[Debate] my Faith dilemma...
- Thread starter minamoto
- Start date
So did Ayurveda in India. CharakaSanhita ( Compiled/edited by Charak 400-200 BCE )
You must be registered for see links
It mentions more than one ancient scholar's view on stages of development. They had differences in opinion over which organ develops first and what not.. Mind that this book is only a compilation and it credits Atharveveda and other texts prior to it.
Of course it's not 100% accurate according to today's standard but they were studying it and discussing it. Like they seem to disagree a bit about which organ develops first or if they develop all together etc. But it's been an ongoing study. Still is.
There are written text and records of at least 200-400 BC, discussing it, and with all due respect Quran was compiled much much later. So how did this guy decide people shouldn't be aware of it, at that time? It was very likely he was pandering to the crowd.
You must be registered for see links
The apologetic interpretations of these verses began in earnest when books were published by non-Muslim medical experts Dr.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
and later by Dr.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
(in a special edition of his book that was subtitled, "
You must be registered for see links
", alongside his co-author Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, a
You must be registered for see links
cleric). However, some critics believe Moore was only paying lip service to his hosts and investors, as he worked with the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah.
You must be registered for see links
Moore's praise of Islamic claims have been repeated in talks by Dr.
You must be registered for see links
,
You must be registered for see links
, and other apologists. Critics, like Dr. P.Z. Myers, believe the Quranic verses that mention embryology are incomparable and unacceptable to scientific standards.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You start saying you don't remember religion saying it was okay to do this and that but when you go to atheism you don't use the same logic and link it to communist individuals.
Your religion does order the death of non believers and *** slavery, does atheism say the same?
salamander uchiha
Active member
It's a rebuttal using a rhetorical device (ridiculous claim) of if one isn't true, then why is the other true? I guess that went over your head. I mean technically it does allow it since it's core philosophy is darwinism (used to justify existence without God). Iirc, the weak are weeded out and the strong survive. The weak are taken out by whatever means, so a justification does exist (used for cleansing or make it normal/acceptable).
On the point of slavery, nope not really. In the old days Arabs used to be tribal societies when wars happened they would take prisoners or they could just leave the women to die in the middle of the deserts. So they were allowed to take them as slaves and if they bore offsring marry them or release them even. Heck the punishment for many sharia breaks (if one breaks a fast purposefully they have to free a slave) is freeing slaves. However that was down to them, not my problem. Islam only showed how to have conduct towards slaves
As for death of non believers that doesnt exist, there were plenty of non belivers in Medinan society and even in the Arabian countries especially the levant until even 400 years ago. I guess they never got the memo. What happened was in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) somebody became muslim when clear proofs were presented to him (a Prophet brings with the miracles as a sign of God), then for personal gain became non Muslim, so out of mockery the apostasy punishment was introduced. However, the scholars differ on whether it is applicable today or after the Prophet (peace be upon him) since normal people aren't Prophets (upon them be peace) and can't present a miracle upon request and may not present the message in it's true form. Which is why there's also the principle God doesn't punish a people until he sends them a warner, yet there aren't any Prophets (upon them be peace), so..
Don't let butthurt and the bastard child of Britain (Saudi Wahabi ideology) and it's influence (Alqaeda and ISiS etc) cloud your views of it. They used all sorts of excuses to kill Muslims and enslave their women, stral their proeprty etc, so I don't see them sparing anybody else.
Edit: That's about all I'm going to say on the issue.
If religion is not at fault but it's individuals, then why it's not with communist atheists, isn't that what you meant? Darwinism is a biological theory that explains how life evolved and shouldn't be applied on society, that's called social Darwinism which is not science.
And if in the old days they took prisoners, why enslave the women? unless you mean they enslave everyone they capture?
And how it doesn't exist if it's in the Quran? it literally says to kill all non believers but Christians and Jews need to pay money to stay alive, what does this have to do with anything you said about personal gain, and if people left Islam when they saw miracles why kill them and not leave Allah to burn them instead in his imaginary afterlife?
salamander uchiha
Active member
If you try and blame a religion for the actions of people then one can use the same excuse to blame atheists especially communists for theirs. It is a way of highlighting stupidity of argument. Of course individuals and those that support the ideology are to blame. I doubt those Brits, Spaniards, Belgians etc that found cheap and free labour cared about Christianity when they were trading slaves to make them wealthy. They're unrelated, so attributing one to the other would be unfair. That is what was being highlighted.
Anyway, no not really. All aspects of darwinian theory are related. Survival and dominace are the primary functions of animals so they can pass on their genes, how it impacts society is the other. Go back to Darwin and the fi ches the weak ones were weeded out, go back to the Alpha, it is the primary mater, the others eventually serve and or die out depending on the species. So yes it is equally relatable to society, an provides a blind excuse to those thaf adhere to the philosophy to wipe people (lesser in number or power) out, without remorse.
You are correct it was anybody who was fighting you, unless they made peace. However, you mentioned "***" slaves, so I thought I would address that specifically.
No it doesn't, stop making up nonsense. War verses are applicable in times of war. That is why non Muslims of all sorts lived and still do in the Islamic world. Well before Nato started supporting overthrow of governments etc. And by personal gain I mean treachery, and conversion (apostacy) was the excuse used. It was done for personal gain, which is why it was applicable, especially in the sight of clear proofs (miracles). Anyway, treason is punishable by death even today in many countries or lifetime imprisonment.
Last time I said it was the last time, however you needed some more clarity, but that's about it I'm done on this issue.
You never heard if Jihad attalab where you start war with other countries? Isn't this how Islam spread and created Umayyad state?
And killing people for not believing in stupid miracles like splitting the moon in half, no one saw that miracle except for Mohammed because no other nation documanted it, you shouldn't be killed for BS like that, it's not treason and Mohammed was probably delusional.
Last edited:
salamander uchiha
Active member
No it didn't, there's no such Jihad. Talab if I'm not mistaken means wanting/longing. What happend was the Romans and Persians were at war with the Muslims, so they carried on the war and conquered territories became part of the Empire. The two kept relocating their base of operations or being forced back to their borders. If they had stopped the war they wouldn't have lost territory and a peace treaty would've been reached.
Although, many of Ummayads were less than honourable, and were more concerned with amassing wealth. Whatever gave them the excuse would be used, tbh. Heck they even wiped out muslims who didn't support them or their worldview, as leaders who want to stay in power do. Much like what gave Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or even Xi to cleanse people.
Legendary Saiyan
Active member
That's something you honestly have to find out. There are people that embrace it, leave it, insane enough to make one, etc. Humanity can bring benefits or harm towards anything and that includes faith.
