Religion

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Do you believe?

Yes, I am very religious
9
12%
Yes, but not in a big way
7
10%
Unsure, I am agnostic
12
16%
No, I am an atheist
45
62%
 
Total votes: 73

User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Religion

Post by Brian Moore » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:02 am

Kieran Child wrote:Chris, the problem with indisputible facts is that the religious have a tendency to dispute them.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
... and Occam's Razor goes out of the window. I gave up debates with religious types a long time ago - they only proved what lengths apparently intelligent people will go to to find 'reasons' for ignoring the bleedin' obvious.

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3245
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Phil Reynolds » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:03 am

I agree with you, Kieran, about the importance of making clear that the atheist position is based on evidence and not faith. But, within the strictly limited context of the wording of Dez's poll, I don't see this argument as being in any way useful. I'm pretty sure we all knew what Dez meant by the different options. Though it now seems you meant something else, you clearly implied in your first post that the poll should not have distinguished between atheists and agnostics, or even included atheism at all. I took offence at that because it would have denied me the possibility of voting for the label with which I most strongly identify.

User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Rosemary Roberts » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:05 am

Kieran Child wrote:to shut out that possibility, however small, becomes an act of faith.
The only "faith" that I employ when forming opinions is faith in my own intellect. I agree with Phil that the OT god is an illogical and implausible entity that could not conceivably be intellectually interesting. It is self-evidently a man-made concept.

The only acceptable god-concept I have ever encountered is the FSM (mhnaty) which at least has the benefit of being benign.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:06 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:or even included atheism at all.
I don't wish to speak for Kieran, but I think "agnostic" is the term he (and I) would say is out of place in the poll.

User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Religion

Post by Brian Moore » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:07 am

Matt Morrison wrote:
Chris Corby wrote:My wife's toys come to life when I am not watching.
+1. This is much more my level.
I did a Google on "wife's toys", but wasn't quite sure if what came up was appropriate for here.

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3245
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Phil Reynolds » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:20 am

Jon Corby wrote:I don't wish to speak for Kieran, but I think "agnostic" is the term he (and I) would say is out of place in the poll.
Really? :shock: That to me seems to be the converse of Kieran's position. If what you say is true, then when Kieran said that not all agnostics are atheists, what term should have been used in the poll to describe the ones who aren't?

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:22 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:or even included atheism at all.
I don't wish to speak for Kieran, but I think "agnostic" is the term he (and I) would say is out of place in the poll.
Which is why I came to the conclusion right near the start of the thread that people could ignore those terms if they were confusing things. I only put them there because I thought they would help people to vote. The basic idea is still the same, as Phil has just said, and that is that you are voting for either being undecided*, or being as sure as it is possible to be in your own mind that no god exists.

*which I felt included me because although I don't worship any gods, and think they probably don't exist, I am still a little open-minded at being proved wrong as I am to ghosts.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:24 am

Yeah, what Jon Corby said.

Though Everyone knew what the terms meant, so I wouldn't really want the poll changed.
Hey cool a graph:

Image

User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Rosemary Roberts » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:35 am

Jon Corby wrote:Well, everyone thinks dinosaurs are awesome. God was no different. So he made his planet and filled it with dinosaurs. But after a while he got bored, because they just lumbered round eating stuff and each other. He wanted a bit more variety. So he thought he'd fill it with more intelligent beings who could come up with much more interesting and inventive ways of killing each other, other than just biting them. So he killed all the dinosaurs off with one fell swoop, and set about making humans. Once he'd done that, he filled their heads with enough hostility to get the process started and sat back to watch. Now, if you were God, you'd hardly say "oh yeah, before you guys, I also made these big lizards, but I got a bit bored of them, so I killed them all off and made you". Cos then people might say "but.... what if you get bored of us?" and that wouldn't do. So instead you bury all the dinosaur evidence and say "I love each and every one of you! (suckers)".
Jon, I think I love you. Somebody tell me how to add this to the Greatest Posts of All Time thread.

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:39 am

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Jon, I think I love you. Somebody tell me how to add this to the Greatest Posts of All Time thread.
Have faith in me, and I will show you the way to do it:

Click on the tiny square just before the word "Posted" at the top right of the post. Copy the URL/address which appears in your browser. Go to this thread http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1832 and add said url to a new post.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

Dinos Sfyris
Fanatic
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Religion

Post by Dinos Sfyris » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:40 am

Done it on Rosemary's behalf :p

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:41 am

Cheeky boy.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7468
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Matt Morrison » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:43 am

Not sure why you all love clicking that tiny square so much. You know you can just click the title of the post right?

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:44 am

the square creates a challenge.

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:45 am

You can't click the title of the post on mine, so I am a non-believer in that method. A kind of post-title agnostic.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7468
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Matt Morrison » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:59 am

Derek Hazell wrote:You can't click the title of the post on mine, so I am a non-believer in that method. A kind of post-title agnostic.
If you're serious then I don't have faith. In your forum navigating abilities.

User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Rosemary Roberts » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 am

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Done it on Rosemary's behalf :p
Thanks, Dinos.

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:15 am

Rosemary Roberts wrote:
Dinos Sfyris wrote:Done it on Rosemary's behalf :p
Thanks, Dinos.
Yeah, I tried to help, but Dinosaur post was recommended for you.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3245
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Phil Reynolds » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:17 am

Derek Hazell wrote:Click on the tiny square just before the word "Posted" at the top right of the post.
Your advice assumes the reader has their board preferences set to use the nasty new skin. If you're using the One True Skin, the tiny square is just before the "by <poster's name>" underneath the post title.

User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Religion

Post by Brian Moore » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:19 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:I don't wish to speak for Kieran, but I think "agnostic" is the term he (and I) would say is out of place in the poll.
Really? :shock: That to me seems to be the converse of Kieran's position. If what you say is true, then when Kieran said that not all agnostics are atheists, what term should have been used in the poll to describe the ones who aren't?
It's very often definitions that are the cause of the greatest debates. The human brain seems to need definitions and categorisation to make sense of the world and to use language meaningfully (see Steven Pinker 'The Stuff of Thought'), but, though we like them to be absolute, definitions tend to have fuzzy boundaries, even when we think we do have a clear idea of what we're trying to define. I really ought to get to grips with Wittgenstein.
Last edited by Brian Moore on Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:20 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:Click on the tiny square just before the word "Posted" at the top right of the post.
Your advice assumes the reader has their board preferences set to use the nasty new skin. If you're using the One True Skin, the tiny square is just before the "by <poster's name>" underneath the post title.
Oh right thanks, that explains the gulf between Matt's and my views then. Image
Last edited by Derek Hazell on Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:38 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:If what you say is true, then when Kieran said that not all agnostics are atheists, what term should have been used in the poll to describe the ones who aren't?
Theists. The poll question - "do you believe?" is a yes/no question. You either hold a belief, or you don't. If you say "ooh, I dunno, I'm not sure" or "meh, never really thought about it", then you don't hold that belief. There's no middle ground.

There's definitely degrees of religiosity, but that's a different question altogether really.

Edit:
Derek Hazell
Devotee

Posts: 666

:twisted:

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:03 pm

Nice. hehe. It also leads to another curious bit of religion that there's decent evidence to suggest the initially intended number of the beast was 616 not 666.

User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Religion

Post by Sue Sanders » Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:16 pm

Chris Corby wrote:
Brian Moore wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:Do you "know" that all your toys don't come to life when nobody's watching?
Of course toys come to life. You need proof?
My wife's toys come to life when I am not watching.
That's not life - that's batteries! Great spot on 666, Jonboy but I think Dez falls more into the cherub genre ;) x x
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.

Chris Corby
Devotee
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Re: Religion

Post by Chris Corby » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Derek Hazell wrote: I would love to see a book written as a collaborative effort between the two Corbys explaining all contradictions in past, present and future life on this planet.
............ nice to see we are back on track with God and Jesus :) :o

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8806
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:00 pm

Brian Moore wrote:I really ought to get to grips with Wittgenstein.
From what I gather he wrote a load of nonsense and his followers follow him in a sort of religious way because it's unclear and they all take different things from it.

David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Religion

Post by David O'Donnell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:46 pm

Have you actually read Wittgenstein?

User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Religion

Post by Brian Moore » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:17 pm

David O'Donnell wrote:Have you actually read Wittgenstein?
No. And I should, I think, as the little snippets or references I've come across sound like properly thought-out and argued versions of what I sometimes think when people talk about definitions ... you go round in circles being unsure of the true meaning of any of the terms being used, and yet philosophies (and philosophers) create endless chains of these words, none of which you can really get a handle on. In the end it's just a meaningless language game. The unimpeachable Wikipedia quotes Wittgenstein as saying that philosophers must "bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use."

I think it might have more than a little relevance to the atheist/agnostic question, but as I'm a bear with very little brain, I'm not sure what.

David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Religion

Post by David O'Donnell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:22 pm

Kieran Child wrote:No Muslim would think that the Koran was compiled by one person, because the story of the compilation of the Koran is known, but every Muslim believes that it is the word of a god. You will not be able to find a Muslim who does not think that Surah 21, Passage 33 has, at some point, been spoken by god himself.
I think you missed my point. I was setting up premises before making an argument - try it sometime.

David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Religion

Post by David O'Donnell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:26 pm

Brian Moore wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:Have you actually read Wittgenstein?
No. And I should, I think, as the little snippets or references I've come across sound like properly thought-out and argued versions of what I sometimes think when people talk about definitions ... you go round in circles being unsure of the true meaning of any of the terms being used, and yet philosophies (and philosophers) create endless chains of these words, none of which you can really get a handle on. In the end it's just a meaningless language game. The unimpeachable Wikipedia quotes Wittgenstein as saying that philosophers must "bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use."

I think it might have more than a little relevance to the atheist/agnostic question, but as I'm a bear with very little brain, I'm not sure what.
I was referring to Gevin's post but Wittgenstein is definitely worth a read.

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:32 pm

David O'Donnell wrote:
Kieran Child wrote:No Muslim would think that the Koran was compiled by one person, because the story of the compilation of the Koran is known, but every Muslim believes that it is the word of a god. You will not be able to find a Muslim who does not think that Surah 21, Passage 33 has, at some point, been spoken by god himself.
I think you missed my point. I was setting up premises before making an argument - try it sometime.
I'm never much interested in the point. I like it when facts are correct. Hence I just read through these posts for factual inaccuracies or irrelevancies. In yours, I came across the idea that we should look at the koran from the idea that it isn't the direct word of god. You wrote the incredibly misleading (maybe deliberately so) line "fundamentalist muslims accept that the koran cannot have been written by one person" directly after the point that taking the belief that these books are the word of god is a presupposition.

The idea of the koran being the complete, literal word of a deity is a key point in Islam and its history. It is the reason why translation of the text is seen as a debatable issue among scholars of Islam.

If you come at the koran from the idea that it might not be the word of a god, then why not just dismiss it completely, because it is not a position anyone would hold to argue against.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4186
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Religion

Post by Jon O'Neill » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:41 pm

Kieran Child wrote:I'm never much interested in the point.
Says it all.

User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Religion

Post by Brian Moore » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:47 pm

David O'Donnell wrote:I was referring to Gevin's post but Wittgenstein is definitely worth a read.
I thought was probably the case, but I too should have read stuff by people whose names I quote. I always find that the trouble with philosophical concepts is that they are slippery little sods ... one minute I think I've got one, then I go on to the next page and I seem to have let go of what I had, without feeling it getting away.

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:19 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Kieran Child wrote:I'm never much interested in the point.
Says it all.
Well the point is the least important bit. If all the facts are correct and the argument is logical then the point should follow naturally, and most people would be able to work out the conclusion for themselves.
The actual meat of the argument is the facts being used to develop the point from. If they're analysed and found to be false then you can ignore the point because it's left baseless.

David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Religion

Post by David O'Donnell » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:48 pm

Unless facts are little more than socially informed norms.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:10 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:The Qur'an needs to be taken as a complete text in which all the verses complement each other, rather than taking isolated portions. Indeed, a closer inspection will reveal some hidden depths (some say miracles) regarding these particular verses; see this.
I've only just got around to looking at this, and I've got to say..... dude.... srsly? That website is one of the biggest loads of shit I've ever seen. Page after page of ambiguous, vague, essentially meaningless verse, combined with some scientific description that it supposedly conveys. Except it doesn't. At all. I'm actually open-mouthed at the audacity of trying to pass this stuff off as miraculous revelations, I seriously am. It reminds me of sites that try to explain the prophecies of Nostradamus.

"Then inquire of them: Is it they who are stronger in structure or other things We have created? We created them from sticky clay. (Qur'an, 37:11)" is followed by a table showing the elements which make up a human. Um. Okay. The point being that some elements found in the Earth are also present in people. Not really sticky clay is it?

"He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night. (Qur'an, 39:5)" apparently tells us that the Earth is round? Sure. It's an after-the-fact interpretation, making vague words agree with what you now know. If the Earth actually wasn't round, would the Qu'ran have been utterly discredited? Would you all sit around and say "what?! But this bit here clearly says the Earth is round? And it's not! These aren't God's words, what a load of balls!" Of course not. Instead, some other interpretation would have been made to fit. Night follows day, and day follows night. That much is obvious even to an illiterate peasant observing the world. Whatever the mechanism that actually causes this to be, could easily be shoehorned into an interpretation of that verse, because that's basically all it says.

Junaid Mubeen
Series 59 Champion
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Junaid Mubeen » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:12 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:The Qur'an needs to be taken as a complete text in which all the verses complement each other, rather than taking isolated portions. Indeed, a closer inspection will reveal some hidden depths (some say miracles) regarding these particular verses; see this.
I've only just got around to looking at this, and I've got to say..... dude.... srsly? That website is one of the biggest loads of shit I've ever seen. Page after page of ambiguous, vague, essentially meaningless verse, combined with some scientific description that it supposedly conveys. Except it doesn't. At all. I'm actually open-mouthed at the audacity of trying to pass this stuff off as miraculous revelations, I seriously am. It reminds me of sites that try to explain the prophecies of Nostradamus.

"Then inquire of them: Is it they who are stronger in structure or other things We have created? We created them from sticky clay. (Qur'an, 37:11)" is followed by a table showing the elements which make up a human. Um. Okay. The point being that some elements found in the Earth are also present in people. Not really sticky clay is it?

"He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night. (Qur'an, 39:5)" apparently tells us that the Earth is round? Sure. It's an after-the-fact interpretation, making vague words agree with what you now know. If the Earth actually wasn't round, would the Qu'ran have been utterly discredited? Would you all sit around and say "what?! But this bit here clearly says the Earth is round? And it's not! These aren't God's words, what a load of balls!" Of course not. Instead, some other interpretation would have been made to fit. Night follows day, and day follows night. That much is obvious even to an illiterate peasant observing the world. Whatever the mechanism that actually causes this to be, could easily be shoehorned into an interpretation of that verse, because that's basically all it says.
I agree with much of what you said. I really shouldn't have linked that particular website, since I don't advcocate the approach it takes. My point was that seemingly apparent contradictions are easy enough to dismiss if the verses are interpreted accordingly. I say 'interpreted accordingly' with caution; that is not to say the meaning is changed at all, just that there may be more depth than at first glance. Creating man out of dust: I'm not saying I necessairly agree with their reasoning, just that to suggest there is a contradiction is to suggest there's no way these verses make any sense. I don't think that's the case here.

I agree that many verses can be interpreted in a way to suggest that they're miraculous when in fact there is enough ambiguity to suggest all that's happened is that a convenient interpretation has been made. A perfect example which has come up is dinosaurs; no clear mention in the Qur'an. Yet, whilst it doen't give an explicit mention of them, the Qur'an certainly doesn't contradict the notion that dinosaurs existed before man and does make some mention of "beasts scattered through the Earth". Some say miraculous proof of dinosaurs. I say get a grip. Still, it clearly dispels the myth that Islam refutes the existence of dinosaurs before man and so there's certainly no contradiction here.

2 points:

1) there are no contradictions you have made in the verses cited thus far. Okay, so they may be ambiguous (for whatever reason; possibly due to what is lost in translation). Okay, so they may not be as miraculous as some would suggest (which is why I said 'some say'...I'm not sure where I stand on the so called miraculous content of many of these verses). I'm well aware that believers often make huge leaps to give these verses merit. But, even taken in their most basic form, there's no contradiction that I've yet been alerted to.

2) There are many verses that are clear cut; no ambiguity and very much do or die. To refute any of these would serve as a contradiction sufficient to bring the Book down. For example:

" And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)"

Note that the Arabic word for heaven here is one that refers to the Earth and wider universe. Do you honestly think this is ambiguous? Note also that this flew in the face of what Arabs understood of the universe 1400 years ago. At the time, verses like this were cited as contradictions. The fact is that they have stood the test of time (unlike many scientific discoveries) and as science develops, the evidence points towards the authenticity of these seemingly obscure verses.

My summary: the Qur'anic miracle is primarily in its use of language (which Arabic scholars of the time came to accept or failed in meeting the sura challenge). I do believe that it is void of contradiction but accept that many verses are ambiguous. This is exploited both ways; some interpret them to suggest contradiction whilst others interpret them to suggest miracles. However, the clear cut verses are irrefutable and in some cases, mind blowing. All from an illiterate peasant who roamed the desert 1400 years ago?
Last edited by Junaid Mubeen on Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

Junaid Mubeen
Series 59 Champion
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Junaid Mubeen » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:16 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:So God is demonstrating his ability to create life from nothing; we have already experienced this once with birth (sorry Corby, but you were once nothing)
Can I lol at this bit? I know it's just a jokey comment that doesn't form part of the discussion, but you have to admit it's kinda funny in the context of this thread to try and make jibes suggesting the atheist is full of his own importance :)
When I made this tongue in cheek comment, it genuinely wasn't with your atheistic inclinations in mind. It was really just, "hey I can make my point whilst having a slight dig at Corby. Win win." Would've just as easily done it if you were Hindu, mate.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:24 am

Junaid Mubeen wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:So God is demonstrating his ability to create life from nothing; we have already experienced this once with birth (sorry Corby, but you were once nothing)
Can I lol at this bit? I know it's just a jokey comment that doesn't form part of the discussion, but you have to admit it's kinda funny in the context of this thread to try and make jibes suggesting the atheist is full of his own importance :)
When I made this tongue in cheek comment, it genuinely wasn't with your atheistic inclinations in mind. It was really just, "hey I can make my point whilst having a slight dig at Corby. Win win." Would've just as easily done it if you were Hindu, mate.
Oh yeah I know, I said that myself - just made me lol on the other level :)

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:11 am

Junaid Mubeen wrote:2) There are many verses that are clear cut; no ambiguity and very much do or die. To refute any of these would serve as a contradiction sufficient to bring the Book down. For example:

" And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)"

Note that the Arabic word for heaven here is one that refers to the Earth and wider universe. Do you honestly think this is ambiguous? Note also that this flew in the face of what Arabs understood of the universe 1400 years ago. At the time, verses like this were cited as contradictions. The fact is that they have stood the test of time (unlike many scientific discoveries) and as science develops, the evidence points towards the authenticity of these seemingly obscure verses.

My summary: the Qur'anic miracle is primarily in its use of language (which Arabic scholars of the time came to accept or failed in meeting the sura challenge). I do believe that it is void of contradiction but accept that many verses are ambiguous. This is exploited both ways; some interpret them to suggest contradiction whilst others interpret them to suggest miracles. However, the clear cut verses are irrefutable and in some cases, mind blowing. All from an illiterate peasant who roamed the desert 1400 years ago?
Yeah, that could be ambiguous. You're making arbitrary choices about how to interpret each verse. I'm sure it's easy to find similarly "unambiguous" verses that you don't take literally because it doesn't make sense to do so. I don't know the Qur'an well enough to find them but I'm sure I've seen several just on the few pages of that site linked above.

The fact that you can nail this particular one onto something fairly specifically isn't that impressive. If the universe wasn't expanding, That verse'd be made to fit something else. Given that the universe is either expanding, contracting or constant, that's a 1 in 3 chance of making a hit, less so if you were to employ a sort of "hmm, well most things grow - people, plants" logic in your choice. Why is that one statement to be taken utterly literally, whereas others are vague metaphor? Let's take "Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne... (Qur'an, 7:54)" then. No. Utterly wrong. The universe (heavens) is about 16 million years old, the Earth about 7 million years I think. Isn't this just as bad a fuckup as if your verse above said "And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily contracting it"?

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:09 am

Corby proves again the validity of the phrase "God knows why we need universities".
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:15 am

Derek Hazell wrote:Corby proves again the validity of the phrase "God knows why we need universities".
That must be a dig at me, seeing as I never attended university :(

User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Religion

Post by Brian Moore » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:17 am

Jon Corby wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:Corby proves again the validity of the phrase "God knows why we need universities".
That must be a dig at me, seeing as I never attended university :(
I think it's a compliment. Depends how you read "God knows". Rather illustrates the slipperiness of written language.

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:22 am

Brian Moore wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Derek Hazell wrote:Corby proves again the validity of the phrase "God knows why we need universities".
That must be a dig at me, seeing as I never attended university :(
I think it's a compliment. Depends how you read "God knows". Rather illustrates the slipperiness of written language.
It was written in a deliberately ambiguous way:
- If there is a God then he knows why we need universities because Jon is talking rubbish
BUT
- If there isn't a God then it is just the figure of speech "God knows" because Jon writes so intelligently
Also, the expression doesn't exist, which adds a further layer of ambiguity.
Oh, and the previous posts were all about proving the validity of things.
Ah well, it seemed clever to me at the time.


Edit: Okay sod it, it was a dig.
Last edited by Derek Hazell on Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:00 am

Fun little quiz trivia factoid thing:
The koran's surahs are ordered in which way?

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:08 am

Kieran Child wrote:Fun little quiz trivia factoid thing:
The koran's surahs are ordered in which way?
To go?

(Longest -> shortest I think I read? If nothing else this thread has made me more aware of the book. I just read a load of stuff about the Sun and the Moon, which basically contained no more insight than what I'd expect somebody simply observing the sky to have. Not impressed.)

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:13 am

Yup. Longest to shortest (though not strictly), apart from the first one, which is randomly out of place by being one of the shortest in the book. Also, because the readings mohammed gave were longer, the older he was, the Koran is vaguely reverse chronological. Like the film 'memento'.

User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Religion

Post by John Bosley » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:28 am

At first I was surprised (and pleased) that the atheist vote was 65% and now I guess I am surprised it is not higher.
As the British Humanist Association says, 'You only have one life so make the most of it'
sites of interest (if you are interested) -
http://www.thinkhumanism.com
http://www.secularism.org.uk
http://www.humanism.org.uk

Religion is the problem - not the answer.

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:37 am

John Bosley wrote:Religion is the problem - not the answer.
That's an orty thing to say.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

Junaid Mubeen
Series 59 Champion
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Junaid Mubeen » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:09 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:2) There are many verses that are clear cut; no ambiguity and very much do or die. To refute any of these would serve as a contradiction sufficient to bring the Book down. For example:

" And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)"

Note that the Arabic word for heaven here is one that refers to the Earth and wider universe. Do you honestly think this is ambiguous? Note also that this flew in the face of what Arabs understood of the universe 1400 years ago. At the time, verses like this were cited as contradictions. The fact is that they have stood the test of time (unlike many scientific discoveries) and as science develops, the evidence points towards the authenticity of these seemingly obscure verses.
Yeah, that could be ambiguous. You're making arbitrary choices about how to interpret each verse.
I invite you to interpret this in a way that doesn't suggest the universe is expanding. I struggle with the suggestion that it was a 1/3 guess, given that conventional wisdom at the time dictated otherwise.
Jon Corby wrote:I'm sure it's easy to find similarly "unambiguous" verses that you don't take literally because it doesn't make sense to do so. I don't know the Qur'an well enough to find them but I'm sure I've seen several just on the few pages of that site linked above.
Examples please. I'll address the one below.
Jon Corby wrote:Let's take "Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne... (Qur'an, 7:54)" then. No. Utterly wrong. The universe (heavens) is about 16 million years old, the Earth about 7 million years I think. Isn't this just as bad a fuckup as if your verse above said "And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily contracting it"?
First thing is that the word you've translated as "day" actually means "age". Is it really unreasonable to suggest the universe went through several stages in its creation? In any case, why do you assume that a day refers to a 24 hour period?

You're arguing that verses are translated in a specific way to imply they are divine. I agree with this to some extent. But aren't you doing the same thing; interpreting them in a way that implies contradiction? The example I cited above (51:47) has no room for ambiguity and can only be interpreted in one way.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:06 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:I invite you to interpret this in a way that doesn't suggest the universe is expanding.
Sure. You can expand something by adding stuff to it. Let's say the size of the universe stays constant, but more stuff appears in it. If it was proved that was the case, I reckon you'd happily go for that one. You can also "expand" on something by elaborating on it. You could make some such claim that more about the universe is continually being explained to us, as we make new discoveries, and it's actually Allah that's providing this new information to us. I dunno, I'm making this up off the top of my head. But really there's a lot of ways we could run with it. You're now citing this as "a fundamental irrefutable truth" that if it were wrong "would bring the whole book down" (I'm paraphrasing without bothering to check previous posts, but I think you said something like that). Since this is fairly recent knowledge, what gives? How come the Qur'an wasn't discredited, laying dormant for hundreds of years until this revelation? Because you didn't care that it didn't make sense at the time. It was either ignored, or interpreted differently, or whatever. But your book wasn't discredited, your religion didn't crumble, so your claim is nonsense.
Junaid Mubeen wrote:Examples please. I'll address the one below.
I'll ask you for help with that in a minute.
Junaid Mubeen wrote:First thing is that the word you've translated as "day" actually means "age".
You'll possibly be unsurprised to hear I didn't translate this from Arabic myself. I'm relying on what I read on the internet. The only thing I can say is that I was careful NOT to pick a translated verse from anti-Qur'an sites, that was taken from the pro-Qur'an site you linked me to. If there's a definitive English translation you'd like me to read, please provide it (then I can get to work citing phrases that can be taken equally literally to the one you quoted, but that make no sense/aren't true when taken so). I'd also like you to provide some of the "irrefutable, unambiguous mind-blowing" verses that you mentioned earlier please.
Junaid Mubeen wrote:In any case, why do you assume that a day refers to a 24 hour period?
Because that's how long a day is. It seemed like a reasonable assumption to me. So when a day is mentioned, it could mean a day, but could also mean any other period you care to use? I'll bear that in mind.
Junaid Mubeen wrote:You're arguing that verses are translated in a specific way to imply they are divine. I agree with this to some extent. But aren't you doing the same thing; interpreting them in a way that implies contradiction? The example I cited above (51:47) has no room for ambiguity and can only be interpreted in one way.
I'm not suggesting that they're contradictory per se. I'm suggesting that they aren't undoubtedly the words of God. That they could be written by [a] man, and any relevance or similarity to modern science that wasn't known at the time, is the result of (exceptionally generous) after-the-fact interpretation.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4186
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Religion

Post by Jon O'Neill » Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:39 pm

This reminds me of an argument I had with my RE teacher about how the bible apparently tells us that the world is round. He pointed to this verse:
Isaiah 40:22 wrote:"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
as evidence. Same old after-the-fact interpretation shit.

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:09 pm

The weird thing is that after the fact interpretation isn't even necessary in this case, because the earth has probably been known to be round for over 3,000 years. The writers of the bible would have quite easily known the earth was round, but they didn't bother saying it.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8806
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:58 pm

David O'Donnell wrote:Have you actually read Wittgenstein?
I have read some of it, although not a massive amount. I've known a lot of people who seem to worship him but without really being able to make real sense of what he says in a sort of "This is what it means to me" way. Which makes me instantly suspicious. What I have read was very hard to make sense of (I know it was a translation but apparently it gets his message across so I'm not accepting that as an excuse) and from what I've read and heard from other people, there's not much clever in it.

But a philosopher should be clear. Some of the ideas might be hard and you might disagree with it, but the writing should be clear. You couldn't get away with submitting that stuff as coursework.

Junaid Mubeen
Series 59 Champion
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Junaid Mubeen » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:I invite you to interpret this in a way that doesn't suggest the universe is expanding.
Sure. You can expand something by adding stuff to it. Let's say the size of the universe stays constant, but more stuff appears in it. If it was proved that was the case, I reckon you'd happily go for that one. You can also "expand" on something by elaborating on it. You could make some such claim that more about the universe is continually being explained to us, as we make new discoveries, and it's actually Allah that's providing this new information to us. I dunno, I'm making this up off the top of my head. But really there's a lot of ways we could run with it.
I'm not sold. As is often the case with translation of classical Arabic into English, some meaning has been lost here. The translation that has been taken as 'expanding' actually reads fuller as 'to make wider, more spacious, to extend, expand'. I don't think any of your offerings stand up to this. Your attempts to offer a tenuous alternative (and let's face it, they are tenuous at best) are akin to those who cite miracles at every opportunity. You are employing the exact mechanism of reasoning that caused you to (perhaps rightly) ridicule such people.
Jon Corby wrote:You're now citing this as "a fundamental irrefutable truth" that if it were wrong "would bring the whole book down" (I'm paraphrasing without bothering to check previous posts, but I think you said something like that). Since this is fairly recent knowledge, what gives? How come the Qur'an wasn't discredited, laying dormant for hundreds of years until this revelation? Because you didn't care that it didn't make sense at the time. It was either ignored, or interpreted differently, or whatever. But your book wasn't discredited, your religion didn't crumble, so your claim is nonsense.
Well this is certainly worth considering. It's easy enough to forget that Islam has had its doubters from the time of the Prophet (pbuh) 1400 years ago. You think this is the first time in 1400 years that the verses have been disputed? The leading Arabic scholars of the time were quick to dismiss the Qur'an as a work of man, yet not one met the sura challenge. Islam has not been embraced purely on the basis of these particular verses. As I've said before, the true miracle lies in its use of language. Verses like these simply reinforce what Muslims already know; that the Qur'an can only have been revealed from a divine source. Many verses remain ambiguous, just as this one would have been until the last century. Scientists of the past have refuted verses just like this and no doubt there are other verses still in dispute, but in every case the Qur'an has stood the test of time in the face of this scrutiny. Verses that seem to make little sense have manifested themselves fully as Science has developed. You can't just put this down to a choice of interpretation, since this verse was only ever interpreted in this way.
Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:First thing is that the word you've translated as "day" actually means "age".
You'll possibly be unsurprised to hear I didn't translate this from Arabic myself. I'm relying on what I read on the internet. The only thing I can say is that I was careful NOT to pick a translated verse from anti-Qur'an sites, that was taken from the pro-Qur'an site you linked me to. If there's a definitive English translation you'd like me to read, please provide it (then I can get to work citing phrases that can be taken equally literally to the one you quoted, but that make no sense/aren't true when taken so).
You should never take one translation as a complete interpretation, even if it is from a website I linked you. The Arabic language is a lot more concise than English and only in its original form can the full meaning of the Qur'an be conveyed, even if I give you as complete a translation as I'm aware of (like 'expanding' above).
Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:In any case, why do you assume that a day refers to a 24 hour period?
Because that's how long a day is. It seemed like a reasonable assumption to me. So when a day is mentioned, it could mean a day, but could also mean any other period you care to use? I'll bear that in mind.
Since I'm short on time I'll just say this: Relativity.

Junaid Mubeen
Series 59 Champion
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Junaid Mubeen » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:24 pm

Jon Corby wrote:I'd also like you to provide some of the "irrefutable, unambiguous mind-blowing" verses that you mentioned earlier please.
For now I refer you to [30:1-4]. Choose whichever translation you wish; I think the meaning will be clear. I find it inconceivable that someone trying to convince the world his words are divine would put something like this out there, in a time frame that could easily refute his authenticity within a matter of years. So was he just incredibly lucky, or perhaps a fortune teller?

In any case, I think everyone should see this.

Chris Corby
Devotee
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Re: Religion

Post by Chris Corby » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:21 pm

Hooray!
Junaid mentioned my dinosaurs and said that they are referred to in his good book as "beasts" - don't think that gives them the kudos they deserve

"For more than 150 million years, dinosaurs dominated Earth. They were so successful that other animal groups -- mammals included -- had little chance of playing anything more than secondary roles. Then, 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs vanished from the world forever."

..... and then we have the various Ice Ages:

"Ice ages last for some tens of millions of years with intervals of about 150 million years between them. The term is used more loosely to identify the last time that ice sheets covered much of Europe and North America."

*both are quotations from the internet on the two subjects - but widely regarded by scientists as being broadly accurate

150 million years? Is that more than a day Juanid?



(I feel a bit guilty about having a go at Junaid's beliefs but nobody else is coming out of the woodwork to stick up for God. Come on someone, tell us how every word of the Old Testament is true....................)
Last edited by Chris Corby on Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:28 pm

I object to the label "Atheist". I am of the order "Human", an animal slightly more intelligent than a bull. I asked this bull, "have you found god" and he answered "moo". I took this as a "no" The foregoing is no less ridiculous than churches full (?) with people beseeching nobody in particular to protect them and forgive their sins etc. (is that so their slate is wiped clean to make room for more sinning?). I would like somebody who has sat down with this person they call god, to explain exactly what he looks like. Does he wear a suit with tie, or a shirt reaching down to his ankles. Please send him to me and I will perform a mental somersault and become his chief Disciple. Like Billie Graham I will preach to the wicked, and save lots of souls. I will accumulate vast sums of money, just like Billie Graham. Well!, you don't expect me to work for nothing do you? Saving people from the fires of Hell and my old mate Satan is bleeding hard work.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:I'm not sold. As is often the case with translation of classical Arabic into English, some meaning has been lost here. The translation that has been taken as 'expanding' actually reads fuller as 'to make wider, more spacious, to extend, expand'. I don't think any of your offerings stand up to this. Your attempts to offer a tenuous alternative (and let's face it, they are tenuous at best) are akin to those who cite miracles at every opportunity. You are employing the exact mechanism of reasoning that caused you to (perhaps rightly) ridicule such people.
Well I'm working in English, that's all I have. I don't think my offerings are any more tenuous than most of the crap on that website. And I'm certainly not employing that "exact mechanism" - I'm not offering one interpretation as a correct one :? You confuse me.
Junaid Mubeen wrote:Since I'm short on time I'll just say this: Relativity.
I'll respond with: cop-out. Your interpretation accepts any period of time. There's no relevance to the "six ages" is there? Is there any implication that Earth was created (some considerable time) after the universe too? Can't recall seeing any yet.
Junaid Mubeen wrote:For now I refer you to [30:1-4]. Choose whichever translation you wish; I think the meaning will be clear. I find it inconceivable that someone trying to convince the world his words are divine would put something like this out there, in a time frame that could easily refute his authenticity within a matter of years. So was he just incredibly lucky, or perhaps a fortune teller?
That's pretty good, but I don't see the "time frame that could easily refute his authenticity" that you mention. If victory hadn't followed within 9 years of that defeat, presumably this would be left on the "prophecies yet to be fulfilled" pile. Also it's nice that 3-9 years literally means 3-9 years in this case :)

Junaid Mubeen
Series 59 Champion
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Junaid Mubeen » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:14 am

Chris Corby wrote:Hooray!
Junaid mentioned my dinosaurs and said that they are referred to in his good book as "beasts" - don't think that gives them the kudos they deserve
Noooo...I didn't. I said that there is mention of beasts and that some use this to account for dinosaurs but that whether it does or not is irrelevant, since the issue was whether the Qur'an contradicts the existence of dinosaurs, which it nowhere does. An awfully constructed sentence, I know.
Chris Corby wrote:"For more than 150 million years, dinosaurs dominated Earth. They were so successful that other animal groups -- mammals included -- had little chance of playing anything more than secondary roles. Then, 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs vanished from the world forever."

..... and then we have the various Ice Ages:

"Ice ages last for some tens of millions of years with intervals of about 150 million years between them. The term is used more loosely to identify the last time that ice sheets covered much of Europe and North America."

*both are quotations from the internet on the two subjects - but widely regarded by scientists as being broadly accurate

150 million years? Is that more than a day Juanid?
Tut tut....J-U-N-A-I-D ! To answer your question: no idea, but in the context of the underlying Qur'anic verse to which this is a reference, I say two things: (a) (again) the translation is "age/period of time" not "day" and (b) these phenomena occurred after this period anyway and are not disputed by the Qur'an.
Chris Corby wrote:(I feel a bit guilty about having a go at Junaid's beliefs but nobody else is coming out of the woodwork to stick up for God. Come on someone, tell us how every word of the Old Testament is true....................)
No need to feel guilty! Although I am curious as to who the other 3 who ticked my box are, as I don't think any have spoken up yet.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests