not exist?

There's simply no proper, scientific/logical reason to think that he/she/it does exist.
The burden of proof, to me, is on the religious. I simply do not believe an outragous claim without evidence, and it's hardly possible to proof a negative.

[VivaStPauli]

When it will be hot in winter (and vice versa).

Lol that's not a prophecy, that's weather, and I'm pretty sure it happened before the Quran was written as well, so there's no reason why Mohammed couldn't have known about it.

When the length of days is stretched, i.e. a journey of a few days is covered in a matter of hours.

Awww come on, that's soooo mushy. That would've already been accomplished if the Romans built a proper road through a forest or swamp, making a days-long endurance-test of hacking through thick vegetation into a late afternoon stroll. That's hardly impressive.

When lies prevail over the truth. Various wines will be consumed excessively. All of these have come true.

So? The Quran is from around 500 AD, the Romans had been famously drunk on wine for 1000 years by then, how is this a prediction, lol?

And one of the biggest signs of gods existence? The cracking of the moon. Disbelievers believed Muhammad was a fraud, and they told Muhammad show us an action from god, Muhammad said he will swipe his finger and by the power of God the moon will split by two. It did.

Lol no it didn't. There is no historical, astrological, or geological evidence of this happening. A photo of the moon having a sort of canyon isn't evidence, the Earth has canyons and wasn't split.

It talks more about it on this website http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_split.htm and that website also talks about other scientific discoveries said in the Quran that have been backed by science.

Since you use an external website, allow me:
It is debunked on (amongst others) this website: alisina.org/blog/2010/11/30/moon-split-or-islamic-hoax/

Yup but there is no evidence of Gods existence

Exactly right.

And btw a lot of you seem to say that if God does exist why does he not show himself. The whole point is to test the believers and to see whether they will be loyal to God and who will not be. It's a greater sign of faith to believe in something without ever seeing it. Our life is a test. Those who pass the test will go to Heaven, those who fail will go to Hell.

He probably is too busy giving Aids to babies in Africa to be bothered to show himself to us, sure. Would fit with the character, I mean if god exists, and is omniscent and omnipotent, he is obviously evil.

Saying that there is no evidence supporting God's existence is rubbish. When there is.

But there (luckily) isn't. Just look at your "evidence", it took me like 2 seconds of thinking to answer the first 3 points, and 15 seconds with Google to find an exactl reply-website to the website you posted.
Your proof is rubbish.

If you want to believe in god, be my guest, it's your right, and you can do what you want. But let's not pretend you got proper evidence. :X

[Adit]

Exactly lol, they comes with AD 400 science as a proof of the God . using science against itself...when you ask about why modern science is not explained in those holy books the answer is obvious though..''iTZ holy Buk not science buk''

[RealGunner]

You answered your own question. Science doesn't suddenly "pop up", it's gradually built and based on what is possible at that time. Why would God waste his time sending down a book with Quantum mechanics in an age where there was no equipment of any sort to test or research about the subject? He said what was appropriate and necessary, like the understanding of the human embryology system for example. He didn't have to explain numerous scientific theories when he had better things to do like guiding the humankind...

It's as you said ''iTZ holy Buk not science buk''

[VivaStPauli]

He said what was appropriate and necessary, like the understanding of the human embryology system for example.

This "understanding" is so vague, and at times even blatantly false, that it can only be made sense of in retrospect nowadays. Sure, when we have a proper, biological, understanding of mammalian reproduction, and we look back at those parts of the Quran, they could be interpreted as to be describing the actual biological process of embryonal development.

But they certainly didn't help anyone in the 6th century reading those parts to understand human reproduction.

Also there's several errors, like the Quran asserting that bone forms, and is then covered with flesh, which is wrong. Also, the stages, however they are called in Arabic, are a bit jumbled up, so even if we assert that "a leech-clot-thing" is an embryo, it's still wrong.

And even if it wasn't wrong, it's still no miracle, since the Greeks and Chinese did know about anatomy at the time.

[Adit]

''Why would God waste his time sending down a book with Quantum mechanics in an age where there was no equipment of any sort to test or research about the subject?''


Because according to all those books there will be no other books coming in the future and the same book is supposed to be the guide for the future..you are just proving my point that those books are only for the middle age.

I find it hard to believe God could only explain a few scientific theories (most of them known to people at that time as well)..


People knew about embryo in AD 3rd century? hardly a surprise.

[RealGunner]

This "understanding" is so vague, and at times even blatantly false, that it can only be made sense of in retrospect nowadays. Sure, when we have a proper, biological, understanding of mammalian reproduction, and we look back at those parts of the Quran, they could be interpreted as to be describing the actual biological process of embryonal development.

But they certainly didn't help anyone in the 6th century reading those parts to understand human reproduction.

Also there's several errors, like the Quran asserting that bone forms, and is then covered with flesh, which is wrong. Also, the stages, however they are called in Arabic, are a bit jumbled up, so even if we assert that "a leech-clot-thing" is an embryo, it's still wrong.

And even if it wasn't wrong, it's still no miracle, since the Greeks and Chinese did know about anatomy at the time.

It's not actually vague, it's pretty concise and described in detail with each different steps. I can find you all the stages with proper description. And it certainly helped people in the 6th century to progress with this knowledge and build upon it along with a better understanding of the reproduction system.

That bone thing is not true, It's not mentioned explicitly that that bones are formed before the flesh.

People knew about embryo in AD 3rd century? hardly a surprise.

People did have an idea of the human embryology in the early centuries, Bhagavad Gita did, Hippocrates , Aristotle all did. But they were just ideas completely different to the one in Quran. There was no similarity between these ancient writings and text of the Qur’an. The Qur’anic ideas on embryology were completely different in terms of style, content and accuracy.

[RealGunner]

Because according to all those books there will be no other books coming in the future and the same book is supposed to be the guide for the future..you are just proving my point that those books are only for the middle age.

I find it hard to believe God could only explain a few scientific theories (most of them known to people at that time as well)..

Those books were not for the middle ages, Look around you lol do you think these are the middle ages ? God gave humans enough intelligence to constantly develop and progress. The books were a way of guidance to get people on the right path and make sure they do the correct things in terms of ethics and morals.

Lastly, God didn't just reveal one book to one community, he sent down many and to various people. Of course people knew in other places.

[VivaStPauli]

So all holy books are true? Or just certain ones. I am confused. Which holy teachings are right, then, and which are wrong?

[RealGunner]

So all holy books are true? Or just certain ones. I am confused. Which holy teachings are right, then, and which are wrong?

Can't answer that since i don't like talking about other religions. I would say that Holy books in their original form are legit and correct.

[VivaStPauli]

All of them?

[RealGunner]

All of them?

Sounds like a trick question lmao You have something up the sleeve don't you

[VivaStPauli]

Perhaps

[Potential]

"God gave humans enough intelligence"

Wrong, evolution gave human intelligence!

You know the story of Adam and Eve directly contradict evolution? Why would god even mention something that is totally not true in his book if it can be misunderstood by some people?

Also Viva, I know where you are heading

[RealGunner]

"God gave humans enough intelligence"

Wrong, evolution gave human intelligence!

You know the story of Adam and Eve directly contradict evolution? Why would god even mention something that is totally not true in his book if it can be misunderstood by some people?

And What caused Evolution?

[Potential]

"God gave humans enough intelligence"

Wrong, evolution gave human intelligence!

You know the story of Adam and Eve directly contradict evolution? Why would god even mention something that is totally not true in his book if it can be misunderstood by some people?

And What caused Evolution?

The big bang, and what caused the big bang? We don't know!

[RealGunner]

Perhaps

*I* personally believe holy books revealed by the Single omnipotent God or inspired by one are found in their original form which are still available are legit. If they contradicts each other then they are not original but may still have resemblance to each other.

[RealGunner]

"God gave humans enough intelligence"

Wrong, evolution gave human intelligence!

You know the story of Adam and Eve directly contradict evolution? Why would god even mention something that is totally not true in his book if it can be misunderstood by some people?

And What caused Evolution?

The big bang, and what caused the big bang? We don't know!

Thanks

[Potential]

And What caused Evolution?

The big bang, and what caused the big bang? We don't know!

Thanks

You actually admit that you don't know what caused the big bang?

[VivaStPauli]

Perhaps

*I* personally believe holy books revealed by the Single omnipotent God or inspired by one are found in their original form which are still available are legit. If they contradicts each other then they are not original but may still have resemblance to each other.

So only "holy" books that are of a monotheistic nature are true?
Well, to be precise, only holy books "revealed by the Single omnipotent God", which would also the only ones which you would consider holy, are they not?

So basically you're saying me "holy books are holy", and "the one true god is the one true god", those aren't exactly helpful statements

But let's just say hypothetically a 2nd holy book appeared, and it contradicted the 1st one, how would you decide which was wrong?
Faith? Evidence? Internal logic?

Sorry if my questions seem nitpicky, it's just that I really don't know which criteria you use, and I'm trying to follow the logic.

Like, the bible and the quran contradict each other, and the new testament contradicts the old one - which one, then, is true? The newest one?

[Cruijf]

Since you use an external website, allow me:
It is debunked on (amongst others) this website: alisina.org/blog/2010/11/30/moon-split-or-islamic-hoax/

Really? You're going to try to use Ali Sina to refute this? After we already established that the guy is too thick with hatred to be taken seriously?

Need I remind you?

"You are a Satan worshipper. There is no hope for you. You are destined for hell fire because you are not able to think. You are evil, your prophet was evil and you will go to hell."

This from a man that claims to be Atheist

But why stop here?

"As long as Muslims are Muslims they do not deserve to be treated in accordance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

And you trust this guy to think rationally? Because according to him, I should be killed on the spot simply because of my beliefs.

Find some other site, or use your own brain and think of refutations yourself. But stop running and citing Ali Sina or you'll start to look desperate.

EDIT: While I'm at it, let's also mention that Sina sits on the board of an organization that is officially classified as a hate group.

[Sponsored content]