A response to the video called 'Stupid Muslim Comments #11'

[TheVeganAtheist]

While I understand your point of view, you must consider that interpretation of evidence, which is the basis of the theory of evolution, is not absolute, however, the presentation of miracles to prove one’s point of view is.

Absolute knowledge is not necessary to be reasonably certain on anything. How have you determined that the presentation of what you claim are miracles, are in fact miracles?

What I mean by this is the huge amount of scientific material contained within the Quran, much of which has only been discovered in recent history through the use of sophisticated tools,

most of which are widely rejected by non-muslim scientists, and only discussed by non-scientifically minded muslim theologians (who have an inherent bias to make something more out of their cherished book) then is actually present. Which sophisticated tools are you referring to?

If an analphabetic prophet from 6th century Arabia, a place in which, according to many accounts, only 12 people could read and write, working as a merchant can present such scientific facts as embryology, astronomy, biology, medicine, etc., then surely he must have received it from an external, all-knowing source. What other possible explanation could there be?

God of the Gaps fallacy. When you don't know the answer to something, it is intellectually dishonest to jump to an unsubstantiated conclusion. You stated "what other possible explanation could there be?"... there are many that do not entertain a god, and are much more likely to be true, since they do not require an invisible supernatural realm to being postulated in order to make sense of the word.

considering the ample evidence that has just been presented for the existence of God,

I must have missed it, but where can i find this ample evidence that has been presented?

should one then not listen to the all-knowing source and reject what that source rejects, i.e. evolution?

you have not established that the quran is from an all knowing source, and so you have no grounds to dismiss evolution. In your mindset, why would a god create a universe in which all evidence points to evolution, and yet at the same time make it false evidence? Seems rather silly.

[ElHammouchiOthman]

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful
This piece will constitute my response VeganAtheist. I will not answer brimstoneSalad now because of lack of time (the answer will come in a later post though).
First of all about my introductory sentence. In Islam, we find it important to remind ourselves as well as other people that all actions we undertake we undertake in the name of God and that God is most gracious and most merciful. And no, God doesn’t ‘read’ forum comments, since that would somehow imply an anthropomorphic depiction of God which we don’t believe in in Islam, but he is all-knowing so he knows of our conversation.
I don’t really know how the quoting system works (I’m writing this in Word in order to avoid spelling mistakes) so I hope you will forgive me for forcing you to look back at your own points to determine to which one I’m responding.
On your next point, I would answer that the very fact that marriage in Islam can only be concluded between two consenting adults would have prevented the prophet from marrying a girl, because that would go against the very doctrines he preaches and would result in him losing any credibility as a prophet of God, something that obviously didn’t happen (and isn’t going to happen).
I do not reject the sources per se, I am just not convinced by merely two sources.
What I meant by my comment was that a man who was attracted to younger women and girls is less inclined to agree to an offer of marriage of a women that was 15 years his senior, though I understand your point that this may not necessarily be the case.
Whether or not you believe that God exists and he gave us the blueprint for a perfect society doesn’t really matter in this case; I’m not saying that ideal Islamic society demands women to cover their hair because God demands it, but rather because it is necessary for the crafting of a perfect society.
Of course the majority of men don’t rape women in non-Islamic societies, like they wouldn’t do in Islamic societies if women weren’t covering their hair. Most men are sensible, well-educated beings, that is not the issue here. The issue is the protection of women against rapists and other criminals, many of whom do it for sexual purposes. No matter how well you educate your population, lunatics like that are always going to exist in considerable quantities and therefor Islamic society has to deal with that through a dress code for women. And as to the alternatives, could you please present one? Masculine arousal to women is something of the mind and the spirit, so the only alternative I can see is men covering their eyes constantly, which doesn’t seem very practical.
They are discouraged to report it to the authorities, but not to several organisations who operate in those regions with the goal of helping such women. Furthermore, there are some muslim countries where this is not the case, and these also are not on the list, so, the way I see it, that would reflect on wider Islamic society, since it has the same design as those countries (such as, for instance, Turkey).
Empirical science, to my knowledge, is based on observation and experimentation. Could you please point me to any observed instance where something came from nothing, because if you can’t, according to your own standard, regard it as truth.
I regard the Big Bang theory as being the epitome of all other scientific theories, because it is the first piece of the puzzle upon which everything else depends. If you don’t know where the universe came from, you can know everything else about the universe, but you still have no point to attach that to, your narrative is not complete.
I have heard about theories that other dimensions may have existed that caused the Big Bang to take place, but at the end of the day, from wherever perspective you come, you always have something causing or creating something else, and since there is no empirically testable proof that something can come from nothing (unless you can present me with that), there needs to be an uncreated entity that creates everything.
Could you please point me to any other possibility than the two under discussion here? Either there is a creator of the universe or there isn’t. I can’t think of any third alternative.
Of course there is intelligent design, you can see that in even the smallest of things. Look for instance to water. It is the rule in physics that almost all substances decrease in density after freezing, however, water is the exception. And thank God, because if this wasn’t the case, ice wouldn’t float, causing massive damage to the environment and maritime wildlife. How do you account for that? Has ice somehow developed intelligence in the course of the history of the earth and decided it would serve the ‘public interest’ to become the exception? This is but one of endless examples of exceptions in nature in places where that is necessary in order to make our planet and our lives possible.
It is in the nature of man to recognise a creating power above him, a concept which we call fitra in Islam. The evidence for this is that all peopleS (I’m merging two points here) pre 20th century had a concept of God. I’m sure there where atheists (in fact, in Islamic societies, they had the right to freely pursue their ideas) here and there, but I wasn’t talking about individual PEOPLE, I was talking about peopleS, nations and tribes. The Mayas, for instance, weren’t connected with the Old World, which was religious, for millennia, yet still developed a religious belief in a higher entity, because it is in the nature of man to do so.
It is true for most atheists that their goal in life is the acquisition of wealth and social status. There are some that are not like that and whose life goal it is to help humanity, and they go to work for charities, and there are some who devote their life to intellectual debate, but on the whole, the average atheist, because they don’t have God and religion to fill them spiritually, turn to material to fill that gap. As to the pursuit of a good afterlife being selfish, this is a stereotype that is often used by atheists in debates with theists and ultimately stems from a misunderstanding of a theist’s goal in life; we are looking for spiritual fulfilment, for experience of the infinite and the divine, that is our main goal. Then, once we have reached that spiritual fulfilment, we will be rewarded heavenly bliss, but the spiritual fulfilment is the essence, the ultimate goal. I you want more information on this topic, I would suggest you look up the lectures of Dr. Abdal Hakim Murad on Youtube on spiritual fulfilment. And it is not the life goal of muslims to ‘flex their intellectual muscle’, it is to understand the world and the God that created it and entertain a relationship with him, so as to achieve spiritual fulfilment.
I don’t believe humans are animals, because I do not define ‘human’ as being the sum of our body and soul. The human is his soul, not his body. That merely serves as a vessel (as described by Imam Al Ghazali in his final words) and Islamic theology does recognise that as being of an animal nature.
I generally use ‘ultimate truth’ to refer to a complete understanding of the universe, ethics, morality, etc. A spiritual being is a being whose essence resides in the spirit. Humans are the only spiritual being, because the essence of the human, WHO he is, resides in his spirit.
‘Noor’ is not an entity that emits light, it’s the light itself, emitted light if you will (if we’re talking about the light itself, it has to be emitted). If the moon is emitted light, then it is not the source itself of the light. I am a Belgian, but I’m also of Arab descent and I talk Arabic so I know these nuances.
You cannot simply dismiss sources because you don’t like the people who created them, you need to be able to reject the contents.
I except any empirical scientific fact to be testable and observable, since that is the basis of the empirical method. If you claim that atheism is based on facts, those facts need to be observable and testable ones. You cannot simply gather large amounts of evidence, come up with a theory that conveniently combines all of those pieces of evidence and say you have the answer. That is intellectual dishonesty. As to your analogy with the eroding mountain, I can observe that. If I measure a piece of rock, let the wind do its eroding work for a year and come back, I can measure the rock again and see it has decreased in size marginally. That is a valid assumption. I cannot, however, cite the changes within ONE species as being evidence for a change between SEVERAL species. The only valid assumption there is that, over a large amount of time, the changes within the same species would be more drastic and important. A bacteria may change into a different kind of bacteria after several millennia, but it will not become a lizard; the former has been observed, the latter not so much.
Again, you assume so, you have no actual evidence of observed change between species, only within one.
A theory is a statement that explains a certain phenomenon. In pop culture, however, a theory has become equated with a hypothesis, so both terms are sometimes used in a wrong context. Strictly speaking, I would say the theory of evolution is more a hypothesis, since it can (and has been) proven wrong.
I was not trying to establish that the number of followers a faith has determines whether it is right or wrong, since that would obviously mean that Christians are right, which I do not believe. 2 billion christians and 3.5 billion non-muslims/non-christians may believe Islam is wrong, but not that it is irrelevant. Saying that Islam, with its history of scientific contribution, architectural and cultural feats, contributions to state- and societycraft, etc. is irrelevant is ignorant, provocative and flat out wrong. I was trying to say that, to the 1.5 billion muslims on earth, that is a wrong and offensive comment.
When the prophet was a child, an angel was sent to him in order to rid him of all impurities in the human soul. Since then, even before he had received the Quran, all of his actions were absolutely perfect. Indeed, we consider him (like all prophets) the personification of human perfection.
Where did I say no men of knowledge came close to the prophet, but none of them could have known all of the sophisticated scientific facts on embryology (they couldn’t have opened the belly of a pregnant woman while she was still living, could they?), biology, astronomy, etc. Furthermore, the prophet lived in Arabia, the world centre of ignorance, where almost no-one had any knowledge and where no scholar from the outside world would even want to come. Why do you think no-one ever conquered Arabia? The Persians, Romans, Alexandrians, etc. none of them wanted to conquer or come to Arabia, not because they couldn’t, but because the ignorant population of a desolate region wasn’t worth subjugating.
Well, the Quran is not a book of science, it’s a book of signs. It simultaneously delivers the blueprint for a perfect society, gives ethical and moral values, gives spiritual guidelines and contain evidence that would convince all different classes of people to follow the truth while still being accessible to normal people that it couldn’t have been a set of treatises on science. God only wanted to inject some scientific facts to convince people like you that the Quran is the true word of God. He didn’t want to give scientists an unfair edge.
If you want to reject the scientific facts in the Quran, I would advise you to reject them case by case instead of just dismissing my proof because it was suggested by muslims.
The examples I cited were only the ones that were very clear in the text. The ones like the moonlight being reflected is more subtle and nuanced through the use of slightly different words, so I was reluctant to present them to very sceptical people like yourself.
Apostasy is not a crime. Traditionally, medieval muslim thinkers have always equated apostasy with treason, because most muslims that converted into another religion did this in a war and joined the side of the enemy. Treason is (as it should be) punishable in Islam. Apostasy, in modern times, has lost that condition of treason, so it is not to be punished. Check out this video for further elaboration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wtq1lyIhVU
On the issue of women, women are absolutely equal in value and before the sight of God to men, there is no question about that. In some cases, however, due to practical reasons, that is not manifested in what westerners would call complete equality. For instance, a woman only inherits half what a man does, because she will never be responsible financially for her family; only the man is financially responsible for his family. It is forbidden for him to force his wife to give him her money. A wife, however, can compel her husband to give her the money she needs to run the family. Because of that greater responsibility, the man get more of the inheritance of his parents.
I would like to express my gratitude for the good questions you have posed so far, but nonetheless want to warn you not to read too much Youtube comments and certainly not react to them, since that can drive a person insane (trust me, I know what I’m talking about). You know as well as I do that the people you’re satirising are ignorant and not worthy of intellectual debate (I mean, come on, one of the muslims had the ISL flag as his Youtube picture).
What I would like to see of you in the reply is a case by case refutation of the scientific facts in the Quran, because, if you cannot produce that, it means the Quran is a miracle and that God exists.
May the peace and blessings of God be with you
A devout muslim

[ElHammouchiOthman]

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful

It would seem that I have missed your comments on the second page (I'm not yet terribly acquainted with the forum). Let me answer them.

If scientific facts that were not to be discovered until a couple of centuries later with the use of modern technology are mentioned in the Quran, it is logical to assume that that is a miracle.

Well, I think many people would disagree with you, including captain Costeau, a Frenchman who investigated the case of the division of salt- and freshwater nearby Gibraltar because of inspiration from this verse and who was not a muslim. the fact of the matter is, most scientist are also inherently biased and try to interpret evidence in function of their non-theist scientific theories. Furthermore, you cannot determine whether or not a muslim scientist is biased before you look at the factual evidence they present. The sophisticated tools I'm referring to are telescopes, microscopes, etc.

Could you please cite me some of those possibilities, because, to my mind, either there exists a creating entity or they're doesn't.

I was referring to the sophisticated scientific facts in the Quran that couldn't have been known by the prophet.

No, I do not believe God has done that. It is man who came up with this theory and then channels interpreted evidence in function of his beliefs. Likewise, many theories with ample 'evidence' have been presented for the existence of aliens, the Illuminati, etc. the fact that the theories are based on facts, doesn't make the theories right or God dishonest. He gave man the free will to come up with these theories.

May the peace and blessings of God be with you

A devout muslim

[TheVeganAtheist]

A comment prior to my response: perhaps we can narrow down this discussion, as it will continue to inflate in length and is eating up too much of my time. I will respond to your points below, but lets agree to disagree on some points and shorten the responses down to a more manageable length.

we find it important to remind ourselves as well as other people that all actions we undertake we undertake in the name of God and that God is most gracious and most merciful.

Why?

I would answer that the very fact that marriage in Islam can only be concluded between two consenting adults would have prevented the prophet from marrying a girl

please provide a source for that claim. Where does Islam say marriage is between two consenting adults? I guess it would also have to stipulate "of the opposite sex" right?

because that would go against the very doctrines he preaches and would result in him losing any credibility as a prophet of God, something that obviously didn’t happen (and isn’t going to happen).

Perhaps that should make you question the person and the source? That's the issue I have with religious people. If there version of god or savior/prophet is not what they desire, they just pick and choose and make the being who they want them to be. You on the other hand ignore, or creatively reimagine/interpret passages to get the result you wish. Intellectual dishonesty, and a clear bias to arrive at the conclusion you are searching for. Also your statement shows a lack of an open mind and willingness to accept new data. You ended off with a very closed-minded statement that essentially states your beliefs of the universe are fixed.

I do not reject the sources per se, I am just not convinced by merely two sources.

Do you think those sources are lying? What issue do you have with those sources? Is it just an issue of quantity? There is only 1 quran which makes the claims it does... shouldn't that give you more of a pause since it is only 1 source? How many sources do you require? Why that number? This to me seems more of the same religious nonsense.... a willingness to dismiss contrary information in order to find confirmation of what you hold already to be true.

I’m not saying that ideal Islamic society demands women to cover their hair because God demands it, but rather because it is necessary for the crafting of a perfect society.

In order to make that statement true you would have to have tried out all possible arrangements and concluded that the best society is one where women are covered. As far as Im aware this has not happened. There is no proof (statistical or otherwise) that confirms your assertion.

Of course the majority of men don’t rape women in non-Islamic societies, like they wouldn’t do in Islamic societies if women weren’t covering their hair

If non-muslim men in non-muslim countries typically do not rape women, then why would you think that in Muslim countries covering women has this effect? Why would it be necessary In one society and not the other?

Most men are sensible, well-educated beings

I wouldn't go so far. Large portions of the world are poor and have little to no means for education.

The issue is the protection of women against rapists and other criminals, many of whom do it for sexual purposes.

Do you not think that rapists (who have the urge to assault women) would not be in the slightest impeded by some extra clothing? Someone who is willing to rape another will not be stopped just because they cant fully see their victim. I think a culture that covers women and hides them due to fear of sexual assault (and normal lust) is so fixated on sex, and probably holds a lot of sexual tension needing to be released.

No matter how well you educate your population, lunatics like that are always going to exist in considerable quantities and therefor Islamic society has to deal with that through a dress code for women.

By that logic, there will always be pedophiles out in the world, therefore we should hide all children... or there will always be thieves, so we ought to hide expensive cars/jewelry/homes from the world... or we should all hide from everyone else (even men) because there are those who would do us harm. That is not a rational solution.

And as to the alternatives, could you please present one?

better sex education throughout a child's development in school where issues of rape and bodily autonomy are discussed and understood.

Masculine arousal to women is something of the mind and the spirit, so the only alternative I can see is men covering their eyes constantly, which doesn’t seem very practical.

Arousal works both ways. Men AND women have sexual urges. It is all chemical (not spiritual). See my above alternative that does not have to delve into the ridiculous act of covering men's eyes or women's bodies. You make it seem that men are some crazy sexual predators foaming at the mouth when they see a women exposing a bit of skin. To me this shows a sign of immaturity and sexual repression.

They are discouraged to report it to the authorities, but not to several organisations who operate in those regions with the goal of helping such women.

Which organizations? What is the motivation for these women to go to such organizations? Will those groups do something about it? Will they punish the rapist? Do you honestly think that the majority of women who are raped in Muslim countries are going to these other organizations and reporting their rape?

Empirical science, to my knowledge, is based on observation and experimentation. Could you please point me to any observed instance where something came from nothing

We have never observed nothing. Everything we have ever observed is something, so we cant be sure that nothing is even possible. For all we know, something always existed. The things we see in the universe form from pre-existing material.

I regard the Big Bang theory as being the epitome of all other scientific theories, because it is the first piece of the puzzle upon which everything else depends.

Just because its the study of the origin/start of our universe, doesn't mean that it represents anything other then just that.

If you don’t know where the universe came from, you can know everything else about the universe, but you still have no point to attach that to, your narrative is not complete.

so your solution is to believe a 1400 year old book passed down by an illiterate desert man who claims to have been visited by a supernatural being on behalf of a universe creator? The universe is grand and full of mysteries. Do you really think we are at a point in history to dust off our hands and say "job done, we have all the answers... god did it"?

there needs to be an uncreated entity that creates everything.

where did that being come from? If everything needs an explanation, what about your god? You are just replacing a mystery with another mystery and claiming a job well done.

Could you please point me to any other possibility than the two under discussion here? Either there is a creator of the universe or there isn’t. I can’t think of any third alternative.

There is no third option, its a yes or no. I see no reason to think in the affirmative. To do so would require positive evidence demonstrating the existence of such a being. You have failed to do so.

Of course there is intelligent design, you can see that in even the smallest of things. Look for instance to water. It is the rule in physics that almost all substances decrease in density after freezing, however, water is the exception. And thank God, because if this wasn’t the case, ice wouldn’t float, causing massive damage to the environment and maritime wildlife. How do you account for that? Has ice somehow developed intelligence in the course of the history of the earth and decided it would serve the ‘public interest’ to become the exception? This is but one of endless examples of exceptions in nature in places where that is necessary in order to make our planet and our lives possible.

The universe is restrained by certain parameters (as far as we know), and as it works through its processes, things happen. One of those things is that water freezes at a certain temperature (under certain pressures) and becomes ice (and floats). If water didn't become ice, then the universe would look different from the way it does now.... so what? Most likely if water didn't freeze into floatable ice, we wouldn't have the life we have now... So what? Who is to say that the universe as it is now, is the intended design of some intelligent being? If you take a glass of water and add some sand into it, and then twirl the water with a spoon, you will have a dark mess of particles traveling in a circle. When the force of the moving water subsides, the dirt will settle (probably in a cone shape in the middle) because of the shape of the glass and the properties of water/dirt/forces. The cone shape in the bottom of the glass may look more complex then just a regular lump of sand, but it was acted upon (as you will find in nature) by forces not controlled by an intelligence.

It is in the nature of man to recognise a creating power above him,

please demonstrate the truth of that statement.

all peopleS (I’m merging two points here) pre 20th century had a concept of God.

ALL? without exception? You cant make that claim truthfully. Your statement is only true to people exposed to one religion or another, but you cant say that every single person had a concept of a god. Of the people who did have a concept of a god, just about all are/were different from each other.

all peopleS (I’m merging two points here) pre 20th century had a concept of God.

a group of people is a collection of individuals. If you admit that some individuals had no concept of a god, then you cant say that the larger group as a whole had a concept of a god. You could say the majority of people did, but it would be wrong to make a blanket statement for everyone.

The Mayas, for instance, weren’t connected with the Old World, which was religious, for millennia, yet still developed a religious belief in a higher entity, because it is in the nature of man to do so.

And there beliefs were far different then most other religions. They believed that god demanded the sacrifice of their enemies, in order to have a successful harvest. I doubt you would think this to be your god's wishes.

It is true for most atheists that their goal in life is the acquisition of wealth and social status.

Have you met most atheists and interviewed/studied them? Unless you have done so, you cant make a statement like that.

but on the whole, the average atheist, because they don’t have God and religion to fill them spiritually, turn to material to fill that gap

that's a bit presumptuous of you to conclude. What do you mean by spiritually? That word means everything and nothing, so I would like to understand what you mean by it.

we are looking for spiritual fulfilment, for experience of the infinite and the divine, that is our main goal.

This sounds like new age woow (sp?). What does it mean to be spiritually fulfilled? What does it mean to experience the infinite (infinite what?) What is divine? You expect to experience god? How? Why is this better then materialism?

is to understand the world and the God that created it and entertain a relationship with him, so as to achieve spiritual fulfilment.

how are we to understand a god who has yet to be demonstrated to exist? How can you have a relationship with a being who (if he exists) does not participate in that relationship?

I don’t believe humans are animals, because I do not define ‘human’ as being the sum of our body and soul.

You not believing it doesn't make it untrue. Humans are animals, no question. The issue arises is that for you, in your culture, "animal" is considered a negative, and so you want to distance humans from that label. "Animal" doesn't need to be associated with dirty, wild, unintelligent, etc. It is a classification. Just like "plant" is a classification. It holds no negative or positive trait to it.
What is a soul? How do you know it exists?

The human is his soul, not his body. That merely serves as a vessel (as described by Imam Al Ghazali in his final words) and Islamic theology does recognise that as being of an animal nature.

I have seen no evidence showing that humans are anything more then the meat sacks we are. If you damage the body, you can change the person. If parts of your brain were damaged, you could become an angry violent person. You could discover that Christianity is true, or become an atheist. You could not recognize people who you ought to be familiar with. You can have your whole personality changed by modifying the brain. I see no reason to think that we are something other then the bodies we are.

I generally use ‘ultimate truth’ to refer to a complete understanding of the universe, ethics, morality, etc.

You will not find the ultimate truth in any book or religion, since it takes a scientific approach to discover the universe and come to the most rational and beneficial way to treat each other.

A spiritual being is a being whose essence resides in the spirit.

That's circular and does not explain anything. Its like explaining what a book is by saying that its "bookish".

If you claim that atheism is based on facts, those facts need to be observable and testable ones.

Ive never made that claim. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god, not a positive assertion that no gods exist. It is not a positive claim that needs to be defended.

You cannot simply gather large amounts of evidence, come up with a theory that conveniently combines all of those pieces of evidence and say you have the answer

If the large body of evidence, collected by many people, over a long period of time, from across the globe, all point to a certain conclusion, then one can rationally assert that "all the available evidence suggests that X is true". If evidence comes around that disproves this, then our knowledge has been corrected. Absolute certainty is not required. This produces the most reliable means of acquiring truths about the universe. Religion on the other hand, often starts out by questionable individuals in a time of great ignorance, and asserts that it has all the answers. This is intellectually dishonest and does not result in acquiring truths about the universe.

As to your analogy with the eroding mountain, I can observe that. If I measure a piece of rock, let the wind do its eroding work for a year and come back, I can measure the rock again and see it has decreased in size marginally

By your worldview, that should not be proof of a mountain eroding, but instead proof of a stone changing in size. You have not directly witnessed a whole mountain range erode do to earthly weather patterns. In evolution we can measure the small changes in fruit flies (because their life cycle is short and they reproduce often).

I cannot, however, cite the changes within ONE species as being evidence for a change between SEVERAL species.

Do you realize that the label of "species" is something we have added to a group of animals? The changes that occur in species is so gradual that at no point does one species pop into another. Rather, small changes over millions of years changes the structure of the original animals into something else... something so different that we would classify it as a different species. Look at the evolution of the hand/wing/fin.

The only valid assumption there is that, over a large amount of time, the changes within the same species would be more drastic and important

False, the small changes would over time accumulate and essentially change the original into something new. Think of it like a building. If you start off with a building and replace each brick with a slightly different material, you over time have a different building. At first, it is the same building with one brick that has been replaced, then 2, then 3, and so on. At some point when you have changed enough, you are no longer dealing with the same building.

A bacteria may change into a different kind of bacteria after several millennia, but it will not become a lizard;

No one is saying that a bacteria will ever become a lizard. The prevailing theory is that simple celled organisms evolved into more complex organisms over a great amount of time. What the descendants will evolve into has to do with environmental pressures.

A theory is a statement that explains a certain phenomenon

That's your problem. You don't understand the worlds you use. You have absolutely no excuse for your ignorance, since you created this thread regarding a video I produced, and within that very video I define in detail what a scientific theory and law is. Here is what I said:
"A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions and are typically the end result of a large collaborative effort over a long period of time, involving a lot of people. This is to be contrasted to the common usage of the term “theory” which typically means “idea” or “guess”.
A scientific law on the other hand is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some particular aspect of the universe. Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of the phenomena… they are nearly distillations of the results of repeated observations and describes what nature does under certain conditions." The difference between your definition and mine makes all the difference.

Strictly speaking, I would say the theory of evolution is more a hypothesis, since it can (and has been) proven wrong.

Strictly speaking, you would be wrong.

2 billion christians and 3.5 billion non-muslims/non-christians may believe Islam is wrong, but not that it is irrelevant

Then why did you bring up "1.5 billion muslims believe".... at all? If one person believes something or 1.5 billion people believe it, it does not make it right or wrong. Sufficient evidence of a good quality is necessary to determine the truthfulness of a proposition.

Saying that Islam, with its history of scientific contribution, architectural and cultural feats, contributions to state- and societycraft, etc. is irrelevant is ignorant, provocative and flat out wrong.

That is a strawman fallacy. Ive never said that any scientific contributions, architectural and cultural feats were irrelevant. Please do not put words into my mouth.

I was trying to say that, to the 1.5 billion muslims on earth, that is a wrong and offensive comment.

So? You do not have a right to not be offended. Many Christians are offended at the very notion of Islam. Nazi Germans were offended by the very sight of a Jew. I don't particularly care if 1 or 1.5 billion people are offended. I care if ive said something true (or untrue).

When the prophet was a child, an angel was sent to him in order to rid him of all impurities in the human soul. Since then, even before he had received the Quran, all of his actions were absolutely perfect. Indeed, we consider him (like all prophets) the personification of human perfection.

I was under the impression that Muhammad was a merchant prior to his climb into fame? I was also under the impression that he owned slaves, and was violent to Jewish tribes. Is this true?
From what source do you gain the knowledge of Muhammad (as a child) being rid of impurities by an angel?

Well, the Quran is not a book of science, it’s a book of signs. It simultaneously delivers the blueprint for a perfect society, gives ethical and moral values, gives spiritual guidelines and contain evidence that would convince all different classes of people to follow the truth while still being accessible to normal people that it couldn’t have been a set of treatises on science.

I have yet to see this blueprint for a perfect society, ethics, or evidence to convince all different classes. This is sounds like the rhetoric of a believer, not the conclusion of a skeptical rational individual.

God only wanted to inject some scientific facts to convince people like you that the Quran is the true word of God.

He failed. Either he is a crappy author who doesn't know what it would actually take to convince someone, or the god described by the quran does not exist.

He didn’t want to give scientists an unfair edge.

An unfair edge? for whom? what? Are scientists in competition with someone? aren't the discoveries of science beneficial to humanity?

Apostasy is not a crime. Traditionally, medieval muslim thinkers have always equated apostasy with treason, because most muslims that converted into another religion did this in a war and joined the side of the enemy. Treason is (as it should be) punishable in Islam.

Why is it so prevalent then today? What is considered treason, and what is the punishment?

For instance, a woman only inherits half what a man does, because she will never be responsible financially for her family;

Why? Why wont she ever be responsible financially for her family? Do you think this is fair?

Because of that greater responsibility, the man get more of the inheritance of his parents.

Isnt that nice. A book written by men, giving more rights to men. How original. Its like politicians giving themselves the right to give themselves raises.

What I would like to see of you in the reply is a case by case refutation of the scientific facts in the Quran, because, if you cannot produce that, it means the Quran is a miracle and that God exists.

No what it means is that I wasn't up to the job. I am not a man of superior intellect or ability. I do not know all things, and therefore if I fail, I have every confidence that other smarter, more educated individuals can finish the job.

If scientific facts that were not to be discovered until a couple of centuries later with the use of modern technology are mentioned in the Quran, it is logical to assume that that is a miracle.

"IF".... that's a big if. You have not yet demonstrated that the quran does hold scientific facts that were only discovered later. Even if it did contain certain facts that were unknown at the time, that is not proof of a god. That is proof of a mystery that needs further investigation.

most scientist are also inherently biased and try to interpret evidence in function of their non-theist scientific theories.

while it is true that no one is free of bias, it is not a bias to conclude based upon multiple lines of material evidence corroborated by many people over time.

Could you please cite me some of those possibilities, because, to my mind, either there exists a creating entity or they're doesn't.

im not sure what you are referring to.

[DDDx8]

Whether or not you believe that God exists and he gave us the blueprint for a perfect society doesn’t really matter in this case; I’m not saying that ideal Islamic society demands women to cover their hair because God demands it, but rather because it is necessary for the crafting of a perfect society.
Of course the majority of men don’t rape women in non-Islamic societies, like they wouldn’t do in Islamic societies if women weren’t covering their hair. Most men are sensible, well-educated beings, that is not the issue here. The issue is the protection of women against rapists and other criminals, many of whom do it for sexual purposes. No matter how well you educate your population, lunatics like that are always going to exist in considerable quantities and therefor Islamic society has to deal with that through a dress code for women. And as to the alternatives, could you please present one? Masculine arousal to women is something of the mind and the spirit, so the only alternative I can see is men covering their eyes constantly, which doesn’t seem very practical.
They are discouraged to report it to the authorities, but not to several organisations who operate in those regions with the goal of helping such women. Furthermore, there are some muslim countries where this is not the case, and these also are not on the list, so, the way I see it, that would reflect on wider Islamic society, since it has the same design as those countries (such as, for instance, Turkey).

Hello, I can't really debate the other stuff with you cause I lack the motivation to read long boring things whether it be scientific journals or religious texts. I can at least take a shot at the above paragraph.

You say: Covering hair is necessary for creating the ideal society. You say the majority of men in non islamic societies don't rape women and they would still not rape women if they were in islamic societies. Also you say most men are sensible well educated beings. I would even go further in adding you probably would agree most men are also capable of becoming sensible, well educated beings. Your issue is with the men, who are incapable of controlling their urges, or just don't care about the well being of other people: Lunatics. Lunatics, and lets just define them as the people who can't be educated or rehabilitated to prevent themselves from acting out their whims, specifically those that cause great harm to other human beings like rape. Lets just say there is something fundamentally wrong with their inner workings when compared to people or men who can control themselves. If you don't like the definition feel free to clarify. Also let me just say rape is not the only worry when we talk about lunatics, physical abuse, unnecessary theft, and murder as well, and to men and women both.

You say these people exist in considerable quantities. Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you are actively doing something to change the number you are going to have roughly 50%, some say 52%....the exact doesn't matter, of the population in a society to be women. Its just biology. The number of lunatics will be far less then that. You could say I don't know the number so my argument is invalid but I can still play around with what you said to still get to my point.

If we agree that our society we are making we have roughly 50% be women lets do a thought experiment:
Lets just say in this ideal society every reasonable man and woman capable of education is educated and the rest are lunatics. The other half of the population is men. When in regards to rape we just care about the men so lets just look at the men that are lunatics. Again you say most men are not, so I'm pretty sure you would agree that most means at least more than 50%. At the very most 25% of these men are lunatics. I doubt you agree that 25% of a given population are lunatics in the definition that makes your argument relevant, its likely far far less. Lets just go out on a limb and say it is so anyway.
So we have this society and there are 50% men and 50% women, and it just so happens that half the men are lunatics that will rape women when they get the chance. Correct me if I'm wrong, according to you ideally we should make rules to govern 50% of the population so that 25% of the population will not be tempted to rape them. To me this seems far from the best solution we could come up with.
This veil isn't to prevent murder, physical abuse, or thieving I'm sure you have other rules for that. But the main contributors of murder, rape, physical abuse, and thieving are going to come from these people who can't be educated or can't control themselves. So to me it seems not very ideal at all to devote time and energy to enforce and educate 50% of the population to wear a veil when you could spend that time and energy dealing with the 25% who are not only the reason for the veil but also most of the strife the society will face.
Sure we defined them as not being able to be educated and also they can't control themselves. But to me I would imagine the first thing an ideal society would do is try to identify these people and take measures that directly concern them and not who their victims might be. You don't call for everyone to wear armor or bullet proof vests to keep people from killing other people. Most of the time these people exists because of abuse or chemical imbalance. I think you'd have a better time getting an ideal society if you invest in personal counseling and understanding why the people do what they do and then preventing it by dealing with the person and people of concern not who they might harm.
In the mean time we should be more intolerant of abuse and harm toward other people, I don't mean killing them, but they should be removed from their temptations not the other way around. Also if the society were less biased towards women we would be able to identify the people who rape a lot better. Even in the american society many women don't report their rapes because people shrug it off. I don't think that is a proper response in an ideal society. Harm to anyone should be investigated and dealt with proportionately and reasonably to the amount of harm and potential harm caused. It should not be ignored because certain people did it or it was done to certain types of people. Before someone says something I mean people not circumstances, I am not talking about self defense, I am talking about eliminating the mentality of bias when it comes to carrying out punishments or looking at crime whether it be a celebrity, politician, friend, or family member. To me that seems far more ideal.

But this was kind of a worse case scenario thought experiment I made with the information provided. Yes it was a very rough estimate. The number of men, women, and lunatics will vary from population to population but I think most people would agree there will be more women in the society then there will be lunatics(both men and women). I'm quite sure the amount of lunatics, as defined, will always be far less than 25% of a random given population. In reality your solution seems even further from ideal.

In an ideal society yes we should protect those that could be harmed but when it comes to lunatics that is everyone. Sure women get harmed in a specific way more than men but just like we don't think of preventive ways towards murder being everyone should wear armor or preventive ways of thieving being everyone have an advanced security systems we shouldn't think of preventive ways of rape as every women covering her-self. Sure in certain neighborhoods you want to have protection, and in some neighborhoods always lock your doors or your car but that is because things are far from ideal. Not every capable reasonable human being is on the same page when it comes to the well being of others, so educating those capable of education is also a top priority of an ideal society. Like you said most people are educated, can control themselves, and, I add, care about if they harm other human beings. These people( the majority), if educated and reasonable you don't have to worry about locking your doors or carrying protection or having naked women walk around. It is a small minority of people you have to worry about. So we should focus our energy, time, and laws on the minority of people that cause problems for everyone else. It is wasteful to focus on a law that restricts 50% of the population because of a small fraction of the total population. Make laws that deal with the ones causing the problem. Laws for identifying them, counseling them, to invest resources to understanding them, restricting them, and if necessary containing them.

[brimstoneSalad]

A comment prior to my response: perhaps we can narrow down this discussion, as it will continue to inflate in length and is eating up too much of my time. I will respond to your points below, but lets agree to disagree on some points and shorten the responses down to a more manageable length.

See my approach. One thing at a time. Particularly with Muslims, who have a tendency (compared to Christians, for example, who tend to focus more on a small set of pet arguments which they develop more) to use the rapid-fire method of argument, where they bring up so many different and unrelated points in their arguments that, while they are all false, will simply tire you out if you try to address them all.

If the person can respond with reason and intellectual honesty to one point, then you can trust him or her to continue the argument to other points (slowly).

And, it's new age "woo".

[TheVeganAtheist]

A comment prior to my response: perhaps we can narrow down this discussion, as it will continue to inflate in length and is eating up too much of my time. I will respond to your points below, but lets agree to disagree on some points and shorten the responses down to a more manageable length.

See my approach. One thing at a time. Particularly with Muslims, who have a tendency (compared to Christians, for example, who tend to focus more on a small set of pet arguments which they develop more) to use the rapid-fire method of argument, where they bring up so many different and unrelated points in their arguments that, while they are all false, will simply tire you out if you try to address them all.

If the person can respond with reason and intellectual honesty to one point, then you can trust him or her to continue the argument to other points (slowly).

And, it's new age "woo".

I understand now. Thanks for the spell check. I had a mental lapse, as I knew that but couldn't think of it at the moment.

[ElHammouchiOthman]

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful

Due to my recent circumstances (I am a student), I couldn't set aside enough time to respond to both of you yet, however, I didn't want you to think I had given up on the discussion and I wanted to inform you that I'll be getting to responding as soon as I can.

May the peace and blessings of God be with both of you

A devout muslim

[ElHammouchiOthman]

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful
This certainly is a big sandwich to digest. I’m going to try and constrain my answers as best as I can and merge different points together, and I hope you do the same. I will first answer the Vegan Atheist.
‘Why?’
Because it is healthy for the soul to know that it is forgiven for its bad actions, so as to avert a negative guilt build-up, and to affirm the principle of Sola Gratia, that salvation is only achieved through God’s mercy, not through actions.

‘please provide a source for that claim. Where does Islam say marriage is between two consenting adults? I guess it would also have to stipulate "of the opposite sex" right?’
‘And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women…’ Surat An-Nisa’ 4:25
Women, not girls.
‘Perhaps that should make you question the person and the source? That's the issue I have with religious people. If there version of god or savior/prophet is not what they desire, they just pick and choose and make the being who they want them to be. You on the other hand ignore, or creatively reimagine/interpret passages to get the result you wish. Intellectual dishonesty, and a clear bias to arrive at the conclusion you are searching for. Also your statement shows a lack of an open mind and willingness to accept new data. You ended off with a very closed-minded statement that essentially states your beliefs of the universe are fixed.’
Why should that make me question the source?
‘Do you think those sources are lying? What issue do you have with those sources? Is it just an issue of quantity? There is only 1 quran which makes the claims it does... shouldn't that give you more of a pause since it is only 1 source? How many sources do you require? Why that number? This to me seems more of the same religious nonsense.... a willingness to dismiss contrary information in order to find confirmation of what you hold already to be true.’
I’m just saying that two sources aren’t enough. As to the Quran, it doesn’t primarily describe events that have happened, it makes theological, ethic, moral.. claims, which we try to defend. It’s divine revelation, so we see it as more than simply ‘another source’.
‘In order to make that statement true you would have to have tried out all possible arrangements and concluded that the best society is one where women are covered. As far as Im aware this has not happened. There is no proof (statistical or otherwise) that confirms your assertion.’
God spared us the hassle of doing so by simply revealing the perfect society. How would you go about testing different models? And how would you determine success? How would you assemble proof?
‘If non-muslim men in non-muslim countries typically do not rape women, then why would you think that in Muslim countries covering women has this effect? Why would it be necessary In one society and not the other?’
Women covering their hair in Islamic societies is not to prevent the MAJORITY of men from raping them, since they aren’t going to do so anyway, it’s to prevent people that can’t control themselves from raping women as well as avoiding adultery (something I didn’t mention in my previous post).
‘Most men are sensible, well-educated beings’
I take your point about education, but sensibility remains.
‘The issue is the protection of women against rapists and other criminals, many of whom do it for sexual purposes.'
Rapists are men who cannot compel their desires. If those desires aren’t evoked by women, then they are more likely to be able to control themselves; that’s just common sense.
‘By that logic, there will always be pedophiles out in the world, therefore we should hide all children... or there will always be thieves, so we ought to hide expensive cars/jewelry/homes from the world... or we should all hide from everyone else (even men) because there are those who would do us harm. That is not a rational solution.’
I do not think paedophiles are attracted by a child’s physical appearance, it’s very sensible to hide and protect expensive items and people who would do men harm are not attracted by their physical appearance (and men are more able to protect themselves because of physical strength.)
‘better sex education throughout a child's development in school where issues of rape and bodily autonomy are discussed and understood.’
Rapes take place in the USA, Sweden, Canada, etc. (these are some of the highest rape rate countries in the world). These countries do have good education that deals with the issues you mention.
‘Arousal works both ways. Men AND women have sexual urges. It is all chemical (not spiritual). See my above alternative that does not have to delve into the ridiculous act of covering men's eyes or women's bodies. You make it seem that men are some crazy sexual predators foaming at the mouth when they see a women exposing a bit of skin. To me this shows a sign of immaturity and sexual repression.’
Women don’t have the strength to assault men and are generally more able to restrict their urges. Most men aren’t beasts with foaming mouths, but some are and the majority is attracted to women and will be more compelled to commit acts of adultery or will lust after a women (which is not healthy for the spirit) if she is dressed in such a way as to accentuate her beauty.
‘Which organizations? What is the motivation for these women to go to such organizations? Will those groups do something about it? Will they punish the rapist? Do you honestly think that the majority of women who are raped in Muslim countries are going to these other organizations and reporting their rape?’
I do not have the time to look them up, but Vice (a pretty reliable source) among other newschannels has in the past reported their existence. They do not punish the rapists and I do not see how they could. Of course not all women go to these organisations or to the government, but a great deal do. These are third world countries we’re talking about. Consider that even in the west many women don’t report that they’ve been raped.
‘We have never observed nothing. Everything we have ever observed is something, so we cant be sure that nothing is even possible. For all we know, something always existed. The things we see in the universe form from pre-existing material.’
Does a vacuum in an environment without light not contain nothing? Furthermore, I do not understand the argument you’re making here. Do you mean that nothing has never existed and thus the universe is eternal, because that’s not consistent with the Big Bang theory.
‘Just because its the study of the origin/start of our universe, doesn't mean that it represents anything other then just that.’
I’ve never argued otherwise, I just said that the narrative isn’t complete without its first piece.
‘so your solution is to believe a 1400 year old book passed down by an illiterate desert man who claims to have been visited by a supernatural being on behalf of a universe creator? The universe is grand and full of mysteries. Do you really think we are at a point in history to dust off our hands and say "job done, we have all the answers... god did it"?’
When you distil the aggressiveness, generalist nature and minimalism of the statement… actually, that’s quite an accurate description of our belief.

‘where did that being come from? If everything needs an explanation, what about your god? You are just replacing a mystery with another mystery and claiming a job well done.’
He is uncreated, He created the very notion of being created, so he does not need to come from anywhere. It’s kind of difficult for us human beings to understand this concept, because everything around us has origin.
‘There is no third option, its a yes or no. I see no reason to think in the affirmative. To do so would require positive evidence demonstrating the existence of such a being. You have failed to do so.’
Why do you then ask me if I’ve eliminated all other possibilities if there aren’t any?
‘The universe is restrained by certain parameters (as far as we know), and as it works through its processes, things happen. One of those things is that water freezes at a certain temperature (under certain pressures) and becomes ice (and floats). If water didn't become ice, then the universe would look different from the way it does now.... so what? Most likely if water didn't freeze into floatable ice, we wouldn't have the life we have now... So what? Who is to say that the universe as it is now, is the intended design of some intelligent being? If you take a glass of water and add some sand into it, and then twirl the water with a spoon, you will have a dark mess of particles traveling in a circle. When the force of the moving water subsides, the dirt will settle (probably in a cone shape in the middle) because of the shape of the glass and the properties of water/dirt/forces. The cone shape in the bottom of the glass may look more complex then just a regular lump of sand, but it was acted upon (as you will find in nature) by forces not controlled by an intelligence.’
Yes, but there is a specific set of measures, a design if you will, needed to make life and intelligence possible. If there isn’t any intelligent design, what a coincidence then it is that intelligence and life have emerged!
‘please demonstrate the truth of that statement.’
All peoples had a concept of God (I’m going to answer your allegations about peoples in one of the following sections)
ALL? without exception? You cant make that claim truthfully. Your statement is only true to people exposed to one religion or another, but you cant say that every single person had a concept of a god. Of the people who did have a concept of a god, just about all are/were different from each other.
Indeed, all peopleS (with an S, as in nations) had a concept of God. When we talk about peoples, than it is fair to make some generalizations if the exceptions to those were very small, like we can say Africans are black, even though Berbers and Arabs are not. We can say all peoples, of their own nature, had a concept of God, even though there were a few atheists here and there. Don’t we say Arabs are Muslims, even though there are also Christian, Jewish and atheist Arabs?
‘a group of people is a collection of individuals. If you admit that some individuals had no concept of a god, then you cant say that the larger group as a whole had a concept of a god. You could say the majority of people did, but it would be wrong to make a blanket statement for everyone.’
I answered that in my previous comment.
‘Have you met most atheists and interviewed/studied them? Unless you have done so, you cant make a statement like that.’
No, but almost all atheists I’ve come across, read about, heard about, etc. fit this description.
‘This sounds like new age woow (sp?). What does it mean to be spiritually fulfilled? What does it mean to experience the infinite (infinite what?) What is divine? You expect to experience god? How? Why is this better then materialism?’
To be spiritually fulfilled is to know that you have lived your life as best as possible by the principles and virtues of Islam. It is also to entertain a special relationship with God (the infinite and divine) through prayer, fasting, mysticism, etc. I cannot really describe the feeling, but when I feel spiritually fulfilled and in contact with God, I feel fulfilled, I feel accomplished. I would not pretend to know the details of mysticism though; that is the area of Suffis and mystical professionals.
‘how are we to understand a god who has yet to be demonstrated to exist? How can you have a relationship with a being who (if he exists) does not participate in that relationship? ‘
You cannot ‘understand’ God, but you can understand His creation and live by His virtues. As to the relationship with God, look to my previous comment.
‘You not believing it doesn't make it untrue. Humans are animals, no question. The issue arises is that for you, in your culture, "animal" is considered a negative, and so you want to distance humans from that label. "Animal" doesn't need to be associated with dirty, wild, unintelligent, etc. It is a classification. Just like "plant" is a classification. It holds no negative or positive trait to it.
What is a soul? How do you know it exists?’
I am Belgian and no, my culture does not see animals as unintelligent or dirty. We distinguish humans from animals because they are inherently different, they possess different abilities and characterizations than animals, just like we distinguish plants from animals. A soul is the core of a human being, that which contains his intelligence, conscience, character, etc. I know it exists because I know I’m conscious, I have a character and I have a character. From theology I know that the soul is all these together.
‘I have seen no evidence showing that humans are anything more then the meat sacks we are. If you damage the body, you can change the person. If parts of your brain were damaged, you could become an angry violent person. You could discover that Christianity is true, or become an atheist. You could not recognize people who you ought to be familiar with. You can have your whole personality changed by modifying the brain. I see no reason to think that we are something other then the bodies we are.’
The brain could be seen as our hard drive, that which contains our soul; it is not the soul itself. Yes, the apparent character of one’s soul can be changed because of damage to the brain, but this is not damage to the soul itself. And we ARE more than sacks of meat, because we have intelligence, character, conscience, etc.
‘You will not find the ultimate truth in any book or religion, since it takes a scientific approach to discover the universe and come to the most rational and beneficial way to treat each other. ‘
1. You have yet to prove your allegation.
2. Science cannot tell anything about morality or ethics. Anything at all.
‘That's circular and does not explain anything. Its like explaining what a book is by saying that its "bookish".’
Look to my previous comments for a what a spirit is.
‘Ive never made that claim. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god, not a positive assertion that no gods exist. It is not a positive claim that needs to be defended.’
You atheism is based on science, so it must be based on facts, no?
‘If the large body of evidence, collected by many people, over a long period of time, from across the globe, all point to a certain conclusion, then one can rationally assert that "all the available evidence suggests that X is true". If evidence comes around that disproves this, then our knowledge has been corrected. Absolute certainty is not required. This produces the most reliable means of acquiring truths about the universe. Religion on the other hand, often starts out by questionable individuals in a time of great ignorance, and asserts that it has all the answers. This is intellectually dishonest and does not result in acquiring truths about the universe.’
There are supporters of many unaccepted theories that would claim the same. In most cases, absolute knowledge in not required, because the facts acquired are consistent with divine revelation, so there is no reason to reject them, however, once that is not the case, then one must have absolute proof of the theory because, if that proof were to be given, it would reject another unfalsifiable truth (which I have proven to you through my examples of scientific facts contained within the Quran). Moreover, the evidence you describe is not actually empirical, it’s not observed, it’s interpreted evidence. Finally, religion doesn’t state it has all the answers, it affirms some absolute truths and provides a framework and instructions on how people can come closer to God and fulfil their spiritual purpose.
‘By your worldview, that should not be proof of a mountain eroding, but instead proof of a stone changing in size. You have not directly witnessed a whole mountain range erode do to earthly weather patterns. In evolution we can measure the small changes in fruit flies (because their life cycle is short and they reproduce often).’
If I place the stone in a closed room and cause the wind myself, then it is proof. Moreover, small changes in flies is not really proof for evolution as much as diversity of physical appearance within the same species. I mean, you and I look different, but I am not more evolved than you.
‘Do you realize that the label of "species" is something we have added to a group of animals? The changes that occur in species is so gradual that at no point does one species pop into another. Rather, small changes over millions of years changes the structure of the original animals into something else... something so different that we would classify it as a different species. Look at the evolution of the hand/wing/fin.’
Yes, but it’s a bit of a far stretch to imagine a bacteria evolving into a whale over the course of however millions of years you want. Species is a label we apply to a group of animals with certain features. There isn’t any evidence that those features would change such as to make transform the animal into another species; in other words, there isn’t any empirical evidence of radical change, like dramatic increase in size or appearance.
‘False, the small changes would over time accumulate and essentially change the original into something new. Think of it like a building. If you start off with a building and replace each brick with a slightly different material, you over time have a different building. At first, it is the same building with one brick that has been replaced, then 2, then 3, and so on. At some point when you have changed enough, you are no longer dealing with the same building.’
But you’re still dealing with a building.
‘No one is saying that a bacteria will ever become a lizard. The prevailing theory is that simple celled organisms evolved into more complex organisms over a great amount of time. What the descendants will evolve into has to do with environmental pressures.’
But the point remains that the simple celled organisms do have to evolve into more complex ones; in other words, a species of bacteria does eventually turn into a lizard after a long time.
‘That's your problem. You don't understand the worlds you use. You have absolutely no excuse for your ignorance, since you created this thread regarding a video I produced, and within that very video I define in detail what a scientific theory and law is. Here is what I said:
"A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions and are typically the end result of a large collaborative effort over a long period of time, involving a lot of people. This is to be contrasted to the common usage of the term “theory” which typically means “idea” or “guess”.
A scientific law on the other hand is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some particular aspect of the universe. Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of the phenomena… they are nearly distillations of the results of repeated observations and describes what nature does under certain conditions." The difference between your definition and mine makes all the difference.’
When you boil your statement down, you’re essentially saying that theories explain complex phenomena (aspects of nature, whatever you want to call it), while laws explain simple ones. The point remains, a theory explains a certain phenomenon. I don’t usually like to quote Wikipedia, but here is their definition:
‘A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation’
‘Strictly speaking, you would be wrong.’
Great way of debating, making statements without supporting them.
Then why did you bring up "1.5 billion muslims believe".... at all? If one person believes something or 1.5 billion people believe it, it does not make it right or wrong. Sufficient evidence of a good quality is necessary to determine the truthfulness of a proposition.
That 1.5 billion people believe something doesn’t make it correct… but it does make it irrelevant.
‘That is a strawman fallacy. Ive never said that any scientific contributions, architectural and cultural feats were irrelevant. Please do not put words into my mouth’
Well, you or the gentleman (possibly both) said Islam was irrelevant, which would imply it had achieved nothing of significance.
‘So? You do not have a right to not be offended. Many Christians are offended at the very notion of Islam. Nazi Germans were offended by the very sight of a Jew. I don't particularly care if 1 or 1.5 billion people are offended. I care if ive said something true (or untrue).’
Wouldn’t you be offended if I said your beliefs were INSIGNIFICANT (not untrue, that can be discussed)?
‘I was under the impression that Muhammad was a merchant prior to his climb into fame? I was also under the impression that he owned slaves, and was violent to Jewish tribes. Is this true?
From what source do you gain the knowledge of Muhammad (as a child) being rid of impurities by an angel?’
The prophet didn’t own slaves and wasn’t offensive to Jewish tribes (or anyone else). In fact, he meditated a truce between Jewish tribes and the Arabs from Medina. The prophet being purified as a child comes from the Quran of course.
‘I have yet to see this blueprint for a perfect society, ethics, or evidence to convince all different classes. This is sounds like the rhetoric of a believer, not the conclusion of a skeptical rational individual.’
What do you mean by ‘convince all classes’. The perfect Islamic state has only once be put to practice in its entirety, during the prophet’s life and shortly after his death (by the rightly guided caliphs). Successor states continued to strive to retrieve that Golden Age, but never quite managed to do so (it is like a reflection of individual human beings, who strive to be like the prophet, but never quite manage to do so). That state was perfect. If we were allowed to put it to practice again, it would be by far the best state on earth. If you want to discuss Islamic statecraft, I suggest you specify a certain case or concept so we may discuss better.
‘He failed. Either he is a crappy author who doesn't know what it would actually take to convince someone, or the god described by the quran does not exist.’
How can you know he failed when you cannot disprove those facts, as you confessed yourself?
‘An unfair edge? for whom? what? Are scientists in competition with someone? aren't the discoveries of science beneficial to humanity?’
If God were to give scientist an ultimate comprehension of the universe, they would all know 100% for certain that God existed, which would give them unfair advantage over all lay people.
‘Why is it so prevalent then today? What is considered treason, and what is the punishment?’
Today’s muslim states aren’t exactly representative of a true Islamic state and society. The punishment for treason, according to my knowledge, is death.
‘Why? Why wont she ever be responsible financially for her family? Do you think this is fair?’
If anyone should complain, it should be the men, who are given the burden of responsibility. I do not understand what you mean by ‘fair’. Woman have their own skills and men have their own skills. Women generally tend to be better with children, can cook better, etc. while men are physically more capable, enabling them to work outdoors. That is not to say women aren’t ALLOWED to work, the prophet’s first wife worked as a merchant, but they are not required to do so, so they’re not given financial responsibility.
‘Isnt that nice. A book written by men, giving more rights to men. How original. Its like politicians giving themselves the right to give themselves raises.’
You call financial responsibility a ‘right’?
‘No what it means is that I wasn't up to the job. I am not a man of superior intellect or ability. I do not know all things, and therefore if I fail, I have every confidence that other smarter, more educated individuals can finish the job.’
How can you know that other people will be able to disprove the Quran’s statements? Isn’t that ultimately blind faith?
"IF".... that's a big if. You have not yet demonstrated that the quran does hold scientific facts that were only discovered later. Even if it did contain certain facts that were unknown at the time, that is not proof of a god. That is proof of a mystery that needs further investigation.
If the source of those scientific facts states that He is a God that is to be worshipped and lays out rules and principles, than naturally those are to be followed. If I claimed to be a man of God and would present you with such miraculous knowledge, would you not believe me?
‘while it is true that no one is free of bias, it is not a bias to conclude based upon multiple lines of material evidence corroborated by many people over time.’
That does not change the fact that their bias causes them to interpret evidence in a specific way.
‘im not sure what you are referring to.’
You said there were more possibilities than a God or no God. I asked you to detail those. However, you revoked this statement in one of your previous comments.
May the peace and blessings of God be with you

A devout muslim

[TheVeganAtheist]

ElHammouchiOthman,
your response is a bit too mixed with quotes. Could you redo the comment you left using the right tags? If you want something to be a quote use (without spacing): [ quote ] put text here [ / quote ]