Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedoph...

Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad

There are 3147 comments on the Examiner.com story from Sep 14, 2013, titled Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

"The God of the Qur'an is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#2508 Mar 7, 2014
I thought it was empathy. I really liked Roddy Doyle's "The Van", but when Colm Meaney was cast in the film, I thought he was totally dislikeable. Now I see he has terrorist leanings, I am not surprised.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Never rated him as an actor anyway, just something about him that he didn’t have, I think is was talent
My goodness, some people do have a hard life. It was pleasant here too yesterday, and we have actually had 3 of 4 reasonable days, some without a cloud in the sky for minutes at a time. But hey, ho, raining again now.
I have heard quite a few times that the terrorists are now into pushing drugs. If they can’t fook up life by planting bombs and then running away chuckling to themselves then they must find another outlet so hooking children to them must be as good a way as any other.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2509 Mar 7, 2014
Thinking wrote:
I thought it was empathy. I really liked Roddy Doyle's "The Van", but when Colm Meaney was cast in the film, I thought he was totally dislikeable. Now I see he has terrorist leanings, I am not surprised.
<quoted text>
I watched him a few times in STNG and the spin off but the only film I’ve seen him in was the Englishman who went up a hill but came down a mountain. He “acted” exactly the same way, same set expressions, same set poses, same vocal inclination in two completely different genres/periods then how does he get away with calling himself an actor.

Not read the book but hey, how to put the mockers on a film by casting a gate post as the lead. There are Irish actors who can act.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2510 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
no...!! you cannot see changes happening over time, because such changes would take from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years, so you cannot see, test or observe any changes, or in other words you are not following the scientific method.
as long as you don't have an observable and testable evidence then you only have faith in the Darwinian evolution theory or you are just influenced by the opinion of some experts.
Yes!! We see the changes in the fossils showing evolution over time.

If evolution wasn't occurring and instead a God was creating life, then there would be no need for the gradual changes we see in the fossil record.

Here's a little mystery for you concerning junk dna.

What is junk? Go into any junk shop and you will find vast quantities of once useful items which have been discarded due to damage or obsolescence. All are potentially useful and some might find a new use but most will remain junk.
Junk DNA is the same. It's made up of unwanted and probably damaged copies of DNA, all potentially useful and some might find a new use but most never will.

The idea of Junk DNA came about because of the massive variations in the size of the genomes of similar species.

Data from http://www.genomesize.com/statistics.php
Genomes measured in picograms (pg).

Fishes

Smallest fish genome size:
0.35pg, Tetraodon fluviatilis, Green pufferfish
Largest fish genome size:
132.83pg, Protopterus aethiopicus, Marbled lungfish
Mean for fishes:
1.93pg ± 0.14

Frogs

Smallest frog genome size:
0.95pg, Limnodynastes ornatus, Ornate burrowing frog
Largest frog genome size:
13.40pg, Ceratophrys ornata (8n), Ornate horned frog
Mean for frogs:
4.68pg ± 0.13

Salamander

Smallest salamander genome size:
10.12pg, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus, Spring salamander
Largest salamander genome size:
120.60pg, Necturus lewisi, Gulf coast waterdog
Mean for salamanders:
35.90pg ± 1.05

Mammals

Smallest mammalian genome size:
1.73pg, Miniopterus schreibersi, Bent-winged bat
Largest mammalian genome size:
8.40pg, Tympanoctomys barrerae, Red viscacha rat
Mean for mammals:
3.37pg ± 0.04

Humans 3.50pg

So the smallest fish has a genome a tenth that of humans whilst the largest is 38 times bigger!

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2511 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright, as long as you say that we cannot trace how things were going in the Arabian peninsula before Islam and that we cannot make a comparison between the Islamic and the non-islamic method, why don't we make a comparison between Muslims and the Persian or the byzantine empire at that time ?
As the Persians and Byzantines were both weakened by their wars they were open to conquest.
They probably also greatly underestimated the abilities of the Arab armies.
hazem selawi wrote:
Hahahah, I think you know nothing About Al Imam Al Razi, this paragraph is completely taken out of its original context, you'll be shocked if you read the whole page and some of Al Razi's works regarding the prophet hood of Mohammed and the miraculous Quran.
among with other numerous specialties, Al Razi was also a philosopher, and in that particular paragraph Al Razi continues to prove that the Quran is actually a miracle and exceeded every written book, he gave 7 reasons why Quran cannot be man made in a A great way.
if you read carefully the paragraph on Wikipedia about religion you'll notice that al Razi wrote many books on religion such as ; "Obligation to Propagate the Teachings of the Prophet Against Those who Denied Prophecies" and "that Man has a Wise and Perfect Creator"
But I wouldn't blame you because apparently you are not familiar of such a great muslim scientist and just believe any taken out of context Pharagraph, unfortunately I couldn't find a translated copy of the full page that paragraph was taken out from.
Al Razi was criticising the Qurans challenge.
I'd be happy to consider his other proofs though.
hazem selawi wrote:
the Quran says you can bring up your witnesses, Are you sure you can find people who memorized a whole book from cover to cover in a language they don't even understand ???!!!
Memorising a book you can't understand is like memorising a piece of music. It can be done.

Why would any sane person ever memorise a book they didn't understand?
Why aren't they taught Arabic as they learn the verses?
hazem selawi wrote:
I had no idea, I never read or heard of such a thing in Islamic history.
You've never heard of battles being fought in Islamic history?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2512 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are mixing up between Mohammed (PBUH) and what some of the followers of Jesus (PBUH) made him look like, if you studied different gospels you can easily notice how some stories evolved by adding small details until finally Jesus was made a god or a son of god, you can track such changes starting from the gospel of mark (the oldest gospel) and other later gospels.
my point is that the early followers of Mohammed (PBUH) never removed or tried to hide the limitations of Mohammed such a thing can be easily noted by some of the authentic Hadiths, and you can also find numerous verses that criticize Mohammed, so Mohammed sinned and it doesn't matter how small those sins were but he still sinned, so such a character is obviously not a fairy tale.
reciters cannot read the Quran the way they like it, because there are particular true readings for the Quran (Ahkam al tajweed), so over extending some of the letters is called Al Tafkheem (heavy letters) and in some cases letters are read lightly (tarqeeq), at first I thought that rules of recitation were very complex but it turned out that one get used to them after a couple of lessons and a lot of practicing, believe it or not Tajw&#299;d is a fard (religious duty) when reciting the Quran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajwid this will give you a brief over look of tajwid Rules.
My point was purely that as no ones perfect we can't know your prophet didn't lie.
hazem selawi wrote:
the problem is that you don't understand the Arabic community, basically the Arabic community is based on tribes, and such tribes were categorized into different grades, thus one's tribe back then was the most important thing in the Arab life (even till our recent days in some places) and one fought for his tribe whether they were doing the right or the wrong thing, Mohammed Descends from Al Hashem and Al hashem was one of the most important ruling tribes, they were responsible for offering food, hospitality and water to Pilgrims at the age of ignorance were people used to come to Mekkah from all over the Arabian peninsula for performing prayers to different idols not to mention that Al Hashem tribe was also one of the richest tribes in Mekka, after the death of Mohammed's mother and father when he was 6 yeas old, and was raised by his grandfather (Abd al Mutalib bin Hashem) who was the leader of Banu Hashim tribe and one of the most powerful and respected men in Mekkah , abd al mutalib died when Mohammed was 8 years and then Mohammed was raised by his uncle
Abu Talib ibn abd al mutalib who inherited the leadership of Banu hashim and of course inherited the honor of siqaya and rifada (feeding and giving water to Pilgrims).
when Mohammed Announced his prophet hood, some of his relatives Disowned him like Abu lahb and other members of Banu hashim , and although abu talib (the leader of banu hashim) refused to convert to Islam he defended Mohammed and supported him out of tribal reasons.
so if any tribe Killed Mohammed there will be consequences and Banu hashim will take revenge , so they decided to get one man from each tribe and kill mohammed, this way Banu hashim would have to take revenge from a bunch of tribes and thus Mohammed's blood would be lost, they headed to his house and found Ali lying in Mohammed's bed as Mohammed immigrated to Medina the same night.
there are so many details in the ways Quraysh fought mohammed and his followers in Mekkah, they literally tried everything.
They were still far more tolerant that Islamic rulers would have been (or Christian) as they never stopped him preaching in the streets to pilgrims.

But remember, as far as the Meccan's were concerned, Muhammad was trying to convert their friends and families into a faith they considered false. That makes people angry.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2513 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
no...!! you cannot see changes happening over time, because such changes would take from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years, so you cannot see, test or observe any changes, or in other words you are not following the scientific method.
as long as you don't have an observable and testable evidence then you only have faith in the Darwinian evolution theory or you are just influenced by the opinion of some experts.
Hazam, my dearest Hazam. You see my avatar? Look to the left and there is a picture of a skull. Do you think I put it there to scare people? Well actually in a round about way, yes. but only to show creatards that they are talking out of there butt and that usually scares the sh|te out of them.

It is a transitional fossil, between the earlier homo sapiens of the Cro Magnon era and you, moderen homo sapiens. It’s 18,000 years old, the bone structure is thicker than present day humans, the cranial volume is around 6% greater, the ridges over the brow are measurably thicker but it is exactly as human as you are. Luckily I was involved in the dig that discovered it and it now has a prominent position at museum of prehistory in les Eyzies.

This is not the only fossil in which change can be measured. Such profound changes can be seen throughout human history of southern France and Northern Spain. As well as in other human groupings across the world.

Or how about the mainland sloth which on one island has evolved to the pygmy three-toed sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus). This evolution can be accurately measured because the island on which they live was attached to the mainland 10,000 years ago. Rising seas isolated them and the study of skeletons shows how they have evolved over that 10,000 years

But you want to ignore time (as all creatards do) and see something measurably changing in real-time then you only need consider the Langkawi bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus). This lizard is changing as we speak on a generation by generation basis, from forest dwelling to cave dwelling which includes evolution of sight, pigmentation, digestion and temperature regulation.

This along with several other rapidly evolving lizards are currently being observed, NOW.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2514 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.idealmuslimah.com/health-and-beaut...
this article indicates a prediction in the Quran to both the lowest land on earth and a victory to the roman empire after being defeated by the Persians.
“The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will soon be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after, is with God.”(Quran 30:2-4)
the first prediction already happened when Romans defeated Persians and can be proved through history, and the second can be easily proven by satellites.
The Roman's (actually Byzantines) and the Persians had been fighting each other for centuries. It was not that hard a prediction that the Roman's would regain some of their territories.

Most translators translate 30:3 as the nearest land.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/30/3/
There was no battle around the dead sea (the lowest point on the earth). It was Jerusalem that was besieged.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#2515 Mar 7, 2014
He wears his ill humour like a badge of honour.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I watched him a few times in STNG and the spin off but the only film I’ve seen him in was the Englishman who went up a hill but came down a mountain. He “acted” exactly the same way, same set expressions, same set poses, same vocal inclination in two completely different genres/periods then how does he get away with calling himself an actor.
Not read the book but hey, how to put the mockers on a film by casting a gate post as the lead. There are Irish actors who can act.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2516 Mar 7, 2014
Thinking wrote:
He wears his ill humour like a badge of honour.
<quoted text>
LOL

Is it natural do you think or is it an act???

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2517 Mar 7, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Hazam, my dearest Hazam. You see my avatar? Look to the left and there is a picture of a skull. Do you think I put it there to scare people? Well actually in a round about way, yes. but only to show creatards that they are talking out of there butt and that usually scares the sh|te out of them.
It is a transitional fossil, between the earlier homo sapiens of the Cro Magnon era and you, moderen homo sapiens. It’s 18,000 years old, the bone structure is thicker than present day humans, the cranial volume is around 6% greater, the ridges over the brow are measurably thicker but it is exactly as human as you are. Luckily I was involved in the dig that discovered it and it now has a prominent position at museum of prehistory in les Eyzies.
This is not the only fossil in which change can be measured. Such profound changes can be seen throughout human history of southern France and Northern Spain. As well as in other human groupings across the world.
As I told Igor trip I don't think that such information can make an observable and testable evidences, you are talking about changes in some kind of fossils took time through millions and in some cases hundreds of millions of years.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Or how about the mainland sloth which on one island has evolved to the pygmy three-toed sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus). This evolution can be accurately measured because the island on which they live was attached to the mainland 10,000 years ago. Rising seas isolated them and the study of skeletons shows how they have evolved over that 10,000 years
But you want to ignore time (as all creatards do) and see something measurably changing in real-time then you only need consider the Langkawi bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus). This lizard is changing as we speak on a generation by generation basis, from forest dwelling to cave dwelling which includes evolution of sight, pigmentation, digestion and temperature regulation.
This along with several other rapidly evolving lizards are currently being observed, NOW.
what is happening with this lizard is called adaptation, Just like how some kind of giraffes evolved through time to survive, we can never be able to witness any living thing evolving from a kind to another.

that Langkawi lizard will never evolve to another kind as its obviously will stay a lizard, and thus its not an evidence of an observable evidence of a change in kind.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2518 Mar 7, 2014
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
1-You said that we had to take into account the times that Muhammad loved in. mMy point is that an all wise prophets should have enough knowledge to issue rules revenant to all time periods, instead of ones that need to altered disregard everyone some new discovery contradicts it.
2 I don't think I know everything but I know your religion is garbage
you still didn't answer my question

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2519 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
As I told Igor trip I don't think that such information can make an observable and testable evidences, you are talking about changes in some kind of fossils took time through millions and in some cases hundreds of millions of years.
<quoted text>
what is happening with this lizard is called adaptation, Just like how some kind of giraffes evolved through time to survive, we can never be able to witness any living thing evolving from a kind to another.
that Langkawi lizard will never evolve to another kind as its obviously will stay a lizard, and thus its not an evidence of an observable evidence of a change in kind.
What you think is irrelevant the evidence is abundant. Please be good enough to actually read my post. Not one mention of millions of years. These are relating to independent and verifyable evidence now.

You may call the evolution of a lizard whatever best matches with your godbook excuse for science it really makes no difference to fact. All it means is that you are allowing your godbook to dictate deliberate ignorance

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2520 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes!! We see the changes in the fossils showing evolution over time.
If evolution wasn't occurring and instead a God was creating life, then there would be no need for the gradual changes we see in the fossil record.
Here's a little mystery for you concerning junk dna.
What is junk? Go into any junk shop and you will find vast quantities of once useful items which have been discarded due to damage or obsolescence. All are potentially useful and some might find a new use but most will remain junk.
Junk DNA is the same. It's made up of unwanted and probably damaged copies of DNA, all potentially useful and some might find a new use but most never will.
The idea of Junk DNA came about because of the massive variations in the size of the genomes of similar species.
Data from http://www.genomesize.com/statistics.php
Genomes measured in picograms (pg).
Fishes
Smallest fish genome size:
0.35pg, Tetraodon fluviatilis, Green pufferfish
Largest fish genome size:
132.83pg, Protopterus aethiopicus, Marbled lungfish
Mean for fishes:
1.93pg ± 0.14
Frogs
Smallest frog genome size:
0.95pg, Limnodynastes ornatus, Ornate burrowing frog
Largest frog genome size:
13.40pg, Ceratophrys ornata (8n), Ornate horned frog
Mean for frogs:
4.68pg ± 0.13
Salamander
Smallest salamander genome size:
10.12pg, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus, Spring salamander
Largest salamander genome size:
120.60pg, Necturus lewisi, Gulf coast waterdog
Mean for salamanders:
35.90pg ± 1.05
Mammals
Smallest mammalian genome size:
1.73pg, Miniopterus schreibersi, Bent-winged bat
Largest mammalian genome size:
8.40pg, Tympanoctomys barrerae, Red viscacha rat
Mean for mammals:
3.37pg ± 0.04
Humans 3.50pg
So the smallest fish has a genome a tenth that of humans whilst the largest is 38 times bigger!
Thank You for the detailed description, I am afraid I don't know much but why couldn't those gradual changes we see in the fossil record point to adaptation not evolution from a kind to another ??

we now know that human beings changed and evolved over time but not necessarily from a different kind , you can find numerous fossils show that humans were bigger in size so doesn't that go along with the idea of Junk DNA ??

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2521 Mar 7, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What you think is irrelevant the evidence is abundant. Please be good enough to actually read my post. Not one mention of millions of years. These are relating to independent and verifyable evidence now.
You may call the evolution of a lizard whatever best matches with your godbook excuse for science it really makes no difference to fact. All it means is that you are allowing your godbook to dictate deliberate ignorance
forget about my godbook, I am asking you a clear question, what would that lizard become ??
would it evolve from the kind of reptiles to another kind ?? or would just become a developed lizard ?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2522 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank You for the detailed description, I am afraid I don't know much but why couldn't those gradual changes we see in the fossil record point to adaptation not evolution from a kind to another ??
we now know that human beings changed and evolved over time but not necessarily from a different kind , you can find numerous fossils show that humans were bigger in size so doesn't that go along with the idea of Junk DNA ??
Adaptation is evolution.
A fish that adapted to walk on land is called an amphibian.

Just look at all the different species of birds. They all have the same basic body plan yet because of differences in what they eat, where they live and how they survive they're different species.

All animal life begins as a single eukaryote cell. The only real difference between them is the dna. Alter the dna and you alter the species.

The point about junk dna is that there's no reason why similar species should have vastly different sizes of genomes. That can't be explained by design but it can be explained by evolution not clearing out unneeded junk.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2523 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
As the Persians and Byzantines were both weakened by their wars they were open to conquest.
They probably also greatly underestimated the abilities of the Arab armies.
you got me wrong I wasn't indicating to who was stronger or who defeated who, we were willing to make a comparison of how people were living in the Arabian peninsula before Islam and what kind of teachings and laws they applied and what Islam offered.

since you claim that we cannot know anything about the history of Arabs before Islam then why don't we make a comparison between Muslims and others such as Persians and Romans at that time?

we can compare things such as the economical, social, political and judicial systems each one of the three parties (Muslims, Persians and Romans) applied and followed.

what solutions did Romans or Persians had to end poverty ??

what kind of rights did women have in both the Persian and the roman empires at that time ??

did any of those parties except Muslims were encouraged to treat animals kindly??

did any of those parties except Muslims were prohibited from killing innocent children, women, elderlies and religious people ??

did any of those parties except Muslims were taught to never cut fruitful trees during wars ??
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Al Razi was criticising the Qurans challenge.
I'd be happy to consider his other proofs though.
he continued to prove that Quran is the best written book after that paragraph you indicated in a very beautiful way and said that the Quran is with no doubt from god , Al Razi had a very special way in Praising the Quran.

Al Razi was actually an interpreter of Quran, and since he was specialized in many different sciences he sometimes interpreted Quranic verses by science facts and some Muslim scientists at that time criticized such a behavior.

some Arab atheists did exactly as you did, they took whatever al Razi said from the original context.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Memorising a book you can't understand is like memorising a piece of music. It can be done.
Why would any sane person ever memorise a book they didn't understand?
Why aren't they taught Arabic as they learn the verses?
that proves that Quran is unique and certainly comes from the creator of the world, because it is easy and natural for human beings to accept the words of their creator.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
You've never heard of battles being fought in Islamic history?
I've never heard of battles being fought in Indonesia.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#2524 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
forget about my godbook, I am asking you a clear question, what would that lizard become ??
would it evolve from the kind of reptiles to another kind ?? or would just become a developed lizard ?
Why forget about your godbook? Blame where blame is due, that is what is limiting your comprehension.

And I have given you clear answers, two of which you seem to have ignored.

Who knows what evolution will bring?

We do know that it is evolving from a forest dwelling animal to a cave dwelling animal, you may call this adaptation of it helps you rationalise your faith but that makes not the slightest difference that it’s genetic profile is evolving to environmental necessity.

Why should it evolve to another kind of reptile, it may do in time but consider that you have evolved from an ape and guess what you are a developed ape.

You will of course huff and puff about that but it still makes no difference. Evolution is a proven fact, not just once but many times over and with many independent lines of evidence.

Funny, only a few days ago Thinking and I had a quick chat regarding extremely intelligent Muslim students walking out of lectures because evolution was mentioned. I think it really is quite pathetic that they let outmoded religious dogma dictate their future employment in the science that they so obviously hoped to succeed in.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2525 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is evolution.
A fish that adapted to walk on land is called an amphibian.
Just look at all the different species of birds. They all have the same basic body plan yet because of differences in what they eat, where they live and how they survive they're different species.
All animal life begins as a single eukaryote cell. The only real difference between them is the dna. Alter the dna and you alter the species.
The point about junk dna is that there's no reason why similar species should have vastly different sizes of genomes. That can't be explained by design but it can be explained by evolution not clearing out unneeded junk.
Adaptation is way different than evolution, in my opinion adaptation refers to changes within the same kind of species, as some sort of bacterias evolved into another form of evolved bacteria but apparently they stayed as bacteria, the giraffes ....etc

but Darwinian theory point to evolution from a specific kind of species into a complete different species and a lot of people mix up between adaptation and Darwinian evolution.

a lot of scientists say that human beings in the future would be shorter ,smaller in size, may have bigger eyes and some kind of evolved skin to adapt changes in the world and to resist the risks of Ultraviolet Rays.

some theories state that humans had bigger teeth since they used to eat raw meat before the discovery of fire, were also bigger to avoid the danger of different beasts and animals, but through time humans no longer needed big teeth and big sizes so kept adapting until we finally got the final product of the modern humans.

don't you think its weird that we still don't have a single fossil of a human ape ??
all you find is some sort of imaginary pictures for people trying to fill the gaps depending on their own opinion.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2526 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
you got me wrong I wasn't indicating to who was stronger or who defeated who, we were willing to make a comparison of how people were living in the Arabian peninsula before Islam and what kind of teachings and laws they applied and what Islam offered.
since you claim that we cannot know anything about the history of Arabs before Islam then why don't we make a comparison between Muslims and others such as Persians and Romans at that time?
we can compare things such as the economical, social, political and judicial systems each one of the three parties (Muslims, Persians and Romans) applied and followed.
what solutions did Romans or Persians had to end poverty ??
what kind of rights did women have in both the Persian and the roman empires at that time ??
did any of those parties except Muslims were encouraged to treat animals kindly??
did any of those parties except Muslims were prohibited from killing innocent children, women, elderlies and religious people ??
did any of those parties except Muslims were taught to never cut fruitful trees during wars ??
Women in ancient Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Ancient...
“An emancipated woman legally became sui iuris, or her own person, and could own property and dispose of it as she saw fit. If a pater familias died intestate, the law required the equal division of his estate amongst his children, regardless of their age and sex.”

Which empires or religions have ever allowed the killing of innocent children?

Even if Islamic rule was better (and I don't know if it was) that doesn't mean it's from a God.
hazem selawi wrote:
he continued to prove that Quran is the best written book after that paragraph you indicated in a very beautiful way and said that the Quran is with no doubt from god , Al Razi had a very special way in Praising the Quran.
Al Razi was actually an interpreter of Quran, and since he was specialized in many different sciences he sometimes interpreted Quranic verses by science facts and some Muslim scientists at that time criticized such a behavior.
some Arab atheists did exactly as you did, they took whatever al Razi said from the original context.
Then I need the original context.

Let me state this differently.
I don't care how pretty the Quran is. I only care about content. The content does translate and I'm not impressed.
hazem selawi wrote:
that proves that Quran is unique and certainly comes from the creator of the world, because it is easy and natural for human beings to accept the words of their creator.
Wrong. It just proves it's easily memorised poetry. Remember it wasn't properly written down until long after your prophets death so it had to be easily memorised. Any hard to remember passages wouldn't have survived.
hazem selawi wrote:
I've never heard of battles being fought in Indonesia.
Maybe that's because people prefer cosy myths to cruel reality.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2527 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is way different than evolution, in my opinion adaptation refers to changes within the same kind of species, as some sort of bacterias evolved into another form of evolved bacteria but apparently they stayed as bacteria, the giraffes ....etc
but Darwinian theory point to evolution from a specific kind of species into a complete different species and a lot of people mix up between adaptation and Darwinian evolution.
a lot of scientists say that human beings in the future would be shorter ,smaller in size, may have bigger eyes and some kind of evolved skin to adapt changes in the world and to resist the risks of Ultraviolet Rays.
some theories state that humans had bigger teeth since they used to eat raw meat before the discovery of fire, were also bigger to avoid the danger of different beasts and animals, but through time humans no longer needed big teeth and big sizes so kept adapting until we finally got the final product of the modern humans.
don't you think its weird that we still don't have a single fossil of a human ape ??
all you find is some sort of imaginary pictures for people trying to fill the gaps depending on their own opinion.
One of the lies told about evolution is that adaptation is not evolution. It is.

Evolution:
1. All living things produce offspring which is different to themselves, either through sex mixing two sets of genes or mistakes in copying or because bacteria can swap genes Just observe how different you are to your parents and children.(That’s Random).
2. All living things produce far more offspring than can possibly survive on the resources available.
3. Most of those offspring will die (watch any nature program).
4. Those most likely to survive are those most suited to that environment. Different environments will suit different individuals (Non random Natural selection).
5. So over many generations, a species changes, becomes more adapted to its environment.
6. If a branch of a species changes enough, it might be called a different species, just as foxes are a different species to wolves.
7. Only tiny changes can be expected to happen from one generation to the next. So the evolution of all body parts such as the eye and brain has to be explained in very small steps. Scientists are sure they can do that.

In other words, what survives breeds, what doesn’t doesn’t.

It isn’t just the fittest that survive. Species can survive by becoming smaller, quieter and better at hiding.
Nor is it about increased complexity, that’s just one of many survival strategies.
Earthworms are very successful despite being very slow and dim.

This process is incredibly slow, but it does happen and as life has existed for about 3.5 billion years, it’s had plenty of time to branch into all the forms we see today.

Bacteria have plenty of food. There's no reason for them to abandon that food and grow bigger.
Eukaryote cells which are bigger, have multiple survival strategies, one of which is multicellular life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin...

Ape men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
Lucy (Australopithecus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australo...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Subduction Zone 58,367
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 16 min Aura Mytha 27,398
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 1 hr Trumpler 1,965
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Joe Momma 2,037
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 6 hr greymouser 192
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 7 hr Magic Utah Uwear 62
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Thu IB DaMann 5,963
More from around the web