01 Jul '08 14:08>
Originally posted by stokerI tried to erase that comment but was too late.
jaywill remember jesus said love your enimies, ."gets right up there noses"
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo, I mean that blond faith in science is excatly the same as blind faith in anything else.
So does that mean that you think that blind faith in a religious book is a more trustworthy source of scientific information than reasoning in a human brain?
Originally posted by ahosyneyFirstly, I think you mean “blind faith” and not “blond faith” 🙂
No, I mean that blond faith in science is excatly the same as blind faith in anything else.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI asked him to show the physical evidence but he didn't. The only source of the information he presented is his own brain. So tell me what is the differece.
Firstly, I think you mean “blind faith” and not “blond faith” 🙂
Secondly, how can it be “blind faith” when it is based on actual physical evidence? The belief that there is a “god” is not based on any physical evidence nor logic hence I call it blind faith.
Originally posted by ahosyneyThe proof that the flood didn't happen is in the lack thereof.
I asked him to show the [b]physical evidence but he didn't. The only source of the information he presented is his own brain. So tell me what is the differece.
He belive that science support his ideas (and may be it is), but he didn't show that. For me it is a blind faith. Don't you agree ?
EDIT: yes I mean blind faith. If you look at your keyboard you will find the letters I and O are next to each other.[/b]
Originally posted by PsychoPawnAll the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me. In other words it may prove that the Bible is not true, or not from GOD, but it doesn't prove that there was no person called Noah, and there was a flood someday,
The proof that the flood didn't happen is in the lack thereof.
We know now what evidence floods leave and we have found evidence of various floods.
The problem is, if there was a global flood such as the one described in the bible then there should be that same kind of evidence - there isn't.
The Sumerians had a very similar flood story and I ...[text shortened]... it's impossible that they would have been able to bring two of every species or "kind" on.
Originally posted by ahosyneyI doubt many people will argue that Noah never existed and there was never a flood. If that's all Muslims claim then it's perfectly reasonable. What people have trouble with is the worldwide flood, the Ark with every species on board and no other terrestrial life left on Earth (and salt water species probably in trouble too due to dilution of the sea with fresh water) etc.
All the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me. In other words it may prove that the Bible is not true, or not from GOD, but it doesn't prove that there was no person called Noah, and there was a flood someday,
My problem here is all at ...[text shortened]... e [b]Islamic perspectives section and you will see that all of you proofs doesn't hold.[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI just want to be honest. Not all Muslims belive it is a regional event. But all these views are affected by the Jewish view of the story, which we are asked by the prophet, not to belive them and not do deny them. In other words what in the bible is not an authentic source for information. But in the past Muslim scholars used to present the information in the Bible for Muslim readers without much comment on it in most cases. But today it is widly not accepted to use the information in the Bible by Muslims.
I doubt many people will argue that Noah never existed and there was never a flood. If that's all Muslims claim then it's perfectly reasonable. What people have trouble with is the worldwide flood, the Ark with every species on board and no other terrestrial life left on Earth (and salt water species probably in trouble too due to dilution of the sea with fresh water) etc.
Originally posted by ahosyneyAll the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me.
All the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me. In other words it may prove that the Bible is not true, or not from GOD, but it doesn't prove that there was no person called Noah, and there was a flood someday,
My problem here is all at e [b]Islamic perspectives section and you will see that all of you proofs doesn't hold.[/b]
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe flood story doesn't prove that GOD exist or that Quran is the word of GOD. On the other hand, disproving the global flood doesn't mean that Quran is not the word of GOD, and that GOD doesn't exist.
All the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me.
Usually this is because most people here believe in the bible. If you don't believe in the bible then they aren't directed to you.
[i]In other words it may prove that the Bib ...[text shortened]... o have been the work of god and not just the rising of tides for example.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou mean that christianity is not one religion, but many?
Of course everyone seems to think that the 'stupid people' are everyone except themselves. Of course you abandon your reasoning ability when it comes to your own beliefs.
There really is no difference between someone who believes that the world was inundated by a global flood (via a miracle) and someone who believes that a person died and rose again thre ...[text shortened]... further think that people like you who wont admit that you are doing so, are being dishonest.
Originally posted by FabianFnasPerhaps it is not so much that Christianity is not one religion, but rather there are many interpretations of it and a massive amount of politicking has happened in the last 1900 or so years. To an extent the far left and far right of Christianity might believe completely different fundamental things; that is, have a different Christology that they operate from. Certainly many denominations of Christianity might not go so far as to say others are wrong but maintain a de facto praxis in claiming their own inerrancy.
You mean that christianity is not one religion, but many?
Many because everyone thinks that the others are wrong?
Originally posted by ahosyneyI don't think this is a Muslim vs Christian difference. It's a difference between rational, scientifically minded monotheists and the wacko fundamentalists. You'd fall into the former category. We're not talking to you.
I just want to be honest. Not all Muslims belive it is a regional event. But all these views are affected by the Jewish view of the story, which we are asked by the prophet, not to belive them and not do deny them. In other words what in the bible is not an authentic source for information. But in the past Muslim scholars used to present the information in ...[text shortened]... about the ark size, or how it was constructed. The Hadith only talk about when it was landed.
Originally posted by ahosyney…I asked him to show the physical evidence but he didn't. …
I asked him to show the [b]physical evidence but he didn't. The only source of the information he presented is his own brain. So tell me what is the differece.
He belive that science support his ideas (and may be it is), but he didn't show that. For me it is a blind faith. Don't you agree ?
EDIT: yes I mean blind faith. If you look at your keyboard you will find the letters I and O are next to each other.[/b]