Thread: Atheists Must Watch This

I am not impressed at all by those videos.

-

I do think it is funny that he 'praises' atheists. Besides that, this dude really has no proof for any god.

Unfortunately, I only have five or six minutes to type a response, so I'm going to skim some points and fill in the blanks later.

Originally Posted by Tarek

First of all, I'd like to clarify a misconception you all have concerning the interpretation of the Koran. many of the verses were not understood except in the light of science - such as the the big bang and the meeting of two bodies of water. Tsen holds his entire argument on that Muslims understood those verses before science proved them. that is not true, the meaning was vague until science explained what they meant, in other words : Only God, the creator, the inventor, etc.. could have known all of that, and people - including Muslims-, due to their lack of knowledge, couldn't understand it until science proved what they meant. Automatically, ofcourse, you are going to say : Ha! so they did really interpret the verse as they wanted it. No, that's how it is interpreted, the way God wanted it to be to prove the scientific accuracy of the Koran, and there is no other way to interpret it : that's why people couldn't understand it at first.[/b]

RETROACTIVE SHOEHORNING.
Google it.

Originally Posted by Tarek

Then i'd like to come to another point, i'd like to know how Tsen can memorize all these dates, scientists, etc.[/b]

I memorize very little. Instead, I bookmark reference pages with all the information I need so as to have it readily accessible. Some of it I do memorize, but only because I've used it as a reference in a thousand arguments before.

Originally Posted by Tarek

how did these people come to great theories before science could have proved them? just wondering if you can provide proof for that.[/b]

They WERE scientists, and they DID prove it. You seem to be under the impression that "science" is something we've only had for the last 100 years or so.

Originally Posted by Tarek

by primitive species, i mean unicellular organisms such as bacteria and simple microorganisms. why didn't they evolve too? don't tell me they are better fit in their environment than multi-cellular organisms. bacteria die very easily and very quickly, why didn't they evolve to become stronger and to protect themselves from this?[/b]

No, they're quite well adapted. Have you ever heard of anti-bacterial resistant bacteria? Basically, with everybody using antibacterial cleansers, bacteria are rapidly evolving defenses to it.
Now, again, you seem to have missed the point entirely. Evolution isn't about becoming bigger and stronger. Evolution is about adapting to fill a niche. Bacteria, single celled organisms, prokaryotes, etc, have filled a niche quite adeptly. Obviously, they're still alive and reproducing, and that's really the only measure of success that evolution cares about.

Originally Posted by Tarek

why do we need water to survive? why can't we be just creatures who don't need water? and why is it such a coincidence that we need water - and there is plenty of it?[/b]

It's frustrating how moronic you are. We are creatures who utilize water BECAUSE water is so extremely prevalent and easy to come upon. We wouldn't get far if we required Argon gas to survive, would we? We uitilize what is available. That's what evolution is about. Specialization to fill a niche.

Back later, got to go to engineering now.

Abiogenesis has not been (and will never be) proven.[/b]

Well, of course we cannot prove that life arose that way, because we weren't there to observe it happening. We CAN, however, examine whether or not it was possible and/or probable, and eliminate other possibilities of life's origin.

it is not even a theory!!! (according to Wikipedia)[/b]

Uh...yes it is. Origin of Life: Current Models

you say the elements combine? who made them combine? who told them to do so?[/b]

Nobody, dipshit.
" 1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use."

"In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. There was careful filtering in place to preserve the results from destruction."

if you combine carbon with nitrogen, they don't form amino acids by themselves, it's that simple.[/b]

Oops. See above.

and how did RNA form in the first place?[/b]

Again, see above.

(Also notice that you showed no reply to questions 3 & 4 and that you didn't fully answer my questions of point 2, is something wrong? having a little problem with your failed argument? )[/b]

No, they were just ridiculously obvious.
3--The expanding universe--Retroactive shoehorning. Looked it up yet?
4--The water cycle--Look around. You can watch steam rise off of a lake on a warm day. You can observe that water puddles dry up over time. You can see that it only rains when it's cloudy. Therefore, you can deduce that the water evaporates, rises into the sky, then falls again as precipitation. It's not rocket science.

As for how else it [the verse Tarek says describes the Big Bang] could be interpreted, i'd like to see you try[/b]

Well that's easy. The heavens and earth were formerly one, united place, and Mr. Allah says, BAM! Too bad, earth suckers. Heaven's independent now.
The verse describes splitting Earth and heaven into two distinct places. I still don't understand how you say it can describe the spontaneous explosion of a singularity into a rapidly expanding universe.

More on the water cycle:

Chapter 39:21 "Hast thou not seen how Allah hath sent down water from the sky and hath caused it to penetrate the earth as watersprings, and afterward thereby produceth crops of divers hues; and afterward they wither and thou seest them turn yellow; then He maketh them chaff. Lo! herein verily is a reminder for men of understanding."

Doesn't sound like a cycle to me. Kind of one-way.

30:24 "And of His signs is this: He showeth you the lightning for a fear and for a hope, and sendeth down water from the sky, and thereby quickeneth the earth after her death. Lo! herein indeed are portents for folk who understand. "

Still no cycle...

15:22 "And We send the winds fertilising, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof."

Seems to be a reference clouds forming, but a little sketchy...

23:18 "And we send down from the sky water in measure, and We give it lodging in the earth, and lo! We are Able to withdraw it."

Nope, no cycle here.

24:43 "Hast thou not seen how Allah wafteth the clouds, then gathereth them, then maketh them layers, and thou seest the rain come forth from between them; He sendeth down from the heaven mountains wherein is hail, and smiteth therewith whom He will, and averteth it from whom He will. The flashing of His lightning all but snatcheth away the sight."

So far, the author appears to have figured out that rain comes from clouds...

30:48 "Allah is He Who sendeth the winds so that they raise clouds, and spreadeth them along the sky as pleaseth Him, and causeth them to break and thou seest the rain downpouring from within them. And when He maketh it to fall on whom He will of His bondmen, lo! they rejoice;"

Yes, the winds bring the clouds which bring rain... is he going somewhere with this?

7:17 "Then I shall come upon them from before them and from behind them and from their right hands and from their left hands, and Thou wilt not find most of them beholden (unto Thee)."

That says nothing about rain!

25:48 And He it is Who sendeth the winds, glad tidings heralding His mercy, and We send down purifying water from the sky,

25:49 That We may give life thereby to a dead land, and We give many beasts and men that We have created to drink thereof.

Still, no cycle.

35:9 And Allah it is Who sendeth the winds and they raise a cloud; then We lead it unto a dead land and revive therewith the earth after its death. Such is the Resurrection.

Yeah...

36:34 And We have placed therein gardens of the date-palm and grapes, and We have caused springs of water to gush forth therein,

Oh yeah. Springs. A very important part of the water cycle.

67:30 Say: Have ye thought: If (all) your water were to disappear into the earth, who then could bring you gushing water ?

The author of the Quran has duly noted that springs exist. Wow.

86:11 By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,

"Returning rain"? As in, "it rains over and over"? Most likely. As in "the water that rained down before and evaporated"? A stretch.

On the sexes of plants:

20:53 Who hath appointed the earth as a bed and hath threaded roads for you therein and hath sent down water from the sky and thereby We have brought forth diverse kinds of vegetation,

Diverse kinds == different sexes? I see no mention of plants having different sexes.

If you use the 'i don't have to believe you because you are an arab' card[/b]

Uh, you seem to be the only one who plays the "Arab" card. The rest of us couldn't give a damn what race you are.

On water:

25:53 And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.

Has this guy ever been to a spot where fresh water mixes with salt? (Yes, they mix. They don't magically stay separate. This is just flat out wrong.)

yeah, great argument <sarcasm>. it means that mountains hold the balance of the earth and prevent it from shaking.[/b]

I have no idea where you&#39;re pulling this "mountains prevent the earth from shaking" bit. They do no such thing. If you&#39;d argue otherwise, why don&#39;t YOU provide proof for once?

the specific detail used is immaculate and no way someone could have known about it without modern science 1400 years ago.[/b]

Post the verses, and we&#39;ll see about that. M&#39;kay?

On embryology:

Here&#39;s a brief counter.

6. how did the small tiny particle which created the big bang come about if no one was there to create it?[/b]

It&#39;s a phenomenon related to Quantum Tunneling. Matter has been observed to be spontaneously created and destroyed in a vacuum. The LHC at CERN will provide more info on that, but it&#39;s still in construction. It&#39;s due to open in November &#39;07, so we&#39;ll find out more then.

Originally Posted by gregash

No one has to provide a proof-supported argument before you have done so yourself. Your videos made claims and did not provide evidence. You seem to have assumed those claims as your own and have not provided evidence.

For the first video, you have claimed the verses cannot be interpretated any other way. You have to prove that that is the case. It is not our responsibility to prove you wrong, it is your responsibility to prove your claim right. And no, just saying that they cannot be interpretated any other way does not cut it as a proof.

For the second video, you have made questions your claim. Questions are not an argument. They are neither evidence or a proof. Questions only prove a lack of knowledge on your part and by no means prove a theory wrong. Prove that these theories your pointing to are wrong and provide evidence. The responsibility is on you.

It&#39;s ironic how you keep accusing others of things which you yourself are guilty of doing.[/b]

i only have very short time so i will reply to everyone but Tsen. i&#39;ll do that later. (everyone else please wait till i post my reply to Tsen before posting again)

how exactly can i prove they can&#39;t be interpreted in another way? you tell me what other way you expect it to be then i show you how it doesn&#39;t mean that, it&#39;s that simple. If, for example, i say : I have a pink elephant on my roof. how other way can it be interpreted? you keep on saying that i have to prove that it can&#39;t be interpreted as "I have a blue unicorn on my roof". How am i supposed to that? if you think there is misinterpretation, then the burden is on you to prove it.

As for the questions, they are defects in your atheist theories as they are unanswerable (despite the way you people are trying to get around these questions with unproven arguments)

Tarek, I hope you are going to respond to my points. Your magical verse is not only not automatically talking about the big bang, but also not even possibly talking about the big bang. See my post you ignored for details.

You responded only to Tsen. He has done a great job of defeating your points, and I will let him continue doing that. However, there are two things in your last post that are so unbelievably illogical that I have to go ahead and touch on them. Tsen made a very clear argument that it is not a coincidence that we are suited to the environment. We evolved in this environment. We didn&#39;t just pop up out of nowhere and happen to fit it. We require lots of water AND there is lots of water on Earth, yes. That illustrates that we evolved the way we did BECAUSE there is so much water. Do you understand that point? That concept has been explained to you repeatedly, and you keep missing it. Also, you are way off in saying that scientists made discoveries and then knew what the Koran was saying. Nobody knew what the Koran was saying because it is so vague and subject to so many interpretations. Your admission of the fogginess of the Koran is indicative of the fact that it was not flat out saying that the big bang happened. See my post you ignored for further details.[/b]

what points? and again, -as i said earlier- you are going to stress on only one of the points i said and discard the others because you have no answer to them.

We evolved that way because we needed water, not because there is much water &#33; according to your laughable argument, if we put the &#39;ancestor&#39; in a freezing planet with mercury instead of water, creatures that need mercury to survive and low temperatures to survive will evolve&#33; get real.

Question: Are there passages in the Qu&#39;ran that are still officially beyond understanding - i.e. that await new as yet undiscovered scientific breakthroughs to explain them?[/b]

the answer is : yes

i hope that Tsen proves his resources for the many things he keeps using in his arguments (scientists, dates, etc) and also reply to the points he discarded by the time i come online tomorrow. (Please everyone else don&#39;t reply, we need to organize this). (Oh and They WERE scientists, and they DID prove it. You seem to be under the impression that "science" is something we&#39;ve only had for the last 100 years or so. isn&#39;t enough, as you didn&#39;t show how they used the science they had and how you came to know it) notice that you skipped most of the things i mentioned in my previous reply. i hope one day is enough for you to invent another made up reply like you are used to.

Ya... I will never understand that as long as I live... "There is no god&#33;" ... "but we do worship our god Allah&#33;" I mean, what the crap?

Originally Posted by Tarek

what points?[/b]

What does Allah think of liars? You can start with these...

Originally Posted by Tarek

So your argument is that the Koran proved miracles, therefore everything it says is automatically correct. Why can&#39;t it be right about some things and wrong about others? Most books that aren&#39;t meant to be fiction are. How do you know people the Koran got some information from didn&#39;t secretly have advanced technology? Why would it have to be a creator or advanced technology and not advanced supernatural ability that elves provide and Allah doesn&#39;t? The list of wild ideas that can be used to work as explanations for phenomena is endless.

Post the quotes from the Koran you think show knowledge that proves the existence of Allah. I don&#39;t want to watch the video again. I didn&#39;t catch how what the guy was quoting shows knowledge the Koran exhibits about later scientific discoveries. For the record, post the quotes. I still don&#39;t see how they would prove that the Koran author had revelations and a religion that talked about them first automatically didn&#39;t exist and how the quotes wouldn&#39;t be proving impressive things about that earlier religion.
Where do you get that? You keep making points based on bizarre assumptions. I&#39;ll demonstrate what you are doing...

Tarek, the Magic Fairy Pumpkin created the laws of geometry. If you don&#39;t believe me, then why is it that an angle formed by the intersection of a secant and a tangent external to a circle is equal to half the difference of the two intercepted arcs? If you don&#39;t know, then that proves that The Magic Fairy Pumpkin made it that way. In the Holy Book of the Magic Fairy Pumpkin, it said, "And the mountain sprang the chariots into the river." That means the Holy Book of the Magic Fairy Pumpkin said that global warming will take place and warm the oceans. So what if another religion might have said it a thousand years earlier. That religion is wrong, but the Magic Fairy Pumpkin religion is right because it had the prior knowledge a thousand years later. Therefore, everything else in the book is correct. You can&#39;t even tell me why the secant tangent intersection forms the angle I described.[/b]

And then you could move on to these other points you ignored...

Originally Posted by Tarek

There&#39;s one of the verses. I kept asking Tarek to post the quotes so I could give them another look, and he wouldn&#39;t do it. That verse is so vague it could mean a ton of things. It is absurd for Tarek to assert that it automoatically means the big bang happened. That is such a stretch. I will let Tarek argue why it could mean nothing other than that the big bang happened. He can explain that on top of all of the other things he needs to explain. The verse above could not be talking about the big bang any way. Is the matter in Heaven really supposed to have been in the piece of matter that exploded in the big bang? Heaven was supposedly created in the big bang? That&#39;s the first I&#39;ve heard. If that is supposedly the case, Heaven wouldn&#39;t have been part of the piece of matter that exploded. Only its component matter would have. Heaven itself would not have existed yet. The same would be true of Earth. Earth was was not in the big bang. It was created much later FROM the big bang. Plus, there is no reason to assume the verse meant anything more than that Earth and Heaven were together as one place at one time (I would love to see somebody explain the astrophysics of that set up.) in the way that the U.S. states were together and then the Confederate states spit away from the rest of the states. The verse doesn&#39;t say they were one with the rest of the matter in the universe. For the reasons I and others have been saying, even if the verse did automatically say the big bang happened, it doesn&#39;t prove the Koran was the first to say it, and it wouldn&#39;t prove the existence of God any more than it would prove the existence of fairies.[/b]

Then you could go point by point on what I said about the videos, which was what you originally asked me to comment on. All you have done with me is said, "Prove it&#33;" when you are the one who came at us with claims. So, prove it&#33;

My purpose is fulfilled.
Obviously, I&#39;m not going to convince Tarek of anything, but it&#39;s quite readily apparent how moronic his arguments are.
And really, that&#39;s all I was aiming for. Anybody who&#39;d be even remotely swayed by his arguments will now be significantly dissuaded.

And Tarek,

if we put the &#39;ancestor&#39; in a freezing planet with mercury instead of water, creatures that need mercury to survive and low temperatures to survive will evolve&#33;[/b]

Uh, that&#39;s EXACTLY what I&#39;m saying. You&#39;re just an idiot. Everybody else gets it.
I&#39;ve already showed you that up until the evolution of cyanobacteria, life was predominately anaerobic. Oxygen was toxic to it, because it had evolved to use other chemicals besides oxygen. Anaerobic organisms. Read up.
Then cyanobacteria came along and brought photosynthesis with it. This put massive amounts of oxygen into the air and water, nearly destroying all life on the planet until aerotolerant and aerobic organisms arose. Now, with massive amounts of oxygen in the air, organisms that utilize it are the rule, not the exception. It&#39;s how evolution works.
If you&#39;re still not convinced, quite simply, your ignorance is not my problem.
You haven&#39;t, and won&#39;t, convince anybody with such faulty logic.

So, this is my resignation from this thread. Tarek, you can reply to my post if you want, but I really couldn&#39;t give a damn. Everybody sees how moronic you are but yourself.

Originally Posted by Tsen

My purpose is fulfilled.
Obviously, I&#39;m not going to convince Tarek of anything, but it&#39;s quite readily apparent how moronic his arguments are.
And really, that&#39;s all I was aiming for. Anybody who&#39;d be even remotely swayed by his arguments will now be significantly dissuaded.[/b]

Yeah, the truth is really obvious now, and Tarek is just squirming and saying close to nothing. Once somebody starts acting like he didn&#39;t even see my points, I know the debate can&#39;t go too much further. Isn&#39;t it interesting how he never explained how that quote could only mean that the big bang happened? And when I said it couldn&#39;t even possibly mean that, he acted like he didn&#39;t even see what I said. He was pretty big and bold until the absurdity of his argument became extremely obvious.

By the way, one last thing. I noticed the edited addition to Tarek&#39;s post about where I get the scientist&#39;s from, and how I know their work is valid. Here is a list of all the scientists I have referred to in this thread. If I missed some, PM me, as I won&#39;t be monitoring this thread for replies most likely. (Though if I get bored, I admittedly will likely stray here).

So, without further delay, here&#39;s the list of scientists and theories I either directly or indirectly referenced:

Anaxagoras
Yajnavalkya
Pythagoras
Plato
Aristotle
Eratosthenes
Darwin, Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection
Aleksandr Oparin
J. B. S. Haldane
Stanley Miller
Harold Urey
On the Invention of Algebra
Indian Heliocentric Theories
Greek Heliocentric Theories
Babylonian Heliocentric Theories
Medieval India
Aryabhata
Chinese Lunar Calendar
Galen

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Ya... I will never understand that as long as I live... "There is no god&#33;" ... "but we do worship our god Allah&#33;" I mean, what the crap?[/b]

I think that part of the Koran was written in a time when they still were expanding a lot. It is about giving up your old god for a new one. "There is no god, but Allah." It is the same as "There is Allah, and no other gods" or "The (Christian) god exist, and you should not worship other (false) gods".

-

Edit: Tarek: 0 - Universal Mind: 45 - Tsen: 4928 (edit2- Spoon: 0.5 points )

Tsen wins. Tarek loses.

I didn&#39;t even score a point

Nice work for sticking with it guys

Question: Are there passages in the Qu&#39;ran that are still officially beyond understanding - i.e. that await new as yet undiscovered scientific breakthroughs to explain them?[/b]

the answer is : yes[/b]

Do you know any examples?

I think Tarek is playing peekaboo with us. Let&#39;s play... Where&#39;s Tarek? Wheeeeeeeeeeere&#39;s Tarek? (When he shows up, everybody say, "There he is&#33; :bravo: ")

Originally Posted by Universal

I think Tarek is playing peekaboo with us. Let&#39;s play... Where&#39;s Tarek? Wheeeeeeeeeeere&#39;s Tarek? (When he shows up, everybody say, "There he is&#33; :bravo: ")[/b]

He made a new topic, because he lost this one. Like I said. ^__^ Or wait&#33; Maybe if we all chant "ALLAH&#33; ALLAH&#33;" he might show up&#33; It&#39;s like a puppet-theater&#33;

I don&#39;t understand how all of you people believe such things like evolution and all the big bang theory and all this bullshit.

It is a well known fact that the Universe was created when Uranus mated with Gaia and humans when Zeus mated with a monkey... Also Gods, demi-Gods and Humans (Giants, Cyclops, dragons and Unicorns all come from different mating s of Gods and animals or humans)

if you need some scientific proof about that then tell me why our DNA is so similar to the monkeys if we dont come from them (through Zeus of course - you wouldnt expect some monkey giving birth to a human on its own. But with some godly intervention...). Also Plato believed that and Aristotle and you cant mess with them because they knew everything on philosophy and also that the earth was round. And they lived before Jesus and Mhamed.

Oh and I have tons of more proofs just ask me...

Before you INSULT my RELIGION, think if your interpretation of your religion is better - has more facts -is proven by better science

PS: this is obviously not what ancient greeks believed, but it will do to show my point...

Originally Posted by sogart

I don&#39;t understand how all of you people believe such things like evolution and all the big bang theory and all this bullshit.

It is a well known fact that the Universe was created when Uranus mated with Gaia and humans when Zeus mated with a monkey... Also Gods, demi-Gods and Humans (Giants, Cyclops, dragons and Unicorns all come from different mating s of Gods and animals or humans)

if you need some scientific proof about that then tell me why our DNA is so similar to the monkeys if we dont come from them (through Zeus of course - you wouldnt expect some monkey giving birth to a human on its own. But with some godly intervention...). Also Plato believed that and Aristotle and you cant mess with them because they knew everything on philosophy and also that the earth was round. And they lived before Jesus and Mhamed.

Oh and I have tons of more proofs just ask me...

Before you INSULT my RELIGION, think if your interpretation of your religion is better - has more facts -is proven by better science

PS: this is obviously not what ancient greeks believed, but it will do to show my point...[/b]

Hey Tarek, disprove THAT&#33; I want proof. How did the ancient Greeks know the world was round if they weren&#39;t right about Zeus and cylcopses? It just shows that Medusa had snakes for hair. Descartes figured out the laws of geometry before anybody else did, and Aristotle knew all kinds of things before the rest of the world did. That proves that Zeus is real and that the movie Clash of the Titans is FACT&#33; Do you think you can prove this wrong??? Let&#39;s see it&#33; PROOF&#33; PROOF&#33; PROOF&#33;

Originally Posted by sogart

It is a well known fact that the Universe was created when Uranus mated with Gaia[/b]

Tarek told me to tell you he wants to mate with Uranus.