Thread: Atheists Must Watch This

An Islamic zealot? This should be an interesting change of pace from the typical Christian fundies we get around here.

Well, my typical disclaimer:
This will likely be long. You've given me a good deal of material to counter, though, and I went through all of it, so I expect the same from you.
Do not doubt that I will reply to all of your points. If I miss one, feel free to bring it to my attention. I expect the same from you. If you dodge my points, do not expect me to take you seriously.

Video 1:
First off, his point about the big bang is moot.
Not only moot, it's ridiculously bogus. The Bible "predicted" the earth was spherical, that there were deep-sea vents, and a million other things.
It's all based on the interpretation. The interpretation of the verse from the Koran that he quotes is quite obscure. It's not the most obvious meaning, it's not the most likely meaning. It's the most convenient meaning. It bolsters his point that the Koran is "scientifically accurate". In reality, it is no such thing.
Even accepting that his interpretation of that verse implying the big bang is the correct interpretation, you must realize that factual accuracy in one part of a book does not in any way imply factual accuracy throughout the whole book. Here's a link to more on that.

But hey, if you thought that was bad, he continues to make a WORSE point: That the Koran states that the light of the moon is reflected light, not produced by the moon itself. Dun-dun-dun. First off, this falls into the previous category that I covered with the link. Second, it's not as if the Koran can call it a unique claim. In fact, it was rather old news by that point. Anaxagoras, a Greek scientist and philosopher theorized that the sun and moon were both massive spherical objects floating beyond the earth, and that the moon reflected the sun's light. This was before 430 BC! That's nearly a millennium before Muhammad came along with the Koran.

Not to worry--if that wasn't stupid enough for you, he makes yet ANOTHER bogus point: That the Koran "predicted" that the earth was spherical. First off, the Bible says the same thing, and was written several centuries before the Koran, so what's so special about that?
Well, but if you're disinclined to believe that the Bible really meant that, and that it's only a bizarre and obscure translation (which is exactly my opinion of BOTH the Koran and the Bible's sentiments on the subject), I've still got you covered.
Yajnavalkya stated that the earth was likely spherical in 900 BC. 1,300 years before the Koran. And, he was Hindu. Oops.
Pythagoras, in 570 BC, also stated the earth was spherical.
Plato, at about 400 BC, taught his students that the earth was spherical.
Aristotle, Plato's prized student, was the first to prove, with conclusive evidence, that the world was spherical, around 350 BC. He did this by noting that there were constellations visible in Egypt that weren't visible in Greece, and this would only happen on a curved surface. He theorized that the earth was a massive sphere, and even came up with a concept of gravity that pulled equally on all sections of the earth, aligning it into a roughly spherical shape. He also came up with an accurate theory describing climate zones, including two icy, barren, uninhabitable regions near the north and south poles.
Eratosthenes, at 180 BC, used varying shadow lengths on the same day in different places to estimate the circumference of the earth--to within 2% of modern figures. Fair shot better than what the Koran gets, isn't it? And 700 years earlier, to boot.

His bit on the sun and moon orbits are laughable--especially because the verse he reads implies that the sun orbits the earth.

On the expanding Universe bit--here's a brief summary on why it's ridiculous. More or less, the best translation of that verse would be "we enrich it" not "we expand it". Further, it's derived from the Bible, so credit for "divine inspiration" would go to the Bible, would it not? And lastly, nobody interpreted the verse that way until AFTER it was discovered that the Universe was expanding, so if "Allah" had intended it to enlighten the people, he obviously sucks at getting his point across.

On the water cycle--the water cycle is a readily observed phenomenon, and while it was not formally given a title until recently, it has been known about extensively for several centuries, and the Koran's description of it is not in any way unique.

Plants having sexes is rather misleading--most plants have both "male" and "female" reproductive organs, not one or the other. In fact, very few have only one. So, yet another moot point.

It goes on and on and on--and never makes a single decent, free standing point. There's a website here that reviews all of them and states, as a whole, why they are bogus.
In order:
1. Those who pursue the arguments provide no room for alternative interpretations.
2. The argument makes Allah out to be weak/impotent.
3. The argument is a modern polemic.
4. At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Koran" argument does not find science in the Koran, rather it uses science to judge the Koran
5. Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything.
6. Applying the argument means the Koran is no longer authoritative.

Back later with the second movie, it's taking a while to compose all this.

Deeyamn! 40 minutes of hate-mongering and cheesy, over dramatic music. Well, that's what you get when you argue with a theist, I suppose.
I also love how they insist on using "materialist" and other terms with negative connotations to refer to atheists. And did you note that the top three tags for your movie were "Lies", "propaganda", and "inaccurate"?

Well, first off, I'd like to draw attention to the lovely flames and rioting scenes used as an intro the second the term "atheist" is mentioned.
Nothing like baseless implications to start off a movie, eh?
To start things off, I'm going to take on their bit on evolution.
At least at this point in the movie, they have not described ANY evidence against Darwin's theory--they only say that it's evil because it denies creation.
Which is nice and all, except that it's entirely untrue. When Darwin unveiled his theory, he said nothing to do with life coming from inanimate matter. That's abiogenesis, which is not something that Darwin worked on. He worked on specialization and speciation, which is how life diversifies, not on how it's created. In fact, Darwin went out of his way to make his theory theist-friendly. Until the later years of his life, Darwin was a closet atheist, so as not to offend his friends and relatives.

Alright, 7:00 into the video, and it's giving its very first bits of "counter-atheistic" rhetoric, after all that meaningless and unsupported bashing.
Can't say I'm impressed though. Big bang theory came about in 1927, and in no way contradicts atheism.
I think the core of this movie's massive misinformation on the subject stems from the fact that they assume that if something has a beginning, it must have been created. That's a massive (and incorrect) assumption. Especially since theories such as the oscillating universe, involving multiple big bangs and big crunches, are still valid. In short, there is nothing about a Big Bang that implies a creator. Further, if it DOES mean that the universe must have a creator, what created that creator? It's an infinite loop. Somewhere, something must have existed permanently to start it all, and there's no reason that it can't be that the Universe has been here all along (albeit in an extremely condensed form, pre-Big Bang). Of course, my knowledge in this area isn't as good as Spoon's or Universal's, so perhaps they can explain it better should they feel like it. Brady was well-versed in the subject too, but he doesn't spend much time in R/S anymore.
The movie also makes some incorrect statements about the Big Bang theory--first of all, the matter present before the Big Bang was not in an infinitely small space--it had a very real, very finite volume. To say it exploded out of nothing is like saying an oak tree grows from nothing. The acorn is relatively small, but small and nonexistent are very, very different things.
It persists in this blatantly inaccurate assumption for several minutes, insisting that the Big Bang theory states that there is an omnipotent creator outside of time and space and whatnot. Then, without any backing evidence, they say that the only possible God is Allah.

Now, they've moved on to saying that it's impossible that things are balanced just right for life to exist sheerly by accident.
Unfortunately, this too, is a major misstatement of the truth.
The truth is, things are balanced quite nicely-- but it's not the gravity and electromagnetism that are finely-tuned to suit us, it's us who's finely tuned to fit them.
Evolution deals extensively with something called "specialization": the adaptation of life to fit it's environmental niche as best as possible. This means evolving to use the present chemicals, to work with the present amount of gravity and whatnot. In fact, evolution takes care of the whole thing quite nicely. Hardly a killing blow to atheism.
Also, important to note is that they keep stating "human life". This is perhaps the closest thing to accuracy in the entire movie. HUMAN life requires these things, but that isn't to say that life, even intelligent life, necessarily requires the same things. Human life just happens to be what fits our current environment and past ancestors.

Alright, I seriously laughed when this movie said that "intelligent design" has won a victory over evolution.
Seriously.
Now, you want me to take you seriously.

That's nice.

I quit.
Seriously, I'm not even going to bother with this part of the movie.
"They've found no transitional fossils."

MY ASS.

Read up.

So, I refuse to go any further.
I won't correct you if you subscribe to propaganda.

By the way--The Nazis were a Christian-tied movement. Thought you might like to know.

Oh, and here's what viewers had to say about your propaganda:

Sev

Complete propaganda. Not only are their conculsion false, they provide no factual support of their arguments. An entirely biased misrepresentation of scientific facts and discovery. Not to mention the not so subtle subliminal groupings of animated fire and dark music accompanying the pictures of Stalin, Hitler, Freud, and Darwin, among others. One would think with the money religious organizations have they could put forth a better effort. All in all a laughable piece sh#t.

Anonymous

1. Darwin proposed Natural Selection
2. Natural Selection can be seen in everyday life
3. Natural Selection does not take place by chance
4. Atheist believe in the big bang. Thats why they invented it
5. We have been able to produce cells using innanimate matter.
6. Evolution does not happen by chance.
8. Atheism and communism are not related
9. Nazism is related to Christianity
10. Nietzsche was not and paganist, facist, and did not support Nazi ideologies
11. Nazi's were theist

Coma

Dispicable! This is a deliberate attempt to demonize atheism. It's obvious this movie was made only for the Bible believing fundies. Who else could be convinced of this drivel?

OppressorsBeware

Evolution's not a theory, its fact.

Kergillian

Some people just don't know how to use their brains.
God is made up. Like Santa Claus. Wake up already.

Anonymous

This is a fishing hook for fools... sadly, the name dropping, misrepresentation of science and straw men fallacies will fool some of the improperly educated a into thinking that atheistic naturalism is a busted flush.
Not worth a rating.

upallnite
Dec 17, 2006 Mark as Spam
I watched the whole video because some said it proves it's assertations at the end. It does not. It just covers lies with lies. Anyone that knows how to use google can disprove this entire video.


Dawkinist

Darn! What an incredible crap....
There is no such thing like "new scientific research" that disputes the core assumptions of Darwin.
The opposite is the case: genetic research developes a increasing coherent picture of evolution.
Almost any claim in this movie is completely arbitrary and NOT evidence.
The man in the lounge chair is speaking Turkish or Arabian. So... which idea of God does her actually adhere to? Who is that idiot?

An atheist

Yes, we ARE at a turning point in our history - but not for the reasons stated in this propaganda video.
The religious right, after dominating through the Republican party, is losing its grip on its control of American politics. Furthermore, the hypocrisy of these people is coming out in the open now more than ever before. Films like "Jesus camp" stoically portray the dark side of American religion as it actually is - and the authoritarian fantasy-reality that fundamentalist christians live in

A Theist

hey,
I've decided im god.
prove me wrong

Greg Reich

This video is just as much a waste of time as any other creationist video. I recommend strongly against watching it, unless you have a lot of time on your hands. I have much better things to do than watch the series of videos recommended to me by the person who recommended this one.

ANewAtheist

I feel bad for his kids. The will not be able to think logically and skeptically in a age when the only jobs left will be scientific ones.

Lol! yeah, right! Athiest are planning to dominate!!! OOOhh! The big bang PROVES devine intervention. Notice how it plays villan music everytime it shows darwin. Oh, I guess it's because he sides with the devil. Yep, it's sure collapsing! This article right here proves it!
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/...ng/15675596.htm

Efrem

A Big LIE!
Scientific evidence doesn't show that there is god.
Fact;
ALMOST ALL SCIENTISTS ARE ATHEISTS.

cohl

Perfect example of the christian "shut the f@#$ up and don't question me" teaching style.

sander

Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the maker of this film: the bigger the lie, the more people tend to believe it.

Anonymous

Im an atheist and I don't slit christians throats, take drugs, and am a pinko fascist hippie. Whoever wrote that comment hasn't really heard of media literacy. I read in a big book that I can teleport , so that means I can? I am just an everyday person with a degree in computer science.

Chris

Religion was created to control primitive beings, thousands of years ago. It was used as a military strategy to brainwash people into believing that paradise awaits them if they fight and die for their leaders' cause. Here, in the 21st century, with the advancement of the age of technology, more and more people are realizing that these beliefs were just fairytales. According to the laws of physics, there is no possible way for the Bible or Quran to be accurate.

Anonymous

The Universe originated from the Big Bang...
IN OTHER WORDS God made everything!
Humans are able to survive on the planet Earth...
IN OTHER WORDS the Earth was made for us!
Some people who did not believe in God were shitty excuses for human beings...
IN OTHER WORDS Atheists are all pinko fascist hippie drug-using anarchists who slit Christians' throats in their sleep and want to lead you to hell

Anonymous

Atheisim is not a movement, it isn't like Fundie Christians that seek to comtrol.
Athiest quiet simply believe there is no God.
They don't need Marx to tell them that.

Mikkyo

First and for most Atheism is not a Fire in which one burns one self, as this video propagates with it‘s flaming screens and depressing music. Secondly there was no actual proof only, “hey this guys wrong and was proven wrong,” but he never tells us how. All I ever heard from this video was, “your wrong and I'm right because I'm right, and the fact that I'm right should prove to you that I'm right.” Utter nonsense.

Anonymous

Right I am wrong for not believing in your God, but the thousands of other Gods we both dont believe in we are both right. Ask yourself why you dont believe in those other gods and you will get an atheist's answer for why they dont believe in yours.

Zoltan

The rest of the world is slowly turning towards free thinking and turning away from religious dogmas. We are all getting smarter and better educated, which is the natural cause for this trend. Except the US and Italy where the this trend is stagnating. Good for them, bad for us -- I wish we could join the 21st century like the rest of the world and show example of tolerance, understanding and promoting knowledge instead of religious hatred and propaganda.

Lope

So, this whole thing is based on the assumption that athiesm is the belief in a few select scientific theories? Athiesm, pure and simply, is believing in logic over religion. This documentary never disproves logic, so how is athiesm collapsing? What this documentary tries to do is religionize athiesm, and disprove it's "gods" (scientific theories). Being logic based, the beauty of athiesm is it's willingness to learn and progress.

AL

Collapse of atheism? Bah, another entertaining peice of religiuos propoganda. I didn't expect anything original and thought-provoking. Just another attempt to demonize atheism and "disprove" evolution by misrepresenting scientific facts and employing logical fallacies (e.g. Hitler supported evolution - Hitler is bad -- Therefore, evolution is bad). It was so rediculous.

Anonymous

If Atheism collapses, there is no hope left.

Anonymous

What crap! These bible thumpers know nothing, and they are spreading false propaganda. Communism collapsed due to the weak socio-economic structure and due to too much centralized government power in the wrong hands, not due to atheism. Facists and Nazis were fundamentalist Christians! Hitler was a staunch Catholic. Guess why he hated Jews (the literal translation of Judas is "The Jew").

Indref

So, according to this, Darwin said that life came from unliving matter.
Last time I checked, he proved that animals evolved from other animals, no?
This is so full of holes, it could drain pasta..

I really should say you don't have the right to make such guidelines when your not even going to follow ours. This is not a religion forum, its a religion section on a dreaming forum. I also don't think you really have the right if your not even willing to read the stickies

For crying out loud, this is *not* a religious discussion message board.
The primary purpose of this forum is for the dissemination of lucid dreaming information. I understand that to many people there is a great deal of spirituality associated with lucid dreaming, but I remind you of the 'Introduction' page on the main site which states clearly that this site stresses the practical side of lucid dreaming. We have created a special forum called 'Religion/Spirituality' which we expect to house *all* religious discussions on this board (we do of course permit topics elsewhere to lightly touch on religious topics because it's impossible to completely separate them, but anything remotely significant belongs only in the 'Religion/Spirituality' forum). Furthermore, users who participate only in the religious forum and not the rest of the board will be asked to leave because they don't seem to understand why this board exists. Seriously, I'm not paying for this place to have it turn into endless debates about religions.
[/b]

Keep this in mind. While we aren't going to ban or punish you for it, note that its not a good way to get respect, especially when completely and openly rejecting what the boards true purpose is.

Now, I will respond to the actual videos later on when I have time, but it seems Tsen has already said much.

This concerns only Video 1

First of all, i'd like to point out that you have been disrespectful in your reply. i specifically said NO INSULTS. No matter, i've heard worse than that, but i hope you'll keep that in consideration in any further posts.

Second of all, you seem to have an obsession with using external links to prove your point. i cant answer entire websites in one post, because as i said, i wanted to keep the discussion on topic (although all the arguments in these sites are actually laughable and easily countered. If you wish to discuss any of them, simply post a new topic, PM me that you have and we'll discuss it). Hey, i can link you to 1000 sites similar to that, but that will drif us off topic. Right now, i'll stick to what you've mentioned in the post

Third of all, unfortunately for you i might add, i'm an arab, so the whole 'translation misconcepts' game you're trying to pull here isn't going to work.

Fourth of all, i'm sick of people who are good at literature and think it's good enough to win an argument. When you say something, PROVE IT!!!!!!! a lot of things you mentioned are without evidence, everything shown in the videos, however, is supported by evidence

Now, to answer what you said, im gonna take it bit by bit :

Originally Posted by Tsen

First off, his point about the big bang is moot.
Not only moot, it's ridiculously bogus. The Bible "predicted" the earth was spherical, that there were deep-sea vents, and a million other things.
It's all based on the interpretation. The interpretation of the verse from the Koran that he quotes is quite obscure. It's not the most obvious meaning, it's not the most likely meaning. It's the most convenient meaning. It bolsters his point that the Koran is "scientifically accurate". In reality, it is no such thing.
Even accepting that his interpretation of that verse implying the big bang is the correct interpretation, you must realize that factual accuracy in one part of a book does not in any way imply factual accuracy throughout the whole book. Here's a link to more on that.
[/b]

how can the bible saying something disprove the Koran?? we, as Muslims, believe in the Bible, but not the one present today, we believe that it was the word of God but it has been changed by man so the Bible present nowadays is not the Bible we believe was conveyed to Jesus, the prophet, not the son of God. as for the 'it's all based on interpretation', what is it supposed to mean? that by saying that the earth was shaped like an egg, that's not what the Koran meant but rather that it 'accidentally' stumbled on a fact no one belived was true at that time? same goes for everything else. Yes, it's true that many of the verses have been interpreted in many ways, but you haven't shown how Dr. Zakir has misinterpreted the verses. and yes my friend, as an arab im assuring you that in all the verses Dr. Zakir recited it IS the most likely meaning and it IS the most obvious meaning. If you wish to disclaim that, once again i say PROVE IT. Then you said that the Koran isn't accurate and that if the Koran is proven at one part, that doesn't mean that it's all true. That doesn't answer the question of 'How did the prophet know that all by himself 1400 years ago?' Then again, when you think about it, what you're actually saying is that not all of the Koran is from God but only a part of it. this is ridiculous, i mean, even accepting that what you say is true, that still means that at least that part is from God, therefore God exists. So the 'some is factual doesnt mean all is factual' even though it isnt true, still doesnt disclaim God. Then you say 'Even accepting that his interpretation of that verse implying the big bang is the correct interpretation'. This made me laugh, because how else could you interpret that verse? it's so obvious. "Don't the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together then we separated them" it is so clear.

Moving on

Originally Posted by Tsen

But hey, if you thought that was bad, he continues to make a WORSE point: That the Koran states that the light of the moon is reflected light, not produced by the moon itself. Dun-dun-dun. First off, this falls into the previous category that I covered with the link. Second, it's not as if the Koran can call it a unique claim. In fact, it was rather old news by that point. Anaxagoras, a Greek scientist and philosopher theorized that the sun and moon were both massive spherical objects floating beyond the earth, and that the moon reflected the sun's light. This was before 430 BC! That's nearly a millennium before Muhammad came along with the Koran.
[/b]

My answer is : So? does this disclaim what the Koran said? it wasn't scientifically proven till the last century, yet all Muslims believed in it (same goes for the 'earth is spherical' part). you misunderstood what was said. it was shown as a theory years ago, fine, but it wasn't scientifically proven till the last century, proving that the Koran was right. oh and by the way, concerning the earth as a sphere : No one believed in it at the time the prophet was sent, actually the verse saying that the earth was a sphere caused many people not to enter Islam because they thought it was jibberish, no one believed that the earth was round, except for people who accepted Islam. It's like someone coming up to you today and saying that there is no such thing as light and that everything you see is in your mind. you'll say that that man is crazy, it's a known fact that light is why we see, so you will denounce anything he says. same goes for that part. when people found out that the prophet was saying the earth was round, they disbelieved in him. it has nothing to do with who said that the earth is round first but with rather was it proved or not. how could he possibly know if it was right? he was illiterate! only the creator could've known that

Next paragraph

Originally Posted by Tsen

Not to worry--if that wasn't stupid enough for you, he makes yet ANOTHER bogus point: That the Koran "predicted" that the earth was spherical. First off, the Bible says the same thing, and was written several centuries before the Koran, so what's so special about that?
Well, but if you're disinclined to believe that the Bible really meant that, and that it's only a bizarre and obscure translation (which is exactly my opinion of BOTH the Koran and the Bible's sentiments on the subject), I've still got you covered.
[/b]

i think i've already answered the spherical part, and again you wont be able to fool me with the translation bit, because as i said, im an arab.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Yajnavalkya stated that the earth was likely spherical in 900 BC. 1,300 years before the Koran. And, he was Hindu. Oops.
Pythagoras, in 570 BC, also stated the earth was spherical.
Plato, at about 400 BC, taught his students that the earth was spherical.
Aristotle, Plato's prized student, was the first to prove, with conclusive evidence, that the world was spherical, around 350 BC. He did this by noting that there were constellations visible in Egypt that weren't visible in Greece, and this would only happen on a curved surface. He theorized that the earth was a massive sphere, and even came up with a concept of gravity that pulled equally on all sections of the earth, aligning it into a roughly spherical shape. He also came up with an accurate theory describing climate zones, including two icy, barren, uninhabitable regions near the north and south poles.
Eratosthenes, at 180 BC, used varying shadow lengths on the same day in different places to estimate the circumference of the earth--to within 2% of modern figures. Fair shot better than what the Koran gets, isn't it? And 700 years earlier, to boot.
[/b]

already covered earlier, and to add to it : no one believed Aristotle, same as no one believed the prophet, now how did he know that it was true bearing in mind that he couldn't even read or write?

Originally Posted by Tsen

His bit on the sun and moon orbits are laughable--especially because the verse he reads implies that the sun orbits the earth.
[/b]

probably your weakest argument yet, as an arab im saying...well no it doesn't. so here remains a point you can't disprove.

Originally Posted by Tsen

On the expanding Universe bit--here's a brief summary on why it's ridiculous. More or less, the best translation of that verse would be "we enrich it" not "we expand it". Further, it's derived from the Bible, so credit for "divine inspiration" would go to the Bible, would it not? And lastly, nobody interpreted the verse that way until AFTER it was discovered that the Universe was expanding, so if "Allah" had intended it to enlighten the people, he obviously sucks at getting his point across.
[/b]

actually, this time i'm going to respond to your link. as a matter of fact, the word used is "Mooseoon" which is derived from the verb "Wasaa" which means to widen or to expand. enrich is nowhere to be found. i think i should've mentioned that i'm an arab, that could have saved you a lot of time trying to fool me with these stupid tricks.

Originally Posted by Tsen

On the water cycle--the water cycle is a readily observed phenomenon, and while it was not formally given a title until recently, it has been known about extensively for several centuries, and the Koran's description of it is not in any way unique.
[/b]

two words : NO PROOF. readily observed phenomenon huh? by who? even so, this still doesnt disprove the Koran.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Plants having sexes is rather misleading--most plants have both "male" and "female" reproductive organs, not one or the other. In fact, very few have only one. So, yet another moot point.
[/b]

the Koran didn't say that plants have only one or the other, where are you getting this from? it said that they have sexes, actually most plants are bisexual, in case you didn't know.

Finally, you didn't address the meeting of the seas (bodies of water part) or the mountains hold the earth part or that all creatures were created from water or the spider's life cycle or the ant or the bee or embryology or the embryonic cycle. i can get you with many many more evidence, but i'd like to see how you will reply to these first.

As for the second video, you haven't answered any of the points in it logically except with hate mail, so i wont bother replying, because you provided no proof whatsoever to what you have said. Don't take this the wrong way. i'm not evading an argument about it, actually it provides little but effective proof (i agree, most of the video is pointless). i used it as a back up, but some of what it says is conclusive such as that no living cell could emerge by itself and that the explosion had to be exact to the one billionth billion, which cant possibly happen by chance.

I seem to have overrun the quote limit again. Italicized bits are quotes.

First of all, i'd like to point out that you have been disrespectful in your reply. i specifically said NO INSULTS. No matter, i've heard worse than that, but i hope you'll keep that in consideration in any further posts.

Then I'd seriously consider reviewing the movies you posted.
If calling atheists (and by extension, me) a bunch of communist, nazi evil-doers isn't insulting, then I don't know what is.

Second of all, you seem to have an obsession with using external links to prove your point. i cant answer entire websites in one post, because as i said, i wanted to keep the discussion on topic

I always include a brief summary of the links I post.

(although all the arguments in these sites are actually laughable and easily countered. If you wish to discuss any of them, simply post a new topic, PM me that you have and we'll discuss it)

Then prove it. If this video is really up for debate, then DEBATE IT. If not, fuck off and don't waste our time.

Third of all, unfortunately for you i might add, i'm an arab, so the whole 'translation misconcepts' game you're trying to pull here isn't going to work.

Translation isn't the problem--interpretation is.

Fourth of all, i'm sick of people who are good at literature and think it's good enough to win an argument. When you say something, PROVE IT!!!!!!!

Ditto to you. You haven't proved a thing yet, might want to get a move on that.

a lot of things you mentioned are without evidence, everything shown in the videos, however, is supported by evidence

Uh, no. No, they weren't. Nazis were not atheists, they were Christian-based. Freud has nothing to do with modern atheism. The big bang does not imply creation. Intelligent design is bunk (I can go on extensively on this, but if you really want to keep the clutter down, I'd recommend not).

and yes my friend, as an arab im assuring you that in all the verses Dr. Zakir recited it IS the most likely meaning and it IS the most obvious meaning. If you wish to disclaim that, once again i say PROVE IT.

That's nice. Did you read the article I posted, OR my summary? I clearly stated that interpretation of the verses is a problem. If, as you say, they are the most likely translations, then WHY were they not accepted as common belief until AFTER it became scientifically validated fact?

Then you said that the Koran isn't accurate and that if the Koran is proven at one part, that doesn't mean that it's all true. That doesn't answer the question of 'How did the prophet know that all by himself 1400 years ago?

Then how did the Greeks know 1000 years before your "prophet"?

Then again, when you think about it, what you're actually saying is that not all of the Koran is from God but only a part of it

No, actually I'm saying that NONE of the Koran is from God. So deal with it.

that still means that at least that part is from God, therefore God exists.

Uh, NO. Just because it is scientifically accurate in some obscure points does not make it inspired by your "god".

"Don't the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together then we separated them" it is so clear.

Not really. Are you telling me that three hundred years ago, the Imams were reading that and thought, "Oh, I suppose that means that matter was reduced to an infinitely small point and then exploded outwards at a rate of billions of miles in a trillionth of a second."
Because somehow, I'm finding that unlikely.

Moving on
My answer is : So? does this disclaim what the Koran said? it wasn't scientifically proven till the last century, yet all Muslims believed in it (same goes for the 'earth is spherical' part).

If you read my post at all, you'd know it was proven a millenia before your prophet came along.

you misunderstood what was said. it was shown as a theory years ago, fine, but it wasn't scientifically proven till the last century

First off, you have a basic misunderstanding of scientific theory.
Theories can never be proven, they can only be disproven. They theorized it, and until a simpler theory that explains everything with fewer implications comes along, or an observation is made that disproves their theory, it is considered valid.

proving that the Koran was right. oh and by the way, concerning the earth as a sphere : No one believed in it at the time the prophet was sent

Actually, it was well established as intellectually proven far before your prophet's time. As I stated, it was PROVEN in 184 BC. I don't give a damn if the commoners of the time didn't believe it, the fact is, it was well established among all of the intellectual centers of the world that the earth was round.

already covered earlier, and to add to it : no one believed Aristotle, same as no one believed the prophet, now how did he know that it was true bearing in mind that he couldn't even read or write?

First off, Aristotle was one of the most respected minds of his time, and you bet your ass people believed him.
Look, I'm from Utah. You might not know much about it. There's a group here called Mormons. They're a sect of Christianity, although not a mainstream one. Their prophet, Joseph Smith, was 14 when he was visited by an angel. He never had any schooling, yet he wrote a book called the Book of Mormon. It's filled with prophecies that the Mormons here love to quote to me day in and day out in an effort to convert me. I hear the "how could he have known?" bit all the time in reference to Joseph Smith. So, what makes your prophet different from theirs? Why should I believe you, but not them?

the Koran didn't say that plants have only one or the other, where are you getting this from? it said that they have sexes, actually most plants are bisexual, in case you didn't know

Uh, actually I DID. Seeing as how that was EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

Finally, you didn't address the meeting of the seas (bodies of water part) or the mountains hold the earth part or that all creatures were created from water or the spider's life cycle or the ant or the bee or embryology or the embryonic cycle. i can get you with many many more evidence, but i'd like to see how you will reply to these first.

Yes, I didn't bother with those, but you didn't bother with these:

1. Those who pursue the arguments provide no room for alternative interpretations.
2. The argument makes Allah out to be weak/impotent.
3. The argument is a modern polemic.
4. At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Koran" argument does not find science in the Koran, rather it uses science to judge the Koran
5. Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything.
6. Applying the argument means the Koran is no longer authoritative.

I warned you before that if I missed some points you could tell me, and I would address them, but that I would hold you to the same. So, here we are.

As for the second video, you haven't answered any of the points in it logically except with hate mail

And you started the whole bit with propaganda. Fitting, isn't it?

And yes, I did answer the points. Not all of them, watching the entirety of that video is about the equivalent for me as watching a FOX News report saying that all Islamics are terrorists would be for you.
Though kindly, answer that bit about transitional fossils.

some of what it says is conclusive such as that no living cell could emerge by itself
Yes it can. From the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis: "from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis)".

We've demonstrated these self-replicating molecules in lab conditions, and shown that the early earth provided the proper conditions for such a thing to happen.
Further, amino-acids, which are generally considered to be the most complex part of early life, and the part that you ID fanatics pick on the most, will form spontaneously in space.


and that the explosion had to be exact to the one billionth billion, which cant possibly happen by chance.

It didn't happen by chance. The laws of physics determined that the explosion could go neither faster nor slower than it did. That the laws of physics were determined in such a way isn't chance, it's just the way things are. And if it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be here to speculate about it, would we?

*concentrates* I predict... this thread... will be a train wreck! When do I get my prophet of god badge? Seriously, do you expect a thread responding to an hour of rhetoric to be able to stay on topic? Even if they could, staying on topic would result in posts a mile long. How about you pick one particular claim out of the videos that you think us atheists should find particularly compelling?

Originally Posted by Tarek

Second of all, you seem to have an obsession with using external links to prove your point. i cant answer entire websites in one post, because as i said, i wanted to keep the discussion on topic (although all the arguments in these sites are actually laughable and easily countered.[/b]

The irony here actually hurts me. "My videos threaten your entire worldview, but your linked evidence in support of your own words are 'laughable and easily countered'". Ouch.

Anyway, I only watched about 3/4 of the first video, I can only take so much bullshit. Just a disclaimer for anyone else - this shit causes brain damage. Tsen - you're a masocist, right? . Luckily that much of the first video gives 1 thing worth talking about, so I'll just choose that until you pick a better (single) point of discussion.

Why is it that, when any sort of phrophesy or miraculous knowledge is claimed, the claims are based on the most tenuous of evidence? We're talking about a supernatural sky daddy here, one that knows everything. "The earth is like an egg" is painfully childish - what about some supernaturally influenced advanced math? Why not provide the keys to modern physics, biology and chemistry.

I&#39;ll tell you why - because they had to be built up the traditional way, through centuries of <strike>super</strike>natural development. Give me some tangible leaps in human knowledge. "And the heavens opened up and Allah spaketh: &#39;E = mc2 is the equation that expresses an equivalence between energy (E) and mass (m), in direct proportion to the square of the speed of light in a vacuum (c^2)&#39;". Who gives a shit if people 1400 years ago discovered things entirely within their competency.

Which brings me to my next point, one that tsen already raised - everything mentioned, in the torturous ten minutes I sat through, was already part of human knowledge. It was the christians that were afraid of science, not muslims. Since a large proportion of greek texts migrated over, it&#39;s no surprise that they came up with some of the same ideas. Or even improve upon them, they were very good at math.

Yet in response to this, you say:

My answer is : So? does this disclaim what the Koran said? it wasn&#39;t scientifically proven till the last century, yet all Muslims believed in it (same goes for the &#39;earth is spherical&#39; part). you misunderstood what was said. it was shown as a theory years ago, fine, but it wasn&#39;t scientifically proven till the last century, proving that the Koran was right.[/b]

Did you actually understand his point? Ideas that shouldn&#39;t have been around at the time were in the Koran - therefore god. The ideas both should have been around at the time, and were. They were all either logical extensions of already extant lines of thought, or they were just borrowed from previous sources.

So, while it doesn&#39;t disclaim(?) what the Koran said, it proves that it was nothing special. Certainly not divine knowledge granted to the muslims.

There&#39;s really no point going past this into complex things like evolution which, in reading Tsens&#39; post, seems to be the focus of the 2nd video. If you can&#39;t understand the simple refutation of the first video, whats the point?

-edit: no spellcheck

Evolution&#39;s not a theory, its fact.[/b]

What crap&#33; These bible thumpers know nothing, and they are spreading false propaganda. Communism collapsed due to the weak socio-economic structure and due to too much centralized government power in the wrong hands, not due to atheism. Facists and Nazis were fundamentalist Christians&#33; Hitler was a staunch Catholic. Guess why he hated Jews (the literal translation of Judas is "The Jew").[/b]

Some people just don&#39;t know how to use their brains.
God is made up. Like Santa Claus. Wake up already.
[/b]

Originally Posted by DoWhatIwant

Evolution is a lie. First if Humans should change to some greater than us not aslo there still monkeys if monkeys becam humans there should be none left. Evolution is bull.[/b]

Are you actually serious? You do know that even a cursory reading of basic information on evolution will help you avoid embarrasing statements like these. www.talkorigins.org, why not educate yourself before making such ridiculous claims?

you know everything about teach me if you can.

still bull.

Your ignorance is not MY problem.
But, for the record, evolution does not say that monkeys evolved into humans--it says that chimanzees/bonobos (humankind&#39;s closest living relatives) shared a common ancestor a little over 7 or 8 million years ago. (It&#39;s hard to put an exct date on it because rain forest conditions don&#39;t provide for good fossils)




Which is exactly the point--You can&#39;t judge a massive group of people based upon a minority&#39;s behavior. I can&#39;t call all Christians evil, and you can&#39;t call all atheists evil, either.



You cannot prove an omnipotent, omniscient being doesn&#39;t exist, since by definition it could evade detection for an infinite amount of time.
Though, it&#39;s quite easy to prove that a Christian god doesn&#39;t exist, since once you start putting restrictions on your god, you begin to contradict yourself-If your god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why doesn&#39;t he heal the amputees?
Bam. Logical contradiction.

Sigh. It is not my place to do your thinking for you. www.talkorigins.org has lots of useful information on the subject written by people who know what they&#39;re talking about (and is about as peer-reviewed as a web site can get). But I&#39;ll answer any questions you have, to the best of my ability. I&#39;ll even throw in a freebie and assume your first post was a oddly worded series of questions:

"Evolution is a lie" - Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact that life has existed for ~2 billion years, that we are all related via common descent. The theory of natural selection (along with a few other things) is currently the best model we have to explain it.

"First if Humans should change to some greater than us". Each generation has ~175 mutations that differentiate them from their parents. We are still changing, but evolution is slow. Also "greater" doesn&#39;t exist in evolution - it is not directional.

"aslo there still monkeys if monkeys becam humans there should be none left". Humans and other primates branched off from a common, ape-like (not monkey-like), ancestor quite a while back. Apes (not monkeys) are just as evolved from that common ancestor as we are.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Bam. Logical contradiction.[/b]

His reasoning funny occuring on this thread. His god exists because we can&#39;t disprove it 100%. I&#39;m going to go out on a limb here and say his god is different to Tarek&#39;s. Two mutually exclusive gods, yet the &#39;logic&#39; proves both of them. Contradiction anyone?

Originally Posted by Tsen

Your ignorance is not MY problem.
But, for the record, evolution does not say that monkeys evolved into humans--it says that chimanzees/bonobos (humankind&#39;s closest living relatives) shared a common ancestor a little over 7 or 8 million years ago. (It&#39;s hard to put an exct date on it because rain forest conditions don&#39;t provide for good fossils)




**Which is exactly the point--You can&#39;t judge a massive group of people based upon a minority&#39;s behavior. I can&#39;t call all Christians evil, and you can&#39;t call all atheists evil, either.



You cannot prove an omnipotent, omniscient being doesn&#39;t exist, since by definition it could evade detection for an infinite amount of time.
Though, it&#39;s quite easy to prove that a Christian god doesn&#39;t exist, since once you start putting restrictions on your god, you begin to contradict yourself-If your god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, **why doesn&#39;t he heal the amputees?
Bam. Logical contradiction. [/b]

God does not heal people who does not ask for healing aslo i think he only heal people who truly belive he will.

i am only from the **stars points.
I really mean "I don&#39;t think atiests are evil at all." sorry

Y&#39;know, typing in SENTENCES and not annoying images would be nice.

And why won&#39;t god heal them?
He created them the way they are--which would include the flaws that stop them from believing that he&#39;ll heal them, and he&#39;s omniscient, so he&#39;d know when he created them what would happen and what the end result would be.
So why didn&#39;t he take action and create them in a way which would precipitate them believing and being healed?

FIRST OFF, DoWhatIWant... in response to this: "Give me stone hard evidence that god does not exist bet you can&#39;t give me 100% proof"

Well, DoWhatIwant, please, I believe an enourmous, tie-dye, elephant that eats worms lives in tunnels in my yard. Though, he is invisible and he cannot be found. Please, give me proof that he does not exist. BY YOUR LOGIC, because you cannot prove that this is NOT true, it is TRUE.

Secondly, I don&#39;t understand how people honestly still not only not believe in evolution, but don&#39;t believe in it due to ignorance of the actual evolutionary process. As Spoon said, before making assumptions about the validity of evolution, try reading in-depth (and even just basic) information about it. "Science classes" in high school only teach what the theory states, but not why it works and it certainly does not clear misconceptions (e.g. "Why do we still have monkeys? How is "half a wing" useful?, etc.) about evolution. YOU WILL FIND, that if you actually think, and do research rather than ask these members everything, that evolution is really quite valid. And I guarantee, 100%, that AFTER you do research (go to your library, download darwin&#39;s texts (for free from project gutenburg), browse legitimate, scientific evolution sites), that you will NOT find a flaw or inconsistency in the theory of evolution. If you do, if you find a legitimate flaw that is a flaw in the theory, and not just in your knowledge of evolution (or lack thereof in this case), then I highly suggest you tell scientists and everyone, because such a discovered flaw would really be quite ground-breaking... as there has not been a flaw yet in the theory of evolution, other than from those who don&#39;t understand it. Realize, though, that the fact that we DON&#39;T know something doesn&#39;t make it NOT true. We might not understand one aspect of evolution, but that doesn&#39;t make it untrue. However, something that COULD disprove evolution is something that directly contradicts a or several major proponents of evolution. For example, if real human bones were found when supposedly only monkeys existed. However, as I said, there has been no such discovery that has gone unexplained or contradicts evolution.

In summary, research about evolution YOURSELF. It is ridiculous to attempt to prove something wrong you don&#39;t even understand. Good luck.

I find it interesting that the tags for the 2nd video are:
- lies
- inaccurate
- propaganda
If atheism is collapsing, then how come we&#39;ve hit a record low for people going to church? That&#39;s in Britain anyway.
It says that everything about the Earth is perfectly suited for the humans and animals living on it. Again, different interpretations mean different things. I take that as evidence that animals evolved to suit their enviroment. Of course it&#39;s a delicate balance, with tiny differences meaning life and death for Earth&#39;s inhabitants, but that&#39;s because the creatures that were not perfectly suited to the environment died out.

By the way, they think atheism is "collapsing?" Christianity/religion is collapsing... people are becoming more and more atheist I believe.

"God does not heal people who does not ask for healing aslo i think he only heal people who truly belive he will."

You think? Surely your God has told you?

Anyway that is just ridiculous, my grandma( the only Christian in our family atm), had 13 heart attacks from 75-80. Thats a horribly high amount and after each one she got more weak and more disabled, yet she prayed everyday for God to help her. She went to church three times a week. How is that fair?

Oh and please don;t tell me that she survived her 13 heart attacks because God made it happen. After each heart attack she got sicker and sicker, he could have helped her, he didn&#39;t. Either he is unloving, or just doesn&#39;t exist.

Or maybe he made life on Earth by experimentation( just another race) and left afterwards. I just can&#39;t believe in a perfect and all loving being when just horrors happen everyday

Originally Posted by joey11223

"God does not heal people who does not ask for healing aslo i think he only heal people who truly belive he will."

You think? Surely your God has told you?

Anyway that is just ridiculous, my grandma( the only Christian in our family atm), had 13 heart attacks from 75-80. Thats a horribly high amount and after each one she got more weak and more disabled, yet she prayed everyday for God to help her. She went to church three times a week. How is that fair?

Oh and please don;t tell me that she survived her 13 heart attacks because God made it happen. After each heart attack she got sicker and sicker, he could have helped her, he didn&#39;t. Either he is unloving, or just doesn&#39;t exist.

Or maybe he made life on Earth by experimentation( just another race) and left afterwards. I just can&#39;t believe in a perfect and all loving being when just horrors happen everyday [/b]

God ask her "do you believe God will heal you even after all though heartattacks" aslo ask her "Do you believe God let you live even after thought heartattack" go ask and see what she say.

Originally Posted by Faken

God ask her "do you believe God will heal you even after all though heartattacks" aslo ask her "Do you believe God let you live even after thought heartattack" go ask and see what she say.
[/b]

What does that have to do with gods intentions?

I thought the most interesting line of the 2nd movie was at the very end, "Materialist philosophy attempts to use science for it&#39;s own ends."

First, that the video categorically replaces atheist with materialist is ridiculous. That&#39;s a straw man fallacy, like most of that video, if I&#39;ve ever heard one, even if the statement were true.

Second, that they blame others for doing exactly what they themselves are doing. Both video&#39;s argument&#39;s are almost entirely, if not completey, guilty of confirmation bias. Namely, that they already believe in god as the creator so they don&#39;t look at the evidence objectively, they fit the evidence to support their presupposed beliefs.

O CRAP i didn&#39;t say, she died from the 13th one. Damn sorry, please don&#39;t feel bad, my mistake totally. So sorry i can&#39;t ask her

Originally Posted by joey11223

O CRAP i didn&#39;t say, she died from the 13th one. Damn sorry, please don&#39;t feel bad, my mistake totally. So sorry i can&#39;t ask her
[/b]

It was part of God&#39;s plan to build her character.

Apparently what i was afraid of happening exactly happened. this has turned into just like any other topic on this forum : a Christian vs atheist battle. i have to reassure both parties that neither of you will ever convince the other. why? simply because Christians (unlike Muslims) have no DEFINITE scientific proof that God exists, and atheists have no proof that he doesn&#39;t. so it turns into a matter of : should he exist in the first place and whether there is no proof that he doesn&#39;t, then he does. (as Christians say) or the opposite(as atheists say). Ofcourse there is no way one party is going to accept the other&#39;s point of view. That&#39;s why i tried to change this in here, but apparently i wasn&#39;t successful. No matter. Apparently using the second video was a loophole for atheists to say that i use propaganda. fine. i&#39;m going to summarise the points i care about in it and i&#39;d like a proper answer, not something with big words that makes it look like it&#39;s true.

1. No living cell can evolve from nothing, so where did the ancestor come from?
2. How did the exact laws of physics, chemistry and biology come about so accurately simply by chance? who laid these laws? Tsen said that laws of physics forced the bang to be so specifically accurate, who laid these laws? and does that mean that all explosions that happen, happen with the same accuracy? get real.
3. Why did mutation or evolution affect some species, but not all? why are there still primitive species? If they are all from 1 ancestor, why didn&#39;t all of them evolve at the same level?
4. How did the exact orbits of the planets and the sun come about? this incredible accuracy came by chance?
5. if the earth was formed by chance, why are all its components suitable for human life. ex: why is it that exact close from the sun? why does it have water? why is its atmosphere &#39;accidentally&#39; suitable for humans and living organisms to breath?

there are more, but i&#39;d like to see those points covered first.

As for Mr. Tsen&#39;s reply to me, that proved to me that he is in fact backed in a corner, and is trying to use the second video as means to escape. he did not provide a single piece of evidence, but rather retorted to (again) literature without proof. Also, the reason i didnt respond to your final 6 points is because you just stated jibberish with no proof to support it:

1. Those who pursue the arguments provide no room for alternative interpretations.
2. The argument makes Allah out to be weak/impotent.
3. The argument is a modern polemic.
4. At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Koran" argument does not find science in the Koran, rather it uses science to judge the Koran
5. Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything.
6. Applying the argument means the Koran is no longer authoritative.

none of that is logical, true, or makes sense. until you prove it, i&#39;m not going to counter it... well because there is nothing to counter. where is your damn evidence???


Also, you didnt address half of what the man said. Fine, i&#39;ll go your way. i&#39;m not going to resort to arguing too much over one point (the earth is round part). Answer the other points. You said yourself that it doesnt disprove that the Koran is from God. Well, show me how the other points don&#39;t show that it isn&#39;t from God. I&#39;m going to refer to the points that you can&#39;t use the &#39;other people said it first&#39; card with, which are actually only 2 (the earth is round & the reflected moonlight)

As for why God didn&#39;t use Maths to show that he was the creator (someone said it, i dont remember who) , that&#39;s because it wouldn&#39;t be understood by people at that time. only 5% of the people could read or write and none of the branches of science were present. Algebra wasn&#39;t even invented yet, so E=mc2 would take just a little more than it took you to understand.

Now, back to Tsen:
Show me how the prophet could possibly have known about this without a creator informing him of it, Answer clearly without skipping points like you did last time

1. the big bang (and no physics was used in that verse because there was no physic at the time, how else would you show it other than the way it was in this verse?)
2. the sun and moon orbits
3. the expanding universe
4. the water cycle
5. plants&#39; sexes
6. the meeting of salty and fresh water without mixing
7. the mountains holding the balance of the earth
8. all creatures were created from water
9. the life cycle of the spider, ant & bee
10. embryology and the embryonic cycle

i can provide you with many many more things similar to that, but as i said, this discussion is about the videos. there are over 1000 verses with scientific proof, so don&#39;t worry. God does exist, God did send the Koran and i have proved it with less than 15 points, 15 points which can&#39;t be countered.

Ofcourse you can&#39;t reply to any of this, so my friend instead of sticking to 2 points which don&#39;t even disprove what i said, you could have paid more attention to the other points. yeah, and bear in mind that you have to answer ALL points, don&#39;t play your translation game with one point then pretend that you have achieved the impossible and that you have disclaimed all the other points. i hope that is sufficient to bring my point through. don&#39;t go sideways, you have 10 points to go through. and both of us know that you are not going to have any reply for any of them

Please everyone, try to stick to the topic, there are plenty of Christian vs atheist discussions in this forum, i want the discussion to be within the numbered points I&#39;ve mentioned.