The Qur'an

SAM said:
You're right, I have responded to you much better than what you have addressed me as
No, you have not.
SAM said:
May I see a citation for people being fed to zoo animals by the Aztecs and Incas? I have never heard
You can do your own research, and should do it before making the kinds of comparisons you make between your notion of "Western" culture (the Romans?!) and your notion of other people's cultures.
SAM said:
Justifications are cheap, sure, but assertions are not.
Words are cheap, compared with actions. As you have said many times. So comparing justifications is comparing relatively shallow aspects of oppressions and tyrannies.
SAM said:
They do have something in common. They do not believe in Islam.
That is not a feature, or a thing in common. It tells you nothing about their resemblances or differences.
SAM said:
No I don't think I differ much from most Muslims.
Then your description of yourself, as superior in tolerance and so forth by virtue of your religion, is inaccurate.
 
No, you have not.
You can do your own research, and should do it before making the kinds of comparisons you make between your notion of "Western" culture (the Romans?!) and your notion of other people's cultures. Words are cheap, compared with actions. As you have said many times. So comparing justifications is comparing relatively shallow aspects of oppressions and tyrannies.
That is not a feature, or a thing in common. It tells you nothing about their resemblances or differences.
Then your description of yourself, as superior in tolerance and so forth by virtue of your religion, is inaccurate.

Reading these responses makes me wonder: what is your point?

What exactly is the aim you have in rendering them?
 
SAM said:
What exactly is the aim you have in rendering them?
They are direct responses to your postings, which were allegedly relevant to the thread, right?

So we may proceed:

As far as I can tell, the Quran is being defended or praised by pointing to its influence. My observation, after reading a couple of translations, would be that the beneficial influence of the Quran must be due to its understandings and interpretations by wise and good people, or the context of its presentation - as with the Bible, the Gitas, the Tao Te Ching, the I Ching, the Mabinogion, Beowulf, the Dun Cow, the Odyssey, and other works of myth and legend and moral teaching.

The Quran, compared with these other works, has more of the features of a simplistic cult treatise (the continual self-praise of its narrating deity, paired with continual threats against disbelievers etc; the standard hypnotic technique of presenting the larger and intended key story as the assumed frame of many smaller recountings; the demand for small sacrifices that set the hook, so to speak), but there are visible reasons for that (it has not been refined by folk retellings and modifications over time, for one).
 
What did you find different about the Qur'an, as compared to the other "cult" treatises?
 
What makes you think that there was a priory of anything? Is there any tangible –not imaginary non-existent beings such as Allah, eternity, infinity- evidence or example in given nature that shows or hints any a priory existence.
Yes there is! It seems you haven’t been paying attention to my posts, or you would have seen your answer already.
I said (on more than one occasion):
“Everything temporal and finite seems to have a cause in this universe, based on all empirical evidences so far.”
Just because it is considered as “fallacy” by human logic, it doesn’t mean that a creator, first cause, a priory beings must exist.
It doesn’t mean that a priory must exist for anything unless... it is temporal and finite. Otherwise, you are talking about an existent that is truly a-temporal (eternal) and infinite, which means that this existent could never have been caused. That’s if you can accept and grasp the meaning of infinites?
Logic is not something that was carved into the deepest origins of universe, it is a human way to analyse things, and it exist in mind level, there is no particle for logic, or no tree out there that produces natural “logic” fruit. Human logic itself is evolving, what you find as logical today could not be found logical two thousands of years ago.
Then you might as well omit the logic of all the great thinkers of the past and the progress in Human thought to this stage, which by the way, finds its foundations from those great thinkers (from thousands of years ago!) even to this day?
And what you find as logical today is nothing but a thought exercise. Of course, if you are not using divine logic, such as Qur’anic verses or Cosmological Argument without checking out what is really going in Cosmos…
Oh but we do check “what is really going on in Cosmos...” and science seems to agree with what the “divine logic” in the Qur’an has said all along. Funny that science hasn’t refuted any of that, which is even more damning to your case.
About astronomic knowledge we get from Qur’an:

-from Globes on Ancient Coins-

Pythagoras (who died ca. 497 B.C.) who defined his era with geometrical perspective must have applied his theories on any shape I assume.

Before them, even previous ancient civilizations like Egyptian or Indian had vast amount of knowledge about “heavenly bodies” –not your imaginary dream-like heaven. Because they were “measuring” and “observing” and illuminating themselves, they were not waiting for divine revelations.
How do you know “they were not waiting for (or derived their thoughts from) divine revelations.”? Do you think they were all “atheists” back then? Do you think “divine logic” wasn’t passed down through prophet’s way back then either? How on Earth could you possibly know this for sure?

Furthermore, where do you get the idea that these great thinkers were “illuminating themselves”? Don’t you think their own foundations of thought and logic weren’t passed down from prior great thinkers from their past? Do you think they just happened to think up all their new laws and foundations of their logical premises and axioms without any prior understanding or learning? Please!
Stealing this knowledge and selling thousands of year old human knowledge as Allah’s words are nothing but plagiarism.
Then everything we have learned and advanced from the past to this stage is “plagiarism”? The mind boggles!
When Christians were trying to promote their God, they tried to cut off this information from their people; yet early Islamic civilization translated this and many other ancient –particularly Greek- knowledge into Arabic and they also observed skies. That’s why there has never been a serious “flat earth” theory among Muslim scholars when Europeans believed that earth was flat, and Bible even doesn't teach this kind of things, it was a political attempt by some Christians. Yet Muslims didn’t get this knowledge a priori from Qur’an; no, actually even Qur’an took this knowledge from ancients.
So Muslim’s never advanced from the teachings of this past knowledge then? Why would the West even approach and want to learn from the Muslims back then, travelling vast distances to learn, when they could have easily translated the knowledge of those ancient’s and enhanced from them all by their selves?
Around five to six centuries ago from today, Muslim scholars also joined the club and stopped their curiosity due to some social historic reasons.
LOL! Besides totally omitting what happened before this period, what is this “club” you speak of? And they didn’t stop their curiosity because they simply joined some “club”, but was indeed from outside influences stemming from “some social historic reasons”. It had nothing to do with their lack of curiosity, I assure you.
You didn't get the Big Bang, at least not the same way modern science got it. It took science hundreds of years and numerous observation to claim that everything in this universe originates (not "created", definitely not this disgusting word) from Big Bang. Science needed to measure the background radiation and related calculations in order to make this claim.
And it took science hundreds of years to come to the same conclusion which was already mentioned in a book written 1400 years ago? Wow!
Yet no one claims that Big Bang , or anything else for that matter, came from nothing.
Exactly! And no one here said it came from nothing either. Quite the contrary, science (and I) agree that something cannot come from nothing! That was my whole contention from the start. Remember? And bear in mind the terms finite and temporal to ascribe to existents in the premise?
Big Bang must be originated from something else if everything else originates from something. I repeat: creation, art, philosophy, Qur'an, eternal, infinity, Allah, heaven are all the products of human imagination. They have nothing to do with real physical universe.
Amazing! So now you just agreed with everything I’ve just said all along!

Nonetheless, all these “products” come from our deductive abilities of what we observe and perceive in this physical universe (from empirical evidences). That’s why we have Philosophy, Metaphysics and Theism. All of which by the way, are a product of Human thought and that word you don’t seem to like very much now... “logic”. Another word you seem to have an allergic reaction to!
Now you are trying to sell us Qur'anic astronomy lessons which belonged to humanity long before Qur'an. Night and Day, orbits were all observed, categorized and they built pyramids on this knowledge. Since this thread is about Qur'an, why don't you come with other scientific revelations of Qur'an such as how did it guess the DNA or Atom. Bring the verses and hadiths...
First, the Qur’an doesn’t guess. Secondly, the Qur’an is not a book of science, rather, it’s a book of signs, laws and an inspiration for us to think for ourselves and ponder on the things we otherwise take for granted. I have provided enough information so far. If you want many other verses and Hadith’s, then I‘d suggest you ask Sheikh Google!:rolleyes:
 
SAM said:
What did you find different about the Qur'an, as compared to the other "cult" treatises?
Most obviously, no designated human beneficiary - no cult leader, in charge of the tithes.
 
Most obviously, no designated human beneficiary - no cult leader, in charge of the tithes.

Didn't you find the mention of other prophets and revelations as valid for those groups, the emphasis on empiricism to resolve enquiry, the focus on forgiveness over punishment, the designation of all mankind as a single nation and all tribes and nations as diverging representations of humankind, also interesting?
 
SAM said:
Didn't you find the mention of other prophets and revelations as valid for those groups, the emphasis on empiricism to resolve enquiry, the focus on forgiveness over punishment, the designation of all mankind as a single nation and all tribes and nations as diverging representations of humankind, also interesting?
The prophet, forgiveness, and common unity of mankind did not seem to differ significantly from cult stuff (somewhat more deeply phrased and meant, but then one expects that in a religion) and the the emphasis on "empiricism" requires some radical editing and interpretation - including acceptance of the hypnotic frame (it doesn't apply to the assertions of the Quran itself).

Minor parts of the book, at any rate.
 
the emphasis on "empiricism" requires some radical editing and interpretation - including acceptance of the hypnotic frame (it doesn't apply to the assertions of the Quran itself).

Could you expand on that?
 
Ah, so being mutilated is ok as long as it is done ritually? :rolleyes:

Are you saying motive doesn't count, they also mutilated their own. If they were also chanting while waterboarding Americans in Gitmo, at least we could put it down to misguided notions of sacrifice. But delberately smearing people with feces, putting rods up their asses, tying wires to their balls and stringing them up by their arms so that their ribs break and tear their lungs or beating their legs till they look like a truck ran over them [several times] so that they died, simply can't be brushed aside as the moral adventures of a freedom loving society with a deep commitment to human rights. Not even if they've privately redefined human to exclude their victims.
 
Are you saying motive doesn't count, they also mutilated their own. If they were also chanting while waterboarding Americans in Gitmo, at least we could put it down to misguided notions of sacrifice. But delberately smearing people with feces, putting rods up their asses, tying wires to their balls and stringing them up by their arms so that their ribs break and tear their lungs or beating their legs till they look like a truck ran over them [several times] so that they died, simply can't be brushed aside as the moral adventures of a freedom loving society with a deep commitment to human rights. Not even if they've privately redefined human to exclude their victims.

Blithering about something completely different doesn't help your case, it just solidifies your incompetence. Well done. :bravo:
 
SAM said:
But delberately smearing people with feces, putting rods up their asses, tying wires to their balls and stringing them up by their arms so that their ribs break and tear their lungs or beating their legs till they look like a truck ran over them [several times] so that they died, simply can't be brushed aside as the moral adventures of a freedom loving society with a deep commitment to human rights
So we are apparently supposed to agree that the words of the US Constitution and various religious texts relevant etc, are not as important, in evaluating the influence of those documents on US behavior, as the worst of the actions of the alleged defenders of those documents, or alleged believers in their value.

Now we can return to the thread topic, the words of the Quran, as evaluated by the worst of the actions of the alleged believers in the Quran. We can begin with Gulbuddin Hekmatyer, if you desire, or perhaps the Islamic governments of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
 
Last edited:
But delberately smearing people with feces, putting rods up their asses, tying wires to their balls and stringing them up by their arms so that their ribs break and tear their lungs or beating their legs till they look like a truck ran over them [several times] so that they died, simply can't be brushed aside as the moral adventures of a freedom loving society with a deep commitment to human rights. Not even if they've privately redefined human to exclude their victims.

Curiously, this sounds very much like the actions of some other nations - except made legal for religious reasons, and active on a much wider scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_islamic_countries
 
Isn't it an interesting observation that GOD is left out of the curriculum of EVERY SINGLE ONE of the World's top Universities?

From Germany to Japan. Brazil to China.

All of these people from all walks of life work at defining what is and is not curriculum - and yet, no one in the history of academia, all around the world, in all of these different Universities, found the Qur'an (or should I say GOD?) even worth mentioning???

Oh, I see that the Art of War has made it into Business classes - I guess that's because it's useful. Plato and Socrates are an integral part of humanities - but then again, they are thought provoking. Darwin's On the Origin of Species is mandatory first year biology and who could have made it through University without having come across e = MC^2? Most first year Uni students should know of Principia - it is considered one of the most influential books in the history of academia, they'd certainly know Newton. Perhaps many will know of Machiavelli? His philosophy was core curriculum when I attending Uni.


And yet, AND YET, GOD writes a book and it's all but ignored. Hell, if it weren't for Muslims blowing themselves every other day (all while screeching Allah is Great at the top of their lungs) it would be completely ignored. And somewhat still is.



Funny isn't it? God authors a book. I mean GOD. GOD creator of Universe .... and no one deems it worth even the smallest of mentions in core curriculum for the future leaders of the world. That is interesting.



It's It's It's ... almost as if the Qur'an were another a poorly constructed book of fables and not really written by a God at all.... but that's not what the Muslims say, and they'd know, just look at their Universities.
 
No... this could represent the stupidity of humans... I'm sure you never thought it this way--- you're just too smart :rolleyes:

Peace be unto you ;)
Yes, it could and it could also represent the fact that the Qur'an is just not really that good of a book.... I'm sure you never thought it this way--- you're just too smart (or brainwashed) :rolleyes:


786, your's is a pretty weak argument: The one where Scientology isn't taught in University BECAUSE all of the Academics the world over are just too stupid to "Get" Xenu (and Ron Hubbard pbuh). Because THAT'S the argument you just made. I'd say, from my point of view anyhow, the ONLY reason Scientologists THINK Ron's writtings were any better than hack SciFi is because they're brainwashed ... to a degree. Self deception is powerful. Whatsitlike?
 
Last edited:
As if Atheism puts a meaningful value on the sacrificed?

Atheism has no ritual, let alone ritual sacrifice.

Atheism has nothing to do with meaning beyond the rejection of absurd god claims.

Atheists in general tend to be far more sympathetic with the sacrificed because they have no imaginary god to justify sacrifices for.

Would you kill if god told you too? Adstar would, which seems a good measure of his immorality.
 
Are you saying motive doesn't count, they also mutilated their own.

Ah, so mutilating and killing foreigners is ok as long as you mutilate and kill locals??? As sacrifices of course...:rolleyes:

No, motivation doesn't count. But we could mutilate you and sacrifice you to test my theory. Care to volunteer?:D
 
Back
Top