Atheists Vs Muslims

[ozymandias]

yas boss. i try to keep to topic.

It's not that I am trying to boss you around, I am just stopping you from asking a question, and then taking the answer you get and pretending it was to a different question.

so eg; a farmer who through his observations and personal experiences, makes conclusions about the workings of nature or the native peoples who learned of the medicinal benefits of plants, are scientists. i didn't know this.

Definitions of words are fun.

do you have any proof that my 'supposed', by your DEFINITION, 'fictional' reality is in fact 'fictional' and that it is mere 'pretense?

What do you mean?

we agree on that then. the creator created nothing from which was manifested something. ie; the big scrunch or the big bang....we are not sure yet what was manifested first.

Nope. I do not believe in a creator, nor would the big crunch have come from 'nothing'.

[ozymandias]

What is there to refute? The person does not refute the Quran, he is questioning where Muhammad (s) got the info from?

The person is questioning the language of the Quran, and thus questioning Arabic grammar.

The whole video is based in and around how to interpret the language used. Nothing more and nothing less. The person himself claims not to be a biologist. So, he is playing the semantics.

It's not semantics to point out the concrete claims made by the koran are both factually wrong, and not an original 'revelation'. These claims are direct copies of a much older belief on embryology, which is clear -- and it is clear it is incorrect.

[faye]

It's not that I am trying to boss you around, I am just stopping you from asking a question, and then taking the answer you get and pretending it was to a different question.



Definitions of words are fun.



What do you mean?



Nope. I do not believe in a creator, nor would the big crunch have come from 'nothing'.

huh? what do you mean? have they not programmed you to remember your previous assertions?

[Asli]

He did not refute anything the Quran said.

[Alchemist]

Science supports the axioms of theism - Anthropic Principle - which states that the conditions of the universe are finely tuned to be fit for our existence. Even though this principle (law) is expounded upon by an atheist it gives scientific credence to the belief that that the universe is designed.
Design implicates purpose, and if the configuration of the planets and the incidences of one's own personal experiences indicate purpose and meaning, then one is naturally inclined to believe that life is meaningful and our purpose of existence has a rightful meaning towards which we should strive for.

Science has determined that the universe is undetermined and that the laws of nature are like the laws of human nature, a function of habit, but not a be all and end all, in themselves - the possibility of an After life exist. Materialism has been debunked for a hundred years now.

More importantly ozzy - you do not have the philosophical and scientific understanding to counter whatever I have said so far.

You atheists are a bunch of nitwit idiots...

none of you can support your truisms with factual evidences. Your mythological beliefs are regurgitations and therefore dogmatic.

Suppose for an instance that you were to be raised from your graves and held accountable for your disbelief...is this is all you have got?

The way you counter each line with a "huh? what do you mean? I don't get it?" goes to show that you are preparing to use ignorance as your excuse ...even in a human court of law "I didn't know" is not a good enough excuse.

If you atheists want to debate me...you better have more convincing arguments that "Huh?"