tbf its not the first time you have used wikki to try and prove a point. which suggests desperation wikki's role is to offer an explanation to what something is, not prove it right or wrong as i say distract/deflect. it makes the person its aimed at to lose focus on the actual debate and stert 'defending' something that is neither here nor there typical athiest strategy
and again. assertions without foundation and deflection strategy. failing to accept something, or pretending to 'miss' the point, or accusations of anti semetism and the 'i have been patient' argument doesnt make your points more valid, i am afraid. and now the zakir naik thing again, frankly youre beginning to get boring. which is a shame as i was hoping that you could have kept up some of your initial arguments and provide proof. i would like to see zakirs views on aristotle and galen etc, if you can provide them. the fact is this hasnt gone the usual way for you, and you havent answered any of the direct questions posed to you. for example your asertion that astronomy somehow provided certain evidences over 1400 years ago, stars dimming/dying, i am still waiting you question experts in certain fields without providing any experts who refute, by simply maintaining 'no he didnt' or throwing out random names such as galen, without actually stating what he said/believed. you asserted aristotle did work on embroyology, i countered he was wrong with his conclusions, ie the child doesnt grow in the uterus and the foetus isnt formed from sperm and menstrual blood. In fact completely wrong to what we know now. so you jumped to something else eg interpretation o suah 77. in particular verse 8 you assert astronomers were looking into the notion of disappearing stars. iasked who? instead of answering your focus became the surah and its description of judgement day and semantics on words. so i give you various translations of the verse, including in french, this doest fit your argument so now you want to label me anti semetic and a follower of dr naik? all the time you have avoided putting forward what it is you believe? you assert that what has been put to you is an 'interpretation' yet fail to put foward any rational/logical argument as i say like most athiests, you are happy to mock and ask questions but come unstuck when faced with questions of a certain nature. being aloof and vague maybe charming chatacteristics in some walks of life, but not if you wish to debate/discuss do me a favour, to save your own time and he frustrations you allude to come back with something solid, in the form of questions or answers. at the very least try and stick to the discussion
samir, its no point going down this root. the wikki page is misleading if you look in detail as to what Puin says also it has never been hidden that the reason for having the quran in written form, came from the fact that people started to have their own 'notes' just as when students take notes during a lecture these manuscripts have been proven to have writing over writing, scrapings, rewriting etc. they are but somebodies notes, and not in classic arabic of the day and some of the 'differences' are that for example ibrahim is written 'brhm' so no vowels in essence
Do you have trouble reading or something? As I've already said, I wasn't using Wikipedia to offer an explanation for the manuscripts, but to point SNIAW to a neutral site, so he'd know what was being discussed. What am I supposed to have been distracting from, exactly?
Sorry again SNIAW, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that link. Perhaps you could clarify?
I've discussed every single point that you've raised, gone over some of them repeatedly and from different angles and explained things over and over, yet you're accusing me of making assertions without foundation and a deflection strategy?! You are ridiculous. I was going to go over each of your points again separately, but I'm totally wasting my time. I've shown you that you're wrong repeatedly about some of your claims, to the point where a child could understand your mistakes, but your arrogance won't allow you to accept the massive flaws in your thinking. I've asked you repeatedly to clarify what you want me to assert my beliefs about, yet you've failed to answer, merely accusing me of dodging the question each time. I've answered every question, which you then just repeat and ignore the answer by making the same assertions. You're a coward. Pure and simple.
I sent you a link to an interview with somebody that had actually studied those manuscripts, who was suggesting that they differed from the Quran of today. I don't see any reason that he'd lie about it. I did read the link that you sent me, but it just seemed to explain quite a lot of things that I already knew and a fair bit of circular reasoning. Allah is god, because it says so in the Quran, which is the unaltered word of god, because Allah told us it is in the Quran. Is there a reason that Muslims believe that the Quran is unaltered, other than that it says so in the Quran? A Mullah has a vested interest in promoting the idea that the Quran is unaltered. Would you believe a Catholic priest if he told you that the bible was all completely true? I'm not trying to undermine your beliefs, regardless of what TFWNN seems to think. I just think that it's always better to understand why people believe what they do believe.
There weren't always thousands and thousands of Muslims, SNIAW. I wouldn't have thought that there were that many literate Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) 1,400 years ago, either.
Why? He seems like a pretty well qualified person. The Yemeni government certainly thought so when they hired him to study the manuscripts. Wouldn't you expect most holy men from the same faith to give similar responses, though? They all learn from the same texts and are taught the same religion.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssssssssssss help me. So, if there is one God why does he have us fight over religion? He likes a laugh? If, there is more than one God, shouldn't the lazy ****s fight it out amongst themselves and leave us to pick the winner's side? Meanwhile we get on with the important stuff. <landmine-smiley>
Simple logic like this doesn't work with religious people. They just fall back on the "you wouldn't understand blah blah blah" stuff.
[video=youtube;t8roxM1k02g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8roxM1k02g&feature=player_detailpage[/video] Give this song a chance it grows on you after a couple of mins lol
Samir I am going to suggest something here, PNP will of course revert to type and call me names etc and say i am not answering the question/understanding the question, whilst himself totally avoiding it. There is a simple explanation about the sanaa manuscripts, in fact others exist too. Puin is the guy who I presume PNP 'chooses' to believe as he is 'studying' them. And if you read back i actually suggested that he/you look at what Puin has said. I will post what it here for you, and see what you think the manuscripts were found in 1972 in the loft of a yemeni mosque, the Yamani Antiquities Authority, particularly its President Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa’, ivited through the German Foreign Ministry two German experts, Dr. Gerd. R. Puin and H. C. Graf Von Bothmer, for the restoration and preservation of the manuscripts. They worked at San’a for some years in this project. Puin found 3 things, that some people believe 'proves' quran is different/wrong or whatever 1 - In a number of manuscripts the letter alif (hamzah) is written in an incorrect way 2 - there are some differences in the numbering of ‘ayahs in some surahs and 3 - in two or three sheets he has found surahs written not in the order as found in the Qur’an in circulation. puin however himself recognises that these “discrepancies” are minor and dont really change anything and he also admits it is based on 3 of the 35000 sheets found. It was people other than Puin who tried to make it a big issue, mainly due palimpsests or overwriting of words or expressions in a few places. However Puin himself acknowledges that this is no more than correction of mistakes omitted in the writing of the words in the first instance. basically like writing over tippex. Interestingly the writing of alif incorrectly (remember these are hand written) doesnt change the meaning of the word. its a bit like american english if you will - criticiSe becomes critisiZe the numbering of ayahs doesnt change the meanings/text either, Significantly enough, while speaking about the difference in numbering of ayahs Puin does not at all indicate any difference in the text of the surahs. as for the order of surahs, this is not unusual at all. as you as a muslim will know when learning the quran certain surahs are easier to learn, so we dont learn them in order. Not only were the manuscripts found in a mosque (an institution of learning) but 3 out of 35000? PS - just FYI the arabs were not as 'illiterate' as we are often lead to believe. After all one of the miracles of the quran is its poetry and the arabs were very keen poets one of the reasons the challenge of 'produce a verse like it' has never been met is the poetry element. English and such translations remove this element and hence why some of its 'magic' is lost In all honesty i wasnt going to respond further, as once name calling comes into it the argument has been 'lost'. However i notice the diversion/deflection was being done in response to you, and i hope this helps towards that.
people who lived in the time of muhammad wrote about him too not only muslims, but people from rome, persia, even europe and if you go to mecca and medina, you see 'parts of his life' as it were I dont accept the NT so no arguments there
it seems you not only wasted your time, but mine too. I actually started out thinking this was going to be an intelligent and interesting debate/discussion turned out it was the 'usual' mines bigger than yours, without actually measuring i can only apologise if it seems i was arrogant, however some of the thinking i was putting forward was not my own but from experts in the field It seems odd a man can argue with someone (in this case samir) about Puin's claims (even though in the above post i have clarified this) yet the same person sees Moore as being unacceptable I dont wish you to 'assert' any beliefs, this implies forcing. I just want you to clarify what they actually are. I know what you dont believe re evolution, creation, basically the topic at hand. also may i suggest you revisit some of my responses, as i have been quite clear in my questioning i feel, you just deflect/divert I shouldnt really respond to the last 2 sentences, but that is an assertion, however again without foundation/basis you seem to require proof/evidence yet offer non whilst making wild accussations still awaiting something solid, in the form of questions or answers and to sum up this is not about arrogance or 'winning' and the following verse may sum it up perfectly I worship not that which you worship, "Nor will you worship that which I worship. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. "Nor will you worship that which I worship. "To you be your religion, and to me my religion
I've been trying not to get involved but that's bullshit. All the 'records' of Jesus existing are based hundreds of years after he was around. Back in those days the only way to pass information around would have been storytelling or passing a written account around. Of course there would be traces of his name in other texts if someone, let's say in Turkey, was given a scroll about the past 500 years in Jesus' part of the world. The 'parts of his life thing' is bullshit too, how do you know how he lived? There's very little written about him when growing up, he's just an immaculately conceived baby that apparently had carpentry skills. All of it stinks of lies, especially when there are lots of other ancient historic figures that share a lot of Jesus's characteristics and background. Wasn't there an Egyptian Pharaoh that did loads of the same things? And a Sumerian story that followed the same lines. I can't talk about Islam because I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject, but when it comes to the Bible, bring it on
You slagging wikipedia?? It's good enough for you to quote with regards other religions but not for others to quote for yours? You are a joke!! See below ... straight from wikipedia
