The Quran and science

[Shredderbeam]

What I'm telling you, and I AM a Muslim, is that Islam does NOT contradict science, and that they run side by side, or moreover as one. In other religions such as christianity and judaism, they make contradict, as I am sure they do, but not in Islam.

Ok, I just finished reading that link of yours. The Quran does not need to provide endless details on how the earth spins, or how the big bang theory started. It simply states that the earth DOES in fact spin. We only figured that out a couple hundred hundred years ago; the Quran was written over 14 centuries ago. Do you understand what I'm saying here? No other 'holy book' has that in it. Just one of the ways to show that is isn't a book full of stories written by Prophet Mohammed. Considering pieces by pieces of it were REVEALED TO PROPHET MOHAMMED by Angel Gabriel. By the way, please don't become a provocative like shredderbeam is

Cause your statement: "I believe in science, and I think the Quran is a collection of short stories written by Muhammad (spelling? bah)." , intrinsically proves that you have not read ANY part of the Quran; but you may have heard false hearings about it from such debates. And am in no way arguing that the Quran gives you full detail on how the Earth spins on its imaginary axis, then it would become a science book. Although I would have to make sure that it in fact doesn't lol

That little section on how the Earth spins just seems to be an over-interpretation of that verse. It's not very clear.

Your communism signature does no good either.

If I remember correctly, you had a Che Guevara signature at one point. He was a socialist revolutionary, and Socialism is just one step away from Communism.

 

[Omar]

Krypton, I mean the basic belief. Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about as the Quran states that Judaism and Christianity IS Islam that has been distorted.

 

[Krypton6]

Che Guevara was a revolutionist fighting for freedom and justice. I dont care about his religion aspects, even though he was in no way against religion.
In many of his speeches he pointed out that he was not a communism and would hate anyone claiming that he was. He was against the communists in russia and china, and he would rarely start an conversation about religion.
Communists are against religion Che was not against religion, nor did he ever claim that religion was a stupid thing which is what the communists did.

The quran states that the Torah and Bible once were valid and accepted to follow, but as time went they were both changed. That does in no way mean that the Torah and Bible are the same as the Quran, especially the present Torah and Bible.

 

[dadybo]

thank you for this find, i thought i was the only muslim on sythe. This an amazing way to reply to athiests with their own science . Thanks again, i'll advertise this.

 

[Shredderbeam]

thank you for this find, i thought i was the only muslim on sythe. This an amazing way to reply to athiests with their own science . Thanks again, i'll advertise this.

What? Did you even read the posts within this thread? If you had, you would see that the supposed science in the Quran is nothing more than observable facts, something that ANYBODY could write down.

 

[Krypton6]

What? Did you even read the posts within this thread? If you had, you would see that the supposed science in the Quran is nothing more than observable facts, something that ANYBODY could write down.

No dadybo is correct. The only thing we have seriusly discussed here regarding the stuff in the link, was the pork meat thing.

Regarding all others, you keep saying that the meaning of the words are "stretched", even though none are. They are stretched if you read them with closed eyes, looking for a mistake.

 

[Shredderbeam]

No dadybo is correct. The only thing we have seriusly discussed here regarding the stuff in the link, was the pork meat thing.

There was also a link debunking that list.

Regarding all others, you keep saying that the meaning of the words are "stretched", even though none are. They are stretched if you read them with closed eyes, looking for a mistake.

"Oh look! The night gradually changes to day! Clearly, the Earth is round!" I'd call that a bit of a stretch.

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

Actually shredder, the little section on how the earth spins, is not an over interpretation. And you wouldn't know that for one reason; I read it in real life, in its ORIGINAL language, and you haven't. When one language is translated to another, it usually loses some meaning. This may be the case now, thus making you say its over-interpreted. Although it isn't, there is only one way it CAN be interpreted. And if you don't believe that, we discovered that the earth DOES in fact spin- about 400 years ago.

Originally Posted by Box of Candy
If god existed, there would be no Gay Rights, because being homosexualy is against his will. Thus, god does not exist.

^the major spelling and grammar mistakes in this statement only prove how big of an idiot your friend is

What? Did you even read the posts within this thread? If you had, you would see that the supposed science in the Quran is nothing more than observable facts, something that ANYBODY could write down.

this was your post some time ago, just a small remark on that- i wanna see you observing the earth rotating. i'm sure if it was possible, then it would have been proven a long time before it was originally discovered and proven.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Actually shredder, the little section on how the earth spins, is not an over interpretation. And you wouldn't know that for one reason; I read it in real life, in its ORIGINAL language, and you haven't. When one language is translated to another, it usually loses some meaning. This may be the case now, thus making you say its over-interpreted. Although it isn't, there is only one way it CAN be interpreted. And if you don't believe that, we discovered that the earth DOES in fact spin- about 400 years ago.

I can understand that things can lose some meaning when translated, but honestly, I'm just not convinced. All that I have is you saying that it's not an over interpretation, and for me, that isn't good enoguh.

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

you havent refuted the rest of my arguments. please read over it carefully, because all you did was simply reinstate what you said earlier.

and that isnt my quote. thats what you said...

 

[Shredderbeam]

this was your post some time ago, just a small remark on that- i wanna see you observing the earth rotating. i'm sure if it was possible, then it would have been proven a long time before it was originally discovered and proven.

It's possible that it would have been proven previously, but not necessary.

I still don't think that that verse can be successfully interpreted to mean that the Earth rotates.

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

Well that's your choice to believe in the interpretation or not. As for it's interpretation, it is clear- and its a known fact. You saying it's not, is simply YOUR opinion; not what it really is.

Hypothetically everything that we discovered only recently could have been discovered also a long time ago too. So you can't say that what was in the Quran was proven previously either. You have to go by the facts, and the physical proof, not what may have happened or what could have happened.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Well that's your choice to believe in the interpretation or not. As for it's interpretation, it is clear- and its a known fact. You saying it's not, is simply YOUR opinion; not what it really is.

And it's your opinion that it is clear. I could just as well say that you're choosing to believe in something untrue.

Hypothetically everything that we discovered only recently could have been discovered also a long time ago too. So you can't say that what was in the Quran was proven previously either. You have to go by the facts, and the physical proof, not what may have happened or what could have happened.

A vague interpretation that the Earth spins is all we have. All I can go by is your word that that is what it really means, and, in a logical argument, I cannot really just take that.

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

It would only make sense that the interpretationg of this verse is clear, or else not so many people would have converted to Islam. The amount of people in Islam(excluding people who recently converted after 9/11), greatly exceeds the amount of people in atheism, including converts. What does this tell you? IF something wasn't clear or didn't make sense in Islam, they would simply become atheists. So it's not only my interpretation, its most people's interpretation. Maybe you're the different one?

Read it in it's original language(Arabic, which I heard you were interested in learning), and it will make sense to you- much more than it does now.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It would only make sense that the interpretationg of this verse is clear, or else not so many people would have converted to Islam. The amount of people in Islam(excluding people who recently converted after 9/11), greatly exceeds the amount of people in atheism, including converts. What does this tell you? IF something wasn't clear or didn't make sense in Islam, they would simply become atheists. So it's not only my interpretation, its most people's interpretation. Maybe you're the different one?

Well actually, the number of adherents to any ideology has no philosophical relevance to the logic of that ideology. Remember, people believed that gods literally lived on mountains, the sun was a physical God, etc.

The ratio of Atheists to religious people was much smaller, say, a thousand years ago than it is today. According to the 1994 World Almanac, there are 240.3 million Atheists in the world today (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/atheism.html).

Read it in it's original language(Arabic, which I heard you were interested in learning), and it will make sense to you- much more than it does now.

I was interested in the past, but to be honest, it would be difficult to learn a non-Romantic language for the purposes of reading one book.

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

Actually logic is a common factor by which people choose their religion. What you're talking about was before true science even existed.

I definitely agree with the difficulty of learning a language that uses non-latin letters. And it would be an even harder task for you seeing how close-minded you are when looking back at your previous discussions and responses.

 

[squidge]

Im a muslim, and I really want to ask this question: Was the science behind the Quran meant to be understood when it was written or is it / was it science that has been / was meant to be developed now.
i.e; has the science behind the Quran had any impact to the worlds technology today? Or was it known by the Arabs and passed down?

Also, There are MANY metaphors in the Quran from what i gather... (Im a really bad Muslim hav'nt even read a word from the Quran) The metaphors do make scence..BUT that was a long time ago..so have they been purposley bent to match the science today?

Which brings us back to the first question: Has the science behind the Quran had an impact on the worlds technology today? Or been passed down exactly as we know them now?

Maybe both are true: because the science may have been passed down but also interpreted in a different way until some clever bloke used the science to discover things.

Think of chinese whispers: In the game one person thinks up a phrase/scentence w/e and whispers it to the person next to them. This goes round in a circle until the last person hears it. Then, the last peron says it outloud and the phrase is often complety different to the original one.

Comments/Arguments?

Squidge

 

[Shredderbeam]

I definitely agree with the difficulty of learning a language that uses non-latin letters. And it would be an even harder task for you seeing how close-minded you are when looking back at your previous discussions and responses.

One's ability to learn a language and the amount of skepticism one has when approaching a religion are hardly related.

Anyway, one point I had made earlier: Alcohol isn't bad for you, and, consumed in moderation, can actually lengthen your life. Yet, you still say that it's wrong. Why is that?

 

[cambiasso]

Anyway, one point I had made earlier: Alcohol isn't bad for you, and, consumed in moderation, can actually lengthen your life. Yet, you still say that it's wrong. Why is that?

Cos most people abuse alcohol, usually at the point when they reach the "pissed/drunk" level.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The study showed that people who generally drink in moderation over their lifetimes live longer. It does not mean that getting drunk is to excess, it means that non-drinkers and alcoholics will live shorter than those in the middle.