Will Islam Overgrow Against Christianity In 2015?

The fact is that it has changed, and it is an undeniable fact that is backed up by historic records. You can't say 'God said' because you haven't established the credibility of 'God'.

This is true, but doing simple math will provide you with the answer. No it is impossible; I don't remember the exact numbers but it would have to be several million conversions and at the rate of conversion then it won't even touch the number of Christians by 2015.

 

I don't believe it will be larger than Christianity that soon. It's growing rapidly, though, and very well could be the largest in later years.

The way the Muslims on this topic are acting, I don't see how it ever could be. I haven't read one post by them yet that is historically factual. Their all-knowing book is all they need, apparently. Not knocking the religion; to each their own.

I'm actually stationed in a country right now where it is the practiced religion. Their practices don't really bother me, (except the singing in the morning when I'm trying to sleep, lol.)

 

What have you read that isn't historically accurate?

Try to prove any of the science in the Quran wrong.

It's not singing, it's a call to prayer. Haha.

 

What I meant by that was it is not backed by legitimate facts, but rather by what their book says. It may be your belief that your book is always correct, but it is not mine. I honestly don't know a lot about the religion, therefore I have not argued that the book is, indeed, wrong. It's just not factual to hard evidence, if I make sense there.

I am not trying to prove anything your book wrong. Simply stating that a religious book does not document actual existing hard facts of things that have happened. Sure, some of (or most of) the statements could be some-what or even mostly accurate. As I stated, I don't know a whole lot about the religion.

I know what it is. It is still in a song form, though. I really don't mind it. It's rather soothing. It's just so early in the morning, at least for me, because of the hours I work.

 

He argued the contents of the book, so we cited what the book said.

The Quran contains how the Universe was formed. It proved the Big Bang theory. That is a hard fact on what happened in the past.

That's fine

 

The Big Bang Theory is not the only theory of universe creation, and it has declined in popularity with the introduction of String and Super String Theory.

Even the Bible contains Historical facts. By saying that the science in the Quran is correct making everything else correct is logical fallacy.

 

He did not say that, he asked you to prove any scientific claim in the Qur'an wrong.

 

From my understanding, the arguement was that someone was trying to prove facts based on a spiritual book, in which you can't. Spiritual books in general do contain history, yes, but it is not a credited source as others may not follow your religion, or the beliefs of what your religion says will come in the future.

I'm not claiming any major religion as my own, but I believe if you are going to say something is a hard, historical, fact you should prove it with citations to actual documentation, not expect someone to believe it just because your book says 'It is, therefore it is.' I am not biased on the matter. I just prefer cited sources to support a 'factual' arguement, not a religious book.

I am open to learning about the culture and the history behind the Quran, as I find it intriguing. I'd also like to argue my opinions as well but from what I have seen here, the Muslims refuse to be opinionated on anything to do with their religion. It is what it is, and you can't argue anything about it because it is unfathomable to them. I do not see eye-to-eye with that.

 

The thing is that a lot of the factual claims in the Quran were around way before it was written.

Not sure how to quote the quran:

4:1 O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.

The language is a little archaic but from my understanding of this verse it seems to be saying that the entire human species was created by a man and his mate. Which isn't true. This is open to interpretation but it seems as such.

 

021.030 - Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?

If I'm not mistaken, even the String Theory and Super String Theory state that everything was in one piece before they split apart.

Billetes was trying to argue that Islam is a violent religion. I used quotations from the Quran to prove him wrong.

I always do provide citations.

I'm open to listening to what you have to say. If you want to ask anything, ask. I will do my best to answer. I don't refuse to be opinionated. I am a man of reason.


Edit. Pardon me Jay, I got this thread and the other one mixed up. I do agree with you the muslims on this thread don't really articulate themselves well. I was thinking of the other thread. Again my apologies.

 

Prove it wrong. You can't.

 

That doesn't make it true - Argument from Ignorance.

Also, the Theory of Evolution seems to be a sufficient 'disproof'.

The only things you can actually disprove are those theories that contradict itself. As such, everything else is logically possible and unable to be disproven, rather evidence of absence is utilised. In this particular event (my translation is the same as Nero's), the Theory of Evolution is evidence against this 'theory' that all humans came from a single soul. To be more specific, the 'out of africa' theory attempts to explain the origin of all modern homo sapiens.

You'll have to ask yourself this question, do you accept the Theory of Evolution? If your answer is yes, you can for all practical purposes consider it a 'disproof'. If your answer is no, well, why not?

 

If you can't prove it false, it has to be a possibility. Even when you deny divinity.

It's a theory for a reason, because it can't be proved. No one has seen the creation of man, or how humans came to be. Until it can be proved, all it will ever be is a theory.

Even I agree with you. Two souls are needed to beget a child. Both of them are theories to you. There is science that proves the "theory" of evolution wrong. There are Scientists against evolution. Therefore, until it is proven, all it will ever remain is a theory.

I know what the Theory of Evolution is.

No I do not except the Theory of Evolution. Until there is cold hard proof, I can't and I refuse to. Until it becomes fact, it cannot be a disproof.

I think I made the answer to that pretty clear. There are other reasons, but I don't feel like typing a whole essay on the matter.

 

That's correct, but, you have no logical reason to believe that it is true, rather, that it can be true (which since most things can be true, it doesn't mean much).

Huh? Scientific theories are different from the normal use of the word theory you know?

Contradiction, you said you can't prove it wrong: refer to first point. Also, Evolution has not been 'proved' wrong, please cite some evidence against it. Yes, there are scientists against Evolution, but scientists themselves are not evidence - Appeal to authority.

I was talking about an ENTIRELY different theory that has a more specific relevance.

Gravity is not a fact, do you accept its existence?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Please tell me why these pieces of evidence are insufficient or false.

I got the hint.

 

I do have logical reasons to believe it's true.

Yes but it is still a Theory, hence the bloody word Theory. If it were 100% true, it would be something to the tune of "The Law of Evolution".

A quick google search can provide you with evidence against evolution, such as evolution could not be replicated. I'm not an aficionado on the matter. It's out there. And I was referring to you, not myself, so I don't know how I contradicted myself.

I know, I took it as "this is not to be confused with ....." as if I didn't already know.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey by saying "gravity is not a fact." As for the existence of gravity, I've always been taught there is gravity. Please enlighten me further on this matter.

 

If the reasons are logical, what's the argument? If the reasons are evidential, where's the evidence?

In science, Theories > Laws.

Evolution can, and has been replicated. You can examine bacteria colonies over thousands of generations due to how long they live. I don't know how to google search, so if it's so 'quick' please, do it for me. Also, I'll show you the contradiction:

The contradiction here, though not yet evident is that you can't disprove evolution. There's no scientific evidence against it. EVEN IF THERE WAS, you would be ignoring all the evidence supporting evolution, namely, 200,000 peer-reviewed papers.

Right.

Gravity isn't a fact, it's a theory, haven't you heard Newton's theory of gravitation? Also, atoms are a theory - the Atomic Theory. Now, I'll just pull you up here. You just said 'I've always been taught there is gravity', it's interesting because if you weren't taught about gravity does that mean you wouldn't believe in it? I'll bet you weren't taught about Evolution, am I right?

 

You use logic when there is no evidence present. My reasons can be logical and even can be considered evidence.

That is your opinion. Laws 100% proven, theories on the other hand aren't.

What about the experiment with the fruit flies? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm

So your saying it has to be true if more evidence supports than denies? One piece of evidence can totally change that. It's all speculation.

Newton's law of gravitation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

The Atomic Theory is still a theory and not a law because it's just so damn hard to prove some parts of it.

I've learned about evolution, not much, considering we only barely grasp it at my Public High School. I can see myself agreeing with microevolution, but not macroevolution. I just don't know enough on the matter.

 

I'm trying to say that if logic has persuaded you to accept it as true, what is the argument (deduction or otherwise) that made you accept it?
If it's not a logical argument, then what pieces of evidence made you believe it was true?

Read all of this, please. http://www.notjustatheory.com/index.html

If you're saying it can't be replicated, why did you link me to something showing evolution being studied?

No, but you better have a damn good reason to believe otherwise. If the preponderance of evidence points in one direction, why on earth would you go in the opposite direction? I'll reiterate, there exists NO evidence against Evolution. Please, cite some.

http://www-****.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm
Replace the **** with i s t p

Such as? Modern science is based almost ENTIRELY on the Atomic Theory being true. Are you now saying the periodic table can't be taken seriously because it's just a 'theory'? Damn right it's a theory, a scientific theory.

I see. Well, that's a step. I did link you to a page with copious amounts of evidence supporting macro evolution. Take a look at some of them when you have the time.

 

History is told by the victor, you cannot be 100% sure that what you read is the truth, in fact, probably most of what we know about the history of the earth is far from the truth.

I'm Agnostic, which means I believe that there is some sort of greater being out there, but I don't follow any religion specifically - I believe in certain parts of some though.

To be honest, and this is an opinion, I think that religious texts are false, but they definitely do have a good impact on society. I think that without these books, our world would be FILLED with greed, corruption, etc (more so than it already is). I think that religion was created to keep the poor pacified and content with their lives, while the rich kicked back and enjoyed the ride.

Also, an interesting fact, if religion was in-existent, the industrial revolution would have occurred far before the 18th century. This is because people were not pushed to be inventive and curious about the world they lived in, and so they just simply made a living and were happy with it.

 

The Koran validates god and god validates the Koran. What beautiful circular reasoning.

What scientific claims are made in the Koran?

The very phrase heavens and the earth is geocentric; it implies that the Earth is comparable in magnitude to the rest of the universe (the heavens).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Scientific theories don't advance to the status of law. They're different things.