Atheism: The 21st Century Polytheistic religion

[Burhan]

I don't know what you're talking about, but I think you misunderstand evolution (ironic since you accused us of not knowing the Quran). The basic understanding of evolution, which is that all life has a common ancestor and species evolve through a gradual process via natural selection, is a fact. Some of the scientists on the Genome project were creationists who later accepted the results. Francis Collins was one of those people, here's what he had to say:

View attachment 11343

Nobody mentioned flat earth and the Quran but OP sure will argue with you on your conclusions there. He believes in a flat earth and will most likely use the Quran as a defence of that position. Plus, you can't just dismiss the flat earth understanding of the Quran as it was pretty prominent in the past.

Tafsirs on the verse 79:30
The tafsirs explain that this verse describes the Earth to be flat.

Al-Jalalayn:

and after that He spread out the earth He made it flat for it had been created before the heaven but without having been spread out;
Al-Jalalayn
Tanwir Al-Miqbas:

(And after that He spread the earth) even then He spread it on the water; it is also said: 2,000 years after that He spread it on the water,

Tanwir Al-Miqbas


http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.as...hNo=20&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=

"And the earth how it was laid out flat? and thus infer from this the power of God exalted be He and His Oneness? The commencing with the mention of camels is because they are closer in contact with it the earth than any other animal. As for His words sutihat ‘laid out flat’ this on a literal reading suggests that the earth is flat which is the opinion of most of the scholars of the revealed Law and not a sphere as astronomers ahl al-hay’a have it even if this latter does not contradict any of the pillars of the Law."

This comes from the tafsir of Al Jalalayn of the Quran chapter 88 verse 20. He is one the most popular ones.

Also, regurgitating arguments isn't a bad thing because we all do it, even you. The important thing is how well you defend it.

View attachment 11345

Nobody mentioned flat earth and the Quran but OP sure will argue with you on your conclusions there. He believes in a flat earth and will most likely use the Quran as a defence of that position. Plus, you can't just dismiss the flat earth understanding of the Quran as it was pretty prominent in the past.

Tafsirs on the verse 79:30
The tafsirs explain that this verse describes the Earth to be flat.

Al-Jalalayn:

and after that He spread out the earth He made it flat for it had been created before the heaven but without having been spread out;
Al-Jalalayn
Tanwir Al-Miqbas:

(And after that He spread the earth) even then He spread it on the water; it is also said: 2,000 years after that He spread it on the water,

Tanwir Al-Miqbas


http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.as...hNo=20&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=

"And the earth how it was laid out flat? and thus infer from this the power of God exalted be He and His Oneness? The commencing with the mention of camels is because they are closer in contact with it the earth than any other animal. As for His words sutihat ‘laid out flat’ this on a literal reading suggests that the earth is flat which is the opinion of most of the scholars of the revealed Law and not a sphere as astronomers ahl al-hay’a have it even if this latter does not contradict any of the pillars of the Law."

This comes from the tafsir of Al Jalalayn of the Quran chapter 88 verse 20. He is one the most popular ones.

Also, regurgitating arguments isn't a bad thing because we all do it, even you. The important thing is how well you defend it.

View attachment 11345

Cosmos, If you are telling me what I should dismiss and what I should not, what I can present to you in debates, and what I can not, then is there a point in you addressing me as Burhan? You already made up your mind right? you are dictating to me basically.

I told you the Muslim majority view on the spherical nature of Earth due to their understanding. You quote me someone who made a mistake in their understanding contrary to the majority in the same religion. Yet, because of your obsession with proving Islam wrong, you are forcing an individual who has an open mind about an issue to tow the line of someone who is wrong and didn't get it right? Isn't this wrong or right still wrong kind of bias on your behalf?

This is why I see people like you to be very bankrupt in their outlook of life and in everything else. I take the majority's view who are right and understand the few to have made a mistake. If you don't want accept that and copy/paste for me wiki page I have bookmarked here, then you are fucking wasting my time dude.

You are dishonest and every time you write that fact glares back at me.

 

[EternalLightX]

Stop fighting over religion when will this poison end it's grasps are still present to this day. Bloodshed has always followed when religion is mentioned. Why can't people get along and learn to love eachother ? I hate this arguments it's getting tedious and tiring? I am utterly lost in meloncholy, how is such a buetiful intelligent form the human race so fragile and weak.

 

[Burhan]

Stop fighting over religion when will this poison end it's grasps are still present to this day. Bloodshed has always followed when religion is mentioned. Why can't people get along and learn to love eachother ? I hate this arguments it's getting tedious and tiring? I am utterly lost in meloncholy, how is such a buetiful intelligent form the human race so fragile and weak.

LOL. I think you need to sleep. You mentioned in another thread how you were on a shift working and it was night time. Human beings always debated about God. It will continue to be so until earth folds and the sun loses its power. Civility and Honesty are important in discussions, but if it is one-sided, and others don't pay the respect and honesty due, then it descends into meaningless and wasteful energy.

I am telling cosmos for example what the majority view of Islam is and he tells me not to dismiss what someone got wrong. That is very offensive and insult to people's intellect.

If he decides for others what they should and should not hold onto as a view and belief, then he is unlike what he claims to be - dogmatic

I find it ironic how his class claim open-mindedness but deny that to others when it is not in their favor. Civility when they are the least civil, rational when they are the least rational. The list is too long for me to state here.

 

[Sakandari]

The materialistic God-rejectors used to believe in matter as such a god. But this matter-god of theirs is not the matter with which we are familiar in our daily life; it is something that is eternal and everlasting. But when you ask them to point this eternal and everlasting matter you discover that they are only chasing a will-o’-the-wisp. Scientists now believe that everything—matter, energy, even space and time—had a beginning. In fact they speak about a moment of creation of all these things.

I'm before you claim "but it's just a theory!" Understanding of a scientific theory:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:

'The idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'. (Microbe-to-man evolution)

This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

There's consensus among scientists that evolution is a fact, around 99% to be exact. Pretty much every respected scientific society has accepted evolution and rejected intelligent design.

As for you last points, I can see you've been fishing through old threads in the religious section.

1) The proponent of a claim is required to back that claim. I, an atheist, lack a belief in a deity meaning that I do not assert the non existence of God but instead I demand object evidence for his or hers existence.

2) I'm guessing you're referring to evolution? As I've stated above, evolution is a fact of science that has mounting amount of evidence supporting it as well as having the full scientific support of the scientific community. However, you believe in flying horses, talking ants, splitting moons and seas, invisible people and many more unverified fairytales, you have nothing on irrationality.

The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion.

Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat, a logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority (Archie, 2012). The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true” (Archie). In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like neodarwinism), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition.

 

[Burhan]

The materialistic God-rejectors used to believe in matter as such a god. But this matter-god of theirs is not the matter with which we are familiar in our daily life; it is something that is eternal and everlasting. But when you ask them to point this eternal and everlasting matter you discover that they are only chasing a will-o’-the-wisp. Scientists now believe that everything—matter, energy, even space and time—had a beginning. In fact they speak about a moment of creation of all these things.

"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:

'The idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'. (Microbe-to-man evolution)

This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.


The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion.

Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat, a logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority (Archie, 2012). The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true” (Archie). In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like neodarwinism), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition.

Beautifully put(in the boldened section) Sakandari. Good post bro. I think you will be a good addition to this debate.

 

[TekNiKo]

You forget one God which Allah SWT mentions and is key these peopl le worship their desires, thats why they left Islam they want to engage in sin without feeling guilty

 

[The_Cosmos]

Cosmos, If you are telling me what I should dismiss and what I should not, what I can present to you in debates, and what I can not, then is there a point in you addressing me as Burhan? You already made up your mind right? you are dictating to me basically.

I told you the Muslim majority view on the spherical nature of Earth due to their understanding. You quote me someone who made a mistake in their understanding contrary to the majority in the same religion. Yet, because of your obsession with proving Islam wrong, you are forcing an individual who has an open mind about an issue to tow the line of someone who is wrong and didn't get it right? Isn't this wrong or right still wrong kind of bias on your behalf?

This is why I see people like you to be very bankrupt in their outlook of life and in everything else. I take the majority's view who are right and understand the few to have made a mistake. If you don't want accept that and copy/paste for me wiki page I have bookmarked here, then you are fucking wasting my time dude.

You are dishonest and every time you write that fact glares back at me.

The scholar I quoted was not any old scholar, he's one of the biggest Islamic commentators you can think of. His exegesis is looked upon with great respect. Al Jalalayn was a 16th century Islamic commentator and he and the Islamic scholars of his day were in agreement that the Earth is flat. There are other major scholars who also predate him and provide similar views.

Plus, I never bookmarked a Wikipedia page. I bookmarked a well respected website for tafsir. Your dishonesty is clearly showing here.
http://www.altafsir.com/Al-Jalalayn.asp

I don't know why you always misconstrued my arguments. I never told you what you can and cannot do. I never said what you should and shouldn't do. The fact that you present yourself as an open minded person whilst making me out as the close minded person is quite telling. You talk about consensus and how important it is but dismiss mine in favour of yours. What if I told you that the overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement that evolution is a scientific fact? Are you going to accept their consensus or are you going to highlight your lack of understanding of evolution?

I'm not dishonest at all, everything I say I provide evidence for. You claim to be open minded but at the same time you hold views that are clearly contradicted by the scientific evidence. You hold views that violated human logic and reason. You're not open minded!

 

[Burhan]

You forget one God which Allah SWT mentions and is key these peopl le worship their desires, thats why they left Islam they want to engage in sin without feeling guilty

That is the bottom line for Somali atheists. Many westerners become agnostics or atheists after disagreements with Christian doctrine like trinity, deity of a man(Jesus) and the obvious contradictions strewn all over the new and old testament. When their questions are not addressed by the church, they just continue on with life as Agnostics and some become Atheists hoping science will provide the final answer they were looking for. Still, some of these become Muslims when they make contact with Islam. Their stories are recorded. I find these atheist/agnostic westerners more sincere in their search for truth than these self-worshipping Somalis. Just look what they promote Somalis to become and adopt.

My best non-Somali friend is an atheist and runs a blog. He is reasonable and very respectful, he even says he sees value in religion but he disagrees with how Judeo-Christian religions portray God. I gave him a copy of the Quran and he gave me tons of material to read including his website. He used to volunteer to teach Somali kids as an English tutor. He is an theist with moral values and we debated a lot. We share passions for sci-fi movies and we even talk about how at some point man and machine can be combined lol. Which leads to the basic question of whether human knowledge in biology and technology can create a more human looking robot in all aspects. This leads us usually to debate about souls and what life means in the living animal etc. etc. We recommend movies to watch for each other about these AIs. Not all atheist are motivated to sin. This guy is married and has a family as well.

 

[Burhan]

The scholar I quoted was not any old scholar, he's one of the biggest Islamic commentators you can think of. His exegesis is looked upon with great respect. Al Jalalayn was a 16th century Islamic commentator and he and the Islamic scholars of his day were in agreement that the Earth is flat. There are other major scholars who also predate him and provide similar views.

Plus, I never bookmarked a Wikipedia page. I bookmarked a well respected website for tafsir. Your dishonesty is clearly showing here.
http://www.altafsir.com/Al-Jalalayn.asp

I don't know why you always misconstrued my arguments. I never told you what you can and cannot do. I never said what you should and shouldn't do. The fact that you present yourself as an open minded person whilst making me out as the close minded person is quite telling. You talk about consensus and how important it is but dismiss mine in favour of yours. What if I told you that the overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement that evolution is a scientific fact? Are you going to accept their consensus or are you going to highlight your lack of understanding of evolution?

I'm not dishonest at all, everything I say I provide evidence for. You claim to be open minded but at the same time you hold views that are clearly contradicted by the scientific evidence. You hold views that violated human logic and reason. You're not open minded!

In Islam, being well respected doesn't mean people will agree with you on what you get wrong. It is how Islam is protected. Muslims never unite on something wrong. Why do you think the prophet's sayings are classed? As authentic, good, fabricated and weak?

Islam values the freedom of someone's conscience, for people to choose what is right and Islam accepts that no one is perfect, therefore, respected or not, well educated or not, whatever someone gets wrong is considered to be wrong.

Many known Islamic scholars had one issue or two wrong in their books. And yes, I can quote the wiki website exclusively written to propagate Aljalalayn and this subject.


Majority of Muslims disagree with the mistake made by the sheikh. And that is the end of this matter. If you want to hang on to what majority of Muslims disagree with as evidence, that is your prerogative.

 

[The_Cosmos]

The materialistic God-rejectors used to believe in matter as such a god. But this matter-god of theirs is not the matter with which we are familiar in our daily life; it is something that is eternal and everlasting. But when you ask them to point this eternal and everlasting matter you discover that they are only chasing a will-o’-the-wisp. Scientists now believe that everything—matter, energy, even space and time—had a beginning. In fact they speak about a moment of creation of all these things.

"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:

'The idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'. (Microbe-to-man evolution)

This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.


The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion.

Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat, a logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority (Archie, 2012). The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true” (Archie). In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like neodarwinism), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition.

First of all I think you need to stop making things up and claiming this is what "God rejectors" believe. I don't believe there is a God (I do not assert the nonexistence of God(s)) because there are no evidence for such a being. Yes, the evidence suggests that our universe came as a result of the Big Bang. The fallacy is assuming that this equals a God as it is building its basis on the first cause narrative which has been thoroughly rebuked. Science stops where our knowledge ends until more evidence can be gathered to make sound conclusions. Religion makes conclusions and demands the evidence confirm to it. If the universe having a beginning must mean there is a God, then where did this God come from? I'll wait for the special pleading to kick in.

This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

What's laughable is that you don't know the evidence for evolution because if you did, you'd know why science supports evolution.

What you presented is derived from the typical creationist sentiment which assumes that science is limited to experiments in laboratories by white-coated technicians. This is of course, nonsense. Much of the scientific facts that we know is gathered by scientific information acquired from the real world. Transitional fossils, DNA evidence and so on. Evolution beyond a doubt, is now a scientific fact.

As for your last point, I agree with you. I was not citing the consensus as proof for evolution, I was citing it to show that there is a consensus among scientists that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution speaks for itself. Also, the Flat Earth belief was never a scientific fact, it was just something that was widely believed even among a lot of respected scientists. The Ancient Greeks were the ones to point out the round nature of the Earth.

Just add one last thing, I think it's very disingenuous to appear condescending towards evolution when you yourself believe that a single couple gave birth to humanity via their children having sec with each other. You believe incest was the source of human origin. Evidence?

 

[The_Cosmos]

In Islam, being well respected doesn't mean people will agree with you on what you get wrong. It is how Islam is protected. Muslims never unite on something wrong. Why do you think the prophet's sayings are classed? As authentic, good, fabricated and weak?

Islam values the freedom of someone's conscience, for people to choose what is right and Islam accepts that no one is perfect, therefore, respected or not, well educated or not, whatever someone gets wrong is considered to be wrong.

Many known Islamic scholars had one issue or two wrong in their books. And yes, I can quote the wiki website exclusively written to propagate Aljalalayn and this subject.


Majority of Muslims disagree with the mistake made by the sheikh. And that is the end of this matter. If you want to hang on to what majority of Muslims disagree with as evidence, that is your prerogative.

Again, you seem to not understand the point that is being made. Al Jalalayn didn't come up with this conclusion on his own, he has arrived to this conclusion as a result of the consensus among the scholars of his time who unanimously agreed that the Earth, according to Islam, was flat. If anything, what you have shown is that the understanding of the Quran changes depending on the times in which people live in. What people thought to be the Quranic understanding can be dismissed by a later society to be the wrong understanding. This proves, that the Quran itself isn't clear and its meaning is subjective to the time period that one lives in.

When people were ignorant of the scientific method, they concluded that the Quran states the Earth is flat. When everybody is fluent in the scientific understanding of our world, they change their interpretation and claim our book was right all along whilst claiming everybody else had the wrong interpretation.

That is the bottom line for Somali atheists. Many westerners become agnostics or atheists after disagreements with Christian doctrine like trinity, deity of a man(Jesus) and the obvious contradictions strewn all over the new and old testament. When their questions are not addressed by the church, they just continue on with life as Agnostics and some become Atheists hoping science will provide the final answer they were looking for. Still, some of these become Muslims when they make contact with Islam. Their stories are recorded. I find these atheist/agnostic westerners more sincere in their search for truth than these self-worshipping Somalis. Just look what they promote Somalis to become and adopt.

My best non-Somali friend is an atheist and runs a blog. He is reasonable and very respectful, he even says he sees value in religion but he disagrees with how Judeo-Christian religions portray God. I gave him a copy of the Quran and he gave me tons of material to read including his website. He used to volunteer to teach Somali kids as an English tutor. He is an theist with moral values and we debated a lot. We share passions for sci-fi movies and we even talk about how at some point man and machine can be combined lol. Which leads to the basic question of whether human knowledge in biology and technology can create a more human looking robot in all aspects. This leads us usually to debate about souls and what life means in the living animal etc. etc. We recommend movies to watch for each other about these AIs. Not all atheist are motivated to sin. This guy is married and has a family as well.

You forget one God which Allah SWT mentions and is key these peopl le worship their desires, thats why they left Islam they want to engage in sin without feeling guilty

Yes, we just 'chose' to leave Islam to fulfill our sinful desires knowing that we will burn for eternity when we die.


It's also funny how you (Burhan) concede the the logical problems with Christianity like the trinity but refuse to concede that Islam also has similar irrational beliefs that it pushes as fact. Plus, surely an omnipotent God who can fly a man to heaven on a winged horse can also present himself in the form of the trinity if he so chose. Why is it that you're willing to exercise logic when other religions are concerned by refuse to conduct similar analysis to your beliefs. You're just one of those religious people who speaks of open mindedness only to refer to the atheists when they reject your baseless claims.

 

[Burhan]

Again, you seem to not understand the point that is being made..



Al Jalalayn didn't come up with this conclusion on his own, he has arrived to this conclusion as a result of the consensus among the scholars of his time who unanimously agreed that the Earth, according to Islam, was flat. If anything, what you have shown is that the understanding of the Quran changes depending on the times in which people live in. What people thought to be the Quranic understanding can be dismissed by a later society to be the wrong understanding. This proves, that the Quran itself isn't clear and its meaning is subjective to the time period that one lives in.

When people were ignorant of the scientific method, they concluded that the Quran states the Earth is flat. When everybody is fluent in the scientific understanding of our world, they change their interpretation and claim our book was right all along whilst claiming everybody else had the wrong interpretation.



Yes, we just 'chose' to leave Islam to fulfill our sinful desires knowing that we will burn for eternity when we die.


It's also funny how you (Burhan) concede the the logical problems with Christianity like the trinity but refuse to concede that Islam also has similar irrational beliefs that it pushes as fact. Plus, surely an omnipotent God who can fly a man to heaven on a winged horse can also present himself in the form of the trinity if he so chose. Why is it that you're willing to exercise logic when other religions are concerned by refuse to conduct similar analysis to your beliefs. You're just one of those religious people who speaks of open mindedness only to refer to the atheists when they reject your baseless claims.

There is only one individual quoted by atheist websites to present his mistaken view as a Muslim majority stance. They ignore past and present Muslim unanimity on the opposite. You are regurgitating the same poorly presented deceptive argument and you are not willing to accept you are boxed by the facts. Your strategy is to speak for majority of Muslims when You are not even a Muslim. That shows how fraudulent you are.


PS: Your last paragraph doesn't even merit a one liner response. As a token advise though, and for you to not waste anyone's time and yours, It would be easier for you to copy/paste all the material written by others that you rely on since you have no brain to formulate your own argument about Islam. Just leave the links behind and let others read on if they care.

I am glad you clarified for others that you have:

A - no prior exposure to Islamic knowledge before you decided your hedonistic life needs to be defended
B- you confuse Islam with Christianity in most of your arguments
B- when corrected over an issue you wrongly attributed to Majority of Muslims, you are not willing to accept the correction because that is not your objective.


If you are this depressed and Islamic critique makes you feel a little worthy to life, by all means, I can ignore your rants on here. Just to help the desperate vent and feel good about themselves. Just drop all in one piece.

 

[dhegdheer]

View attachment 11342
You obsess over us m8

Lmaoo wallahi he is, our mere existence triggers him

 

[Burhan]

Lmaoo wallahi he is, our mere existence triggers him

Sorry I ignored you before. I am keeping one eye on play-off game on tv here and responding to the cosmonaut when I could. Hard to remember the insignificant members sometimes.

will be kinder next time and see what you drop. my bad.

 

[The_Cosmos]

There is only one individual quoted by atheist websites to present his mistaken view as a Muslim majority stance. They ignore past and present Muslim unanimity on the opposite. You are regurgitating the same poorly presented deceptive argument and you are not willing to accept you are boxed by the facts. Your strategy is to speak for majority of Muslims when You are not even a Muslim. That shows how fraudulent you are.


PS: Your last paragraph doesn't even merit a one liner response. As a token advise though, and for you to not waste anyone's time and yours, It would be easier for you to copy/paste all the material written by others that you rely on since you have no brain to formulate your own argument about Islam. Just leave the links behind and let others read on if they care.

I am glad you clarified for others that you have:

A - no prior exposure to Islamic knowledge before you decided your hedonistic life needs to be defended
B- you confuse Islam with Christianity in most of your arguments
B- when corrected over an issue you wrongly attributed to Majority of Muslims, you are not willing to accept the correction because that is not your objective.


If you are this depressed and Islamic critique makes you feel a little worthy to life, by all means, I can ignore your rants on here. Just to help the desperate vent and feel good about themselves. Just drop all in one piece.

You have accused me on several occasions of not being able to have an honest discussion but here you are yet again, attacking me personally. You have accused me of propagating atheistic sources when I haven't even quoted one atheistic source. The source that I have used was a Muslim website that is well respected that provides exegesis of the Quran via many different Muslim scholars. Please, tell me the atheist source which I used.

There is only one individual quoted by atheist websites to present his mistaken view as a Muslim majority stance. They ignore past and present Muslim unanimity on the opposite. You are regurgitating the same poorly presented deceptive argument and you are not willing to accept you are boxed by the facts. Your strategy is to speak for majority of Muslims when You are not even a Muslim. That shows how fraudulent you are.

The website which I have provided (NOT AN ATHEIST WEBSITE) provides you with the tafsir made by Al Jalalayn where he claims a flat Earth which he also has stated clearly, was of the opinion of the majority of the Muslim scholars of his time. He is a 16th century theologian. All you have done is claim (by the authority of the people today) that he is wrong. I haven't determined who is right and who is wrong, I have simply pointed out that the interpretation of the Quran have varied depending on the period of time one is making that interpretation.

I haven't spoken for the majority of the Muslims, I have simply commented on the Al Jalalayn's interesting comment which stated that he and the majority of the scholars of his time (16th century) were of the opinion that the Earth was flat, according to the Quran that is. You are yet again, straw manning me by claiming I said things which I never actually said or implied. All you seem to do is resort to petty name calling when you were previously complaining in another post, of the supposed atheist condescension of believing they are better (nonsense of course).

PS: Your last paragraph doesn't even merit a one liner response. As a token advise though, and for you to not waste anyone's time and yours, It would be easier for you to copy/paste all the material written by others that you rely on since you have no brain to formulate your own argument about Islam. Just leave the links behind and let others read on if they care.

I have provided my own arguments and I have provided evidence to back my own arguments. If my arguments resemble that of others, that's only indicative that others have also found and commented on the same issues which I'm commenting on right now. I did not chuck any links at anyone expecting it to argue my own points for me, I have made my points and used links from respected Muslim cites to back up my arguments as evidence. I have formulated my own arguments on many occasions and as evidence you can refer to the religion section to see that. Instead of debating me honestly (which you accused the atheists of not doing) you choose to throw around petty accusations you have no evidence to back up.

I am glad you clarified for others that you have:

A - no prior exposure to Islamic knowledge before you decided your hedonistic life needs to be defended
B- you confuse Islam with Christianity in most of your arguments
B- when corrected over an issue you wrongly attributed to Majority of Muslims, you are not willing to accept the correction because that is not your objective.

1) No evidence of that what's so ever. I have made claims and I have provided evidence from reputable Muslim sources, like Al Jalalayn, to back up my claim. All you have done is claim he and the consensus of the 16th century theologians are wrong because the scholars, you never mentioned, claim so. If anybody is intellectually dishonest, that would be you.

2) Again, could you provide evidence of that? If you are referring to the last point I made to you in the previous reply, I would say either you misunderstood me or you purposely misconstrued my arguments to suit your narrative. You made the implication that the trinity is logically problematic and I have replied by saying that it's a bit ironic for you to address the logical issues concerning Christianity when Islam also has similar issues. For example, the virgin birth, splitting of the sea, splitting of the moon, men flying to heaven on winged horses and so on, are all irrational claims that violate human logic. I was referring to those logical problems when I talking about the "similar issues". I also made the point that it's a bit ironic for a Muslim who believes in an omnipotent god to argue against the trinity on logical grounds when they claim their god can do anything. Surely if he can do anything he can do that? Does logic hinder God?

3) I never denied that there is a modern Muslim consensus on the shape of the Earth, I made the point that there was also a consensus a few hundred years ago that the Earth was flat. My point was (seems you missed it yet again) that the Quranic interpretation depends on the period that one is conducting that interpretation. When people were ignorant of scientific understanding of the world they made claims that contradicted it, however, now that they do have somewhat of an understanding, they changed the interpretation to match that of the science. This is very similar to what the Catholic Church has done. It went from asserting a geocentric model of the world to accepting the scientific evidence. It now even accepts evolution.

 

[Sakandari]

What's laughable is that you don't know the evidence for evolution because if you did, you'd know why science supports evolution.

What you presented is derived from the typical creationist sentiment which assumes that science is limited to experiments in laboratories by white-coated technicians. This is of course, nonsense. Much of the scientific facts that we know is gathered by scientific information acquired from the real world. Transitional fossils, DNA evidence and so on. Evolution beyond a doubt, is now a scientific fact.

The scientific evolution:
'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.

This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.

Neo-Darwinism ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')

In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," after the microbe evolved to be another creatures. That's pathetic.

Again, neo-dawinism = Microbe-to-man evolution 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable. It also necessitates that life came to existence by itself which is the most insane statement to be uttered.

Fallacy of equivocation:

Atheists & Darwinists like you use undeniable examples of 'change over time' to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

 

[Burhan]

The scientific evolution:
'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.

This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.

Neo-Darwinism ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')

In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," after the microbe evolved to be another creatures. That's pathetic.

Again, neo-dawinism = Microbe-to-man evolution 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable. It also necessitates that life came to existence by itself which is the most insane statement to be uttered.

Fallacy of equivocation:

Atheists & Darwinists like you use undeniable examples of 'change over time' to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

Thanks for this contribution. They are the most dogmatic human beings on earth. And they take people for being stupid. Dishonesty is their religion.

 

[Burhan]

You have accused me on several occasions of not being able to have an honest discussion but here you are yet again, attacking me personally. You have accused me of propagating atheistic sources when I haven't even quoted one atheistic source. The source that I have used was a Muslim website that is well respected that provides exegesis of the Quran via many different Muslim scholars. Please, tell me the atheist source which I used.



The website which I have provided (NOT AN ATHEIST WEBSITE) provides you with the tafsir made by Al Jalalayn where he claims a flat Earth which he also has stated clearly, was of the opinion of the majority of the Muslim scholars of his time. He is a 16th century theologian. All you have done is claim (by the authority of the people today) that he is wrong. I haven't determined who is right and who is wrong, I have simply pointed out that the interpretation of the Quran have varied depending on the period of time one is making that interpretation.

I haven't spoken for the majority of the Muslims, I have simply commented on the Al Jalalayn's interesting comment which stated that he and the majority of the scholars of his time (16th century) were of the opinion that the Earth was flat, according to the Quran that is. You are yet again, straw manning me by claiming I said things which I never actually said or implied. All you seem to do is resort to petty name calling when you were previously complaining in another post, of the supposed atheist condescension of believing they are better (nonsense of course).



I have provided my own arguments and I have provided evidence to back my own arguments. If my arguments resemble that of others, that's only indicative that others have also found and commented on the same issues which I'm commenting on right now. I did not chuck any links at anyone expecting it to argue my own points for me, I have made my points and used links from respected Muslim cites to back up my arguments as evidence. I have formulated my own arguments on many occasions and as evidence you can refer to the religion section to see that. Instead of debating me honestly (which you accused the atheists of not doing) you choose to throw around petty accusations you have no evidence to back up.



1) No evidence of that what's so ever. I have made claims and I have provided evidence from reputable Muslim sources, like Al Jalalayn, to back up my claim. All you have done is claim he and the consensus of the 16th century theologians are wrong because the scholars, you never mentioned, claim so. If anybody is intellectually dishonest, that would be you.

2) Again, could you provide evidence of that? If you are referring to the last point I made to you in the previous reply, I would say either you misunderstood me or you purposely misconstrued my arguments to suit your narrative. You made the implication that the trinity is logically problematic and I have replied by saying that it's a bit ironic for you to address the logical issues concerning Christianity when Islam also has similar issues. For example, the virgin birth, splitting of the sea, splitting of the moon, men flying to heaven on winged horses and so on, are all irrational claims that violate human logic. I was referring to those logical problems when I talking about the "similar issues". I also made the point that it's a bit ironic for a Muslim who believes in an omnipotent god to argue against the trinity on logical grounds when they claim their god can do anything. Surely if he can do anything he can do that? Does logic hinder God?

3) I never denied that there is a modern Muslim consensus on the shape of the Earth, I made the point that there was also a consensus a few hundred years ago that the Earth was flat. My point was (seems you missed it yet again) that the Quranic interpretation depends on the period that one is conducting that interpretation. When people were ignorant of scientific understanding of the world they made claims that contradicted it, however, now that they do have somewhat of an understanding, they changed the interpretation to match that of the science. This is very similar to what the Catholic Church has done. It went from asserting a geocentric model of the world to accepting the scientific evidence. It now even accepts evolution.

You seem to be hang up on Aljalalayn Error. A simple search on earliest Islamic maps and cartography will show how Muslims measured earth's circumference By the order and funding of their ruler back then around 800. Way before your 16th century claim as one example of your baseless claims. It was well known to Muslims before and after Aljalayn comments that earth is not flat. All the maps and their Astronomy show no indication that they treated earth as Flat. If you have decency, a drop of it, you would know that of course and do a study on it before you regurgitate such bs. Muslim maps were copied centuries by Europeans. Here is a quote of that fact:

"The compilation of Edrisi marks an era in the history of science. Not only is its historical information most interesting and valuable, but its descriptions of many parts of the earth are still authoritative. For three centuries geographers copied his maps without alteration. The relative position of the lakes which form the Nile, as delineated in his work, does not differ greatly from that established by Baker and Stanley more than seven hundred years afterwards, and their number is the same. The mechanical genius of the author was not inferior to his erudition. The celestial and terrestrial planisphere of silver which he constructed for his royal patron was nearly six feet in diameter, and weighed four hundred and fifty pounds; upon the one side the zodiac and the constellations, upon the other—divided for convenience into segments—the bodies of land and water, with the respective situations of the various countries, were engraved."

— S. P. Scott, History of the Moorish Empire in Europe


The Ottoman empire had one of the best Maps of the world.


Since you are stuck on this issue, I will keep my comments short and let you decide if you want to move on from Earth to other things you brought up.

 

[Burhan]

Cosmos

Here is some reading you can do also about maps and spherical world on Wikipedia

"Islamic astronomy[edit]

Islamic astronomy was developed on the basis of a spherical earth inherited from Hellenistic astronomy.[47] The Islamic theoretical framework largely relied on the fundamental contributions of Aristotle (De caelo) and Ptolemy (Almagest), both of whom worked from the premise that the earth was spherical and at the centre of the universe (geocentric model).[47]

Early Islamic scholars recognized earth's sphericity,[48] leading Muslim mathematicians to develop spherical trigonometry[49] in order to further mensuration and to calculate the distance and direction from any given point on the Earth to Mecca. This determined the Qibla, or Muslim direction of prayer."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth


It is better to investigate a subject matter and read many sources before you speak about it with some confidence. I hope this subject is put to rest beyond this point and you move on to other so called issues you have with Islam.

Or you can do a favor for us Muslims and do the research on your own without us pointing to you the right direction.

 

[The_Cosmos]

The scientific evolution:
'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.

This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.

Neo-Darwinism ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')

In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," after the microbe evolved to be another creatures. That's pathetic.

Again, neo-dawinism = Microbe-to-man evolution 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable. It also necessitates that life came to existence by itself which is the most insane statement to be uttered.

Fallacy of equivocation:

Atheists & Darwinists like you use undeniable examples of 'change over time' to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

Look, I'm not going to debate this forever. I will just direct you to a video of the scientists explaining the evidence for evolution instead of me just throwing so much evidence at you at once.


If you disagree with what is being said here, you can then reply to me and I'll try and reply to you as best I can.