Atheists on the offensive?

[Whickerman]

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?

[keyplus90]

Someone surely is showing the signs of frustration. That happens when you don�t know what to say birdie. Any way this thread has gone to next page and no one would be able to see your impeccable knowledge about Quran as well as science. So do post another thread if you wish so. And I will give you the lead, Yes I did say Quran is not purely a book of science, but a book about life of human, science portion is also included in it. Otherwise Quran also talks about the rights and duties of human. Can you show me that anywhere in a book of biology. You have twisted my words because I was saying that all those names you are mentioning and are claiming that Quran does not say anything about them. And I said that if Quran had gone into that much detail about names then whole rainforest would have disappeared. And then you would have seen names of few species who wouldn�t have been even discovered and you wouldn�t have known about them and you would say nothing like this exists. Was big bang known to you if you were in this world in 19th century of before that?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Unfortunately, the Quran does make some quite specific statements about science.

Some are the understanding of the day, some of which originated elsewhere, such as with the Greeks (you got quite irrational last time I mentioned that, even though it's very easily checked) and others are simply wrong, such as, for example, the claim that sperm originates between the ribs, a claim that we know is egregiously wrong, but which was the accepted wisdom of the age.

Thus is the Quran revealed as a collection of folk myths, history and primitive morality tales. Interesting as a historical document and indeed containing much truth, particularly concerning the early history of the faith, but fundamentally not a document that can possibly be considered inerrant by any stretch of the imagination.

Birdie's 4 point characterisation seems spot on to me.

[keyplus90]

But last time when we spoke about it and you mentioned Greeks and embryology the I asked you that what Quran tells us, is that an exact copy of what Greek knew and have been written by them? Or is it just what was going to be proved right at later stage?

Birdie�s points are his views and he has right to believe in them, as far as Muslims know Quran did not come only for that time and words used are exactly the same, meanings are different and that is because in different Arabic countries different words are used for same things. I told you about �Dahaha� as egg, which has always been used in Libya, but not as common middle east. But you ask them they say yes it means something round or rolling.

Anyway as I said earlier this question has gone to far in the list and there is no point in putting anymore thoughts where no one would even look at. But I would love to know from you what I said about embryology.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Due to the p1sspoor search facility on this website, I've not been able to find the previous discussion, which is a nuisance as I certainly don't have a photographic memory and wouldn't presume to recall exactly what was said.

However, re: embryology; the Quranic depiction of embryology is clearly based on the then widespread conception which was derived from the ancient Greeks, most notably Galen.

It's not my point that Mohammed 'stole' or 'plagiarised' Galen et al, it's merely to observe that he repeats the accepted wisdom of the age - i.e. there's nothing wrong with someone in Mohammed's time thinking that this explanation is a good one. It's what we would expect, especially give than there is uncontrovertial evidence that Galen's books were translated into Syriac and that the Syriac Christians escaped persecution by seeking refuge in Persia, so we also have good cause to believe that the information was shared between the two cultures.

There are two pertinant points here;

1) The Quranic explanation was not original and
2) It's not right in any case.

At best, it's a good attempt at understanding given the entirely forgivable conditions under which they were working. It's also the sort of thing that forms the foundation of knowledge from which future scientists would eventually get to where we are now.

In other words, to acknowledge that these things are true is not to criticise the Quran or suggest it is noteworthy for getting this wrong. It's of it's time. It's only when claims are made for scientific accuracy that it ends up looking very silly indeed.