ChatterBank0 min ago
Atheists on the offensive?
84 Answers
Atheists are starting an advertising campaign to alert the public to the fact that there may not be a god.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7813812.stm
My question is this. I am not a god botherer, in fact I'm pretty much as far from that as you can get, but when did atheism becom proselytizing? Why spend �140,000 promoting your beliefs if your beliefs are that everyone else is wrong? Surely by definition that's fundamentalism, and therefore defeats the point of atheism? Or am I completely at 6s and 7s here?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7813812.stm
My question is this. I am not a god botherer, in fact I'm pretty much as far from that as you can get, but when did atheism becom proselytizing? Why spend �140,000 promoting your beliefs if your beliefs are that everyone else is wrong? Surely by definition that's fundamentalism, and therefore defeats the point of atheism? Or am I completely at 6s and 7s here?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Whickerman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In other words you are trying to propagate that there is some sort of history where keyplus begged to few people here for sanction. First of all I would love to know what the histroy is and then depending upon few peoples choice, perhaps repeat it.
One thing you have never learnt so far Naomi, stop bluffing.
One thing you have never learnt so far Naomi, stop bluffing.
OK Keyplus. I�ll give you just one �proven scientific fact and not the theories� that does not agree with Quran. There are many, many others.
QURAN AND ALL CREATION IN PAIRS
The Claim - Allah created all creatures in pairs, male and female (refs. 013.003, 036.036, 043:012, 051.049).
Please note that due to the �richness of the Arabic language� and because Allah made the Quran 'clear and easy to understand', some Islamists may try to argue that at least some of these verses do not convey the message that �ALL CREATURES� are created in pairs, taking the literal or metaphorical sense whichever and whenever suits them best.
For example, a disingenuous Islamist may claim that verse 13:3 refers only to FRUITS, or that verse 36:36 refers only to things grown from the Earth (i.e. plants). However verses 43:12 and 51:49 make it absolutely clear that Allah created ALL CREATURES in pairs. There is no ambiguity.
QURAN AND ALL CREATION IN PAIRS
The Claim - Allah created all creatures in pairs, male and female (refs. 013.003, 036.036, 043:012, 051.049).
Please note that due to the �richness of the Arabic language� and because Allah made the Quran 'clear and easy to understand', some Islamists may try to argue that at least some of these verses do not convey the message that �ALL CREATURES� are created in pairs, taking the literal or metaphorical sense whichever and whenever suits them best.
For example, a disingenuous Islamist may claim that verse 13:3 refers only to FRUITS, or that verse 36:36 refers only to things grown from the Earth (i.e. plants). However verses 43:12 and 51:49 make it absolutely clear that Allah created ALL CREATURES in pairs. There is no ambiguity.
The Rebuttal �
1. The Quran leaves out asexual organisms - Asexual reproduction is found in the majority of living organisms, including most plants, protists (e.g. bacteria, protozoans, and unicellular algae and fungi), and many lower invertebrates such as tapeworms.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/s ex1.htm
2. The Quran leaves out hermaphrodites - Some creatures, including plants, are totally hermaphrodites. For example, sponges, snails, the slug-like sea hare, and some kinds of deep-sea arrow worms are hermaphrodites, that is, they have both sexes in one body.
Some creatures also change their sex during their life-cycles: Quahogs (hard-shell clams) are born and grow up male, but later half of them turn female. Slipper shells and cup and saucer shells do this too; they commence every season as males, but nearly all of them later pass through a phase of ambisexuality and turn into adult females. Some species change sex depending on their environment, such as the marine worm Ophryotrocha, if the portly young females are later underfed they revert back into males again. Some fish can also change sex spontaneously, for example some groupers and guppies.
Some Islamists may try to claim that hermaphrodites are actually a male-female pair as both sexes are included in the one organism. It may be that in a population some hermaphrodites act as males while others act as females. This Islamist claim, of course, would be totally dishonest as a hermaphrodite, by definition, is both male and female at once, even if performing one of its sexual functions at the one time.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/s ex2.htm#s5
1. The Quran leaves out asexual organisms - Asexual reproduction is found in the majority of living organisms, including most plants, protists (e.g. bacteria, protozoans, and unicellular algae and fungi), and many lower invertebrates such as tapeworms.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/s ex1.htm
2. The Quran leaves out hermaphrodites - Some creatures, including plants, are totally hermaphrodites. For example, sponges, snails, the slug-like sea hare, and some kinds of deep-sea arrow worms are hermaphrodites, that is, they have both sexes in one body.
Some creatures also change their sex during their life-cycles: Quahogs (hard-shell clams) are born and grow up male, but later half of them turn female. Slipper shells and cup and saucer shells do this too; they commence every season as males, but nearly all of them later pass through a phase of ambisexuality and turn into adult females. Some species change sex depending on their environment, such as the marine worm Ophryotrocha, if the portly young females are later underfed they revert back into males again. Some fish can also change sex spontaneously, for example some groupers and guppies.
Some Islamists may try to claim that hermaphrodites are actually a male-female pair as both sexes are included in the one organism. It may be that in a population some hermaphrodites act as males while others act as females. This Islamist claim, of course, would be totally dishonest as a hermaphrodite, by definition, is both male and female at once, even if performing one of its sexual functions at the one time.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/s ex2.htm#s5
3. The Quran leaves out parthenogenetic organisms - Parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis has been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the rotifers), especially insects, e.g., the aphid. In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized eggs to the female workers and queens.
Note that the aphids, bees and ants are not true parthenogenetic organisms as they are also capable of sexual reproduction.
However, Muhammad apparently didn�t know about the 15 species of whiptail lizard (genus Cnemidophorus) that are wholly parthenogenetic, for example Cnemidophorus tigris (Western whiptail) and C. neomexicanus, nor did he know about the Ambystomids, the unisexual hybrid salamanders.
He also didn�t know about the Island or Brahminy Blind Snake, Ramphotyphlops braminus, the only parthenogenetic snake in the world which happens to originate from the Pacific Islands (lands unknown to Arabs in Muhammad�s time).
http://members.aol.com/Attic21/CreatureofDay/w hip.html
CONCLUSION
Therefore, based on the existence of asexual, hermaphroditic and parthenogenetic organisms, the Quranic verses about Allah creating ALL CREATURES in pairs (male and female) is debunked.
Note that the aphids, bees and ants are not true parthenogenetic organisms as they are also capable of sexual reproduction.
However, Muhammad apparently didn�t know about the 15 species of whiptail lizard (genus Cnemidophorus) that are wholly parthenogenetic, for example Cnemidophorus tigris (Western whiptail) and C. neomexicanus, nor did he know about the Ambystomids, the unisexual hybrid salamanders.
He also didn�t know about the Island or Brahminy Blind Snake, Ramphotyphlops braminus, the only parthenogenetic snake in the world which happens to originate from the Pacific Islands (lands unknown to Arabs in Muhammad�s time).
http://members.aol.com/Attic21/CreatureofDay/w hip.html
CONCLUSION
Therefore, based on the existence of asexual, hermaphroditic and parthenogenetic organisms, the Quranic verses about Allah creating ALL CREATURES in pairs (male and female) is debunked.
joyfully, Octavius? This isn't what I'd consider the most joyous of threads. See for instance the claim that religous people are mentally ill, thus writing off pretty well everyone who lived in Europe for 1900 years. I sometimes wonder how such enlightened people as ourselves are descended from centuries of mental defectives.
Keyplus, no other words - and you should know better than to accuse me of bluffing. Sadly for you, your memory never did serve you well. Never mind. Perhaps Birdie has jogged it slightly.
Octavius, Ah, the Atheist buses rear their heads again. How opinions change - and all within the course of just a few hours. Amazing!
Octavius, Ah, the Atheist buses rear their heads again. How opinions change - and all within the course of just a few hours. Amazing!
My little birdie - why do you like wasting other people's time by these long post where half of the answers you are giving yourself. But still I will try solving your problem. No wonder you have put in CAPITAL letter the word that I would put as bold CREATURES because that is where this website where you copied and pasted have gone wrong and people like you are usually mislead.
You know about Fruits and veg bit where Quran uses word "Samarat" and then word "Zojain". Two verses, 43:12 and 51:49. Who told you that Quran is talking about Sex? Although Arabic is not my language but even from Urdu I can tell that �Zojain� means opposite, and I think you know Arabic (as you said once) so be honest and tell me if I am wrong. Are night and day two different sexes? Is far and close two different sexes? Good and bad, Hell and heaven, believer and none believer etc.
Now its your problem that you go through all the biological terms and all the names of the creatures from a book you must have read somewhere. Quran is not a book of biology. So it can not mention all of billions creatures by name. Tomorrow you may say Quran does not talk about a dog called �mandy� owned by your next door neighbour.
Why don't you try to think on these lines and see if they make sense and keep your mind open and keep thinking. It�s a good sign.
You know about Fruits and veg bit where Quran uses word "Samarat" and then word "Zojain". Two verses, 43:12 and 51:49. Who told you that Quran is talking about Sex? Although Arabic is not my language but even from Urdu I can tell that �Zojain� means opposite, and I think you know Arabic (as you said once) so be honest and tell me if I am wrong. Are night and day two different sexes? Is far and close two different sexes? Good and bad, Hell and heaven, believer and none believer etc.
Now its your problem that you go through all the biological terms and all the names of the creatures from a book you must have read somewhere. Quran is not a book of biology. So it can not mention all of billions creatures by name. Tomorrow you may say Quran does not talk about a dog called �mandy� owned by your next door neighbour.
Why don't you try to think on these lines and see if they make sense and keep your mind open and keep thinking. It�s a good sign.
Keyplus � �... why do you like wasting other people's time by these long post...�
Because you ASKED someone to, you fool. You specifically stated, �Or you give me one proven scientific fact and not the theories that does not agree with Quran.� (Fri 09/01/09, 11:02).
Or have you forgotten that?
Don�t ask complicated questions then act surprised when someone gives you exactly what you claim to want � an answer!
You say, �Quran is not a book of biology.� � I agree. It is not a book of science either and does not understand science one little bit. Neither do you if your posts on this matter are anything to go by.
�... still I am answering most of the question posted by birdie.� � No you aren�t. You haven�t answered my post at all. What you have done, Keyplus, is put your fingers in your ears and started chanting, �La, la, la, I can�t hear you!�
�... the effort in vain by my little birdie..� � I am not your little Birdie you imbecile. And of course my effort was in vain � I knew you wouldn�t accept it, or even bother to check out if what I am saying is factually correct.
�You see he will post another long one...� - Correct. But you are failing to understand, yet again. I don�t really post these long answers for your blinked little mind. I do so that hopefully, someone might read them and the next time some moronic worshiper of a desert dwelling psychopath say something like, �Even Scientific proven facts agree with Islam...�, they might remember something I, or someone else, has written and say, �Actually, that�s complete and utter bullsh1t because.....�.
PS. Taking of long posts, you yourself are not averse to the �Cont...�, or have you conveniently forgotten that as well?
Because you ASKED someone to, you fool. You specifically stated, �Or you give me one proven scientific fact and not the theories that does not agree with Quran.� (Fri 09/01/09, 11:02).
Or have you forgotten that?
Don�t ask complicated questions then act surprised when someone gives you exactly what you claim to want � an answer!
You say, �Quran is not a book of biology.� � I agree. It is not a book of science either and does not understand science one little bit. Neither do you if your posts on this matter are anything to go by.
�... still I am answering most of the question posted by birdie.� � No you aren�t. You haven�t answered my post at all. What you have done, Keyplus, is put your fingers in your ears and started chanting, �La, la, la, I can�t hear you!�
�... the effort in vain by my little birdie..� � I am not your little Birdie you imbecile. And of course my effort was in vain � I knew you wouldn�t accept it, or even bother to check out if what I am saying is factually correct.
�You see he will post another long one...� - Correct. But you are failing to understand, yet again. I don�t really post these long answers for your blinked little mind. I do so that hopefully, someone might read them and the next time some moronic worshiper of a desert dwelling psychopath say something like, �Even Scientific proven facts agree with Islam...�, they might remember something I, or someone else, has written and say, �Actually, that�s complete and utter bullsh1t because.....�.
PS. Taking of long posts, you yourself are not averse to the �Cont...�, or have you conveniently forgotten that as well?
Keyplus - This post is not for you. Cover your eyes and ears and.... oh, you already have.
Okay, for everyone else it is my observation that the tactics of the Islamists are as follows:
1. If a word has multiple meanings or translations, they will choose the one that suits them best at the time, ignoring all the rest as if they never existed.
2. If unable to come up with a valid response, the Islamists will claim that only a genuine intimacy with Classical Arabic will enable the proper understanding of a given verse and then, rather ironically, proceed to argue in the English language.
3. They will add complexity to an otherwise �simple� verse without explanation nor justification.
4. They will switch from the �literal� to �metaphorical� case whenever convenient. A sure sign of loss will be when they claim that the Quran is not a book of Science but Scripture, despite previously or concurrently promulgating the validity of �Quranic Science�.
Okay, for everyone else it is my observation that the tactics of the Islamists are as follows:
1. If a word has multiple meanings or translations, they will choose the one that suits them best at the time, ignoring all the rest as if they never existed.
2. If unable to come up with a valid response, the Islamists will claim that only a genuine intimacy with Classical Arabic will enable the proper understanding of a given verse and then, rather ironically, proceed to argue in the English language.
3. They will add complexity to an otherwise �simple� verse without explanation nor justification.
4. They will switch from the �literal� to �metaphorical� case whenever convenient. A sure sign of loss will be when they claim that the Quran is not a book of Science but Scripture, despite previously or concurrently promulgating the validity of �Quranic Science�.
�can we say the same thing about you, as it does not agree with what you believe in so you are saying it is a pile of rubbish. Or please let me know the title of any book you have written on the geology.�
I can�t say I�ve written many books on �the� geology, many essays perhaps, and a thesis or two, but I�m with Jake on this one � it is a pile of rubbish, and I totally agree with his point about �selecting and twisting the evidence!�
Mind you, it is not Frank Press I�m talking about. I just happen to have a copy of �Earth� by Frank Press and Raymond Seiver on my lap as I type. Yes, a text that is �referred by most of the universities throughout the world� � that much is true.
HOWEVER, I can find no bloody mention of this quote about �mountains being there to stabilise the Earth�s crust�. Perhaps keyplus could provide chapter and verse reference for this text in the same diligent way as the so-called �same information� in the Quran is quoted? � because I certainly can�t find it.
He does, however say �though all mountains are the result of upward tectonic or magmatic movements, their forms are mainly dictated by the erosional process, the rock of which they are formed, and its structure.�
Jake, all the �twisting to fit� and "taking out of context� is being done by the person seeking to make modern science confirm some ancient ramblings � not by said author !
I can�t say I�ve written many books on �the� geology, many essays perhaps, and a thesis or two, but I�m with Jake on this one � it is a pile of rubbish, and I totally agree with his point about �selecting and twisting the evidence!�
Mind you, it is not Frank Press I�m talking about. I just happen to have a copy of �Earth� by Frank Press and Raymond Seiver on my lap as I type. Yes, a text that is �referred by most of the universities throughout the world� � that much is true.
HOWEVER, I can find no bloody mention of this quote about �mountains being there to stabilise the Earth�s crust�. Perhaps keyplus could provide chapter and verse reference for this text in the same diligent way as the so-called �same information� in the Quran is quoted? � because I certainly can�t find it.
He does, however say �though all mountains are the result of upward tectonic or magmatic movements, their forms are mainly dictated by the erosional process, the rock of which they are formed, and its structure.�
Jake, all the �twisting to fit� and "taking out of context� is being done by the person seeking to make modern science confirm some ancient ramblings � not by said author !
Jake, you forgot;
5. Select inaccurate and out of context quotes from (relatively) obscure scientific texts in order to affirm that modern science concurs with your chosen religous text.
Hope that no-one has either access to the source, or can be bothered to check the accuracy of the quote. Provide no specific reference just in case somebody does actually try.
5. Select inaccurate and out of context quotes from (relatively) obscure scientific texts in order to affirm that modern science concurs with your chosen religous text.
Hope that no-one has either access to the source, or can be bothered to check the accuracy of the quote. Provide no specific reference just in case somebody does actually try.
Latest Posts
Music5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Finally Plod Have Found Someone For The...
News23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Crosswords46 mins ago
