This argument is similar to Marco Polo returnimg to Italy in the 13th Century claiming to have invented spaghetti. Proud Italians have used it ever since as their national dish and it's famous around the World as a Classic Italian Invention. The trouble is it isn't Italian at all, he stole the technique from the Chinese and claimed it as his own. You tell a hot headed Wop his Spaghetti that mama makes him is just a variation on noodles and you'll get a similar response to Muslims being told that much of their book and customs were plagiarised from existing religions.
Again false premise and ludicrous if you know the topic Jesus or Muhammad never denied what came before or claimed a new "belief" Jesus was at pains to show that he was not bringing in a new religion but rather getting people back to the religion of Moses Muhammad was clearly saying he was bringing people back to tawheed which was from Abraham Sorry pal but your claims make Marcos seem legit
My point is, you talk about science being the unsubstantiated fairy tales as much as religion.....but you are wrong. Science doesn't claim to know everything but it knows a lot. There are many things Science has taught us. Gravity for example. Photosynthesis as well Biology, we know far more about the human condition and how to treat illnesses, all this is due to science. its far from on par with religion when it comes to mumbo jumbo hooey.
They may seem legit to you but the Italians are still eating wheat noodles . Muslims also attempted to take credid for 1000s of Inventions from flying to coffee. Spoiler alert they lied. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/...e-of-which-were-actually-invented-by-muslims/
No mate I trying to impress upon you that science and religion are not mutually exclusive Not maybe the best explanation but science focus is on what is here, religion focus is how we got here Scientific theories on what religion speaks of in the main are fairy tale and then some To put it in very simple terms I look to religion to explain how we came about and science to fix my tele
I think Bods point was, you are calling science fairytale stuff (or maybe you mean just the evolution and big bang parts) and likening it to religion. For us non-believers who are skeptical of religion, we put our faith in science as we can see that science is a huge part of our lives and is used everyday whereas to us religion is just a book that someone wrote. We can see science in action but not religion.
I'll ignore your other replies to save you the embaraasment of having them repeated for the world to see. You seem to keep ignoring the key points of the replies, and drifting all over. Hvae a go at answering them. Right now, it just looks like you can't. So, to get you back on track. Mohammed claiming god revealed it to him, is not a credible argument, it needs external verification. However, the 'till' bit and the fact that they clearly say they believed it was pagan before mohammed heard voices, and the other evidence in my earlier reply shows its origins are pagan, even your books confirm it, or there'd be no need for the 'revelation'. Edit. Let me see if I can break it down a bit more. They believed it was pagan, because that's what their eyes and experience had witnessed. The fact that your books even need to try to explain why it's no longer pagan, says it was in deed pagan up to that point. They believed their own first hand evidence 'till' mohamed said he'd heard voices. bells or whatever, which he takes to mean that these things were originally for his god, but pagans took them, and now followers of mohamed can take them back. This claim from mohamed needs some external proof. I'd argue that the fact no abrahimic faiths have similar and that it's unlikely Abraham ever went near mecca, and had probably never heard of it, as it gets little mention in other writing of the time, so wasn't a significant place, and it's unlikely that the kaaba is old enough, all point to it being pagan. There is evidence from historians that the nomadic, pagan arabs would travel to meet up once a year to settle any tribal disputes, and these 'pilgrimages' are the most likely source of the hajj. Even if you choose to deny any or all of that, your ultimate claim is that it was from the Abrahimic faith, which itself takes its stories from earlier pagan tales. Someone hearing voices, images or sensations and claiming they're divine, is not proof, as Peter Sutcliffe found out when he tried that one.
The clock looks cool. I might have a go at making that. I think Asda sell elephants, Griffins, dragons and cuckoos don't they?
I think you have missed the point. Science is a huge part of my life too, not least as my kids are students of chemistry and physics What I am saying they are not mutually exclusive To put it simply, as I said before, the premise of non believers is wrong
Hardly. They were not 'replies' they were just silly comments unrelated to the posts. The reply you quoted is a full answer, that is still awaiting a full reply. I'll repeat it, just to save any confusion. Mohammed claiming god revealed it to him, is not a credible argument, it needs external verification. However, the 'till' bit and the fact that they clearly say they believed it was pagan before mohammed heard voices, and the other evidence in my earlier reply shows its origins are pagan, even your books confirm it, or there'd be no need for the 'revelation'. Edit. Let me see if I can break it down a bit more. They believed it was pagan, because that's what their eyes and experience had witnessed. The fact that your books even need to try to explain why it's no longer pagan, says it was in deed pagan up to that point. They believed their own first hand evidence 'till' mohamed said he'd heard voices. bells or whatever, which he takes to mean that these things were originally for his god, but pagans took them, and now followers of mohamed can take them back. This claim from mohamed needs some external proof. I'd argue that the fact no abrahimic faiths have similar and that it's unlikely Abraham ever went near mecca, and had probably never heard of it, as it gets little mention in other writing of the time, so wasn't a significant place, and it's unlikely that the kaaba is old enough, all point to it being pagan. There is evidence from historians that the nomadic, pagan arabs would travel to meet up once a year to settle any tribal disputes, and these 'pilgrimages' are the most likely source of the hajj. Even if you choose to deny any or all of that, your ultimate claim is that it was from the Abrahimic faith, which itself takes its stories from earlier pagan tales. Someone hearing voices, images or sensations and claiming they're divine, is not proof, as Peter Sutcliffe found out when he tried that one.
This is about your level of discussion Anytime you want to address your claims let me know @DUNCAN DONUTS he is all yours mate
