If those "scientific facts" really were in the Qur'an, why did no muslim create a scientific theory based upon those facts? In 1400 years no muslim has ever written or theorized about those facts (before the modern scientific discoveries). No muslim were able to use those facts to their advantages.

This is the difference between a guy who is knowledgable and a guy who manages to look knowledgable: the first one can use knowledge to his advantage, can discover new things, can help solve problems and save lives. The other one makes lame excuses to explain why he failed at doing such things, makes vague statements and after the real knowledgable guy talked he says "That's what I meant ! "

First it was 'Reasonable Creationism'. Now we have 'Scientific Miracles'.

Oxymorons 'R' Us

(May 27, 2010 at 1:01 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote: That will be an interesting thread. I've always wondered what islam thinks if I decide to have 4 husbands who are there to have sex with me whenever I want. I might also, maybe, have a bunch of male 'mistresses'. No one will be harmed and in fact lots of happiness will happen, so I wonder what allah thinks of this, since I am truly enjoying and cherishing this body he gave me.

Yes, Islam is quite the double standard religion. A man can whore around all he wants before he gets married (well, probably even after he gets married! What can his wife do about it?) and that's fine. But if an unmarried woman is the victim of a gang rape she has somehow "dishonored" her family and is deserving of being stoned to death!

I've been at Disney World and seen groups of Muslim families walking around. It's hot and humid but the women are wearing full body coverings! The only thing visible is their eyes and hands. The men, however, are nice and comfortable walking around in T-shirts, shorts and sandals. I want to ask these women why they tolerate being treated like chattel. But I'm sure they've been so brainwashed by their culture that they think they SHOULD have to wear these ridiculous coverings when out in public.

Religion.... stifling freedom since 10,000 BCE!

(May 27, 2010 at 4:24 pm)Thor Wrote: Yes, Islam is quite the double standard religion. A man can whore around all he wants before he gets married (well, probably even after he gets married! What can his wife do about it?) and that's fine. But if an unmarried woman is the victim of a gang rape she has somehow "dishonored" her family and is deserving of being stoned to death!

Exactly. It will be interesting to see how this is defended, that is if Mo3 agrees that that is how things should be. No one should be punished for nonharmfully enjoying sex.

Quote:I've been at Disney World and seen groups of Muslim families walking around. It's hot and humid but the women are wearing full body coverings! The only thing visible is their eyes and hands. The men, however, are nice and comfortable walking around in T-shirts, shorts and sandals. I want to ask these women why they tolerate being treated like chattel. But I'm sure they've been so brainwashed by their culture that they think they SHOULD have to wear these ridiculous coverings when out in public.

I'm always sad when I see that. It's encouraging though, that often there is what seems to be more of them embracing more freedom than they are allowed in some countries. They are seeing the modern world's freedom and liking it, I think. Many seem curious and happy about what free women are doing in the world these days, and they are bringing the message to the ones still living in the theocratic countries.

Quote:Religion.... stifling freedom since 10,000 BCE!

Not for much longer though. The info is out there, can't be deleted, and people are starting to THINK.

Quote:"Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?" (Quran chapter 41:53)

did muhammed(pbuh)know that there will b scientific facts that will prove wat he was saying??????

There is no more evidence that your boy mohammad (fhathhrio) existed than there is that jesus existed. The earliest account does not mention him by name...claiming only that a 'prophet' had arisen among the Saracens.
Frankly, I dismiss the demented ramblings of xtians, jews, and muslims. You believe because some s-o-b told you a story.

It's all a crock.

Quote:There is no more evidence that your boy mohammad (fhathhrio) existed than there is that jesus existed. The earliest account does not mention him by name...claiming only that a 'prophet' had arisen among the Saracens.

ok plz lets respect each other i didnt insult u or start saying names on what u believe if u want u can call him the messenger of islam

also dont claim something without an evidence put from where u get this claim or why u think that so i can answer u

(May 27, 2010 at 9:28 am)Thor Wrote: If your religion is so wonderful, why are women forced to wear sacks over their heads?

To be fair I don't believe sack-headed women can rightly label the entire religion wonderful or not.

I'm an atheist and have no problem with those who prefer to keep their women in sacks.

(May 27, 2010 at 9:28 am)Thor Wrote: If your religion is so wonderful, why are women forced to wear sacks over their heads?

In 'Innocents Abroad', Mark Twain wrote that it's "to hide inexcusable ugliness."

(May 27, 2010 at 10:36 pm)mo3taz3nbar Wrote:

Quote:There is no more evidence that your boy mohammad (fhathhrio) existed than there is that jesus existed. The earliest account does not mention him by name...claiming only that a 'prophet' had arisen among the Saracens.

ok plz lets respect each other i didnt insult u or start saying names on what u believe if u want u can call him the messenger of islam

also dont claim something without an evidence put from where u get this claim or why u think that so i can answer u

Kindly find one non-islamic source from the early 6th century which mentions your boy. Don't get all-uppity because I have issued the same challenge to xtians for 1st century greco-Roman...or even jewish sources, and also challenged jews to present pre-Hellenistic sources for their silly OT. None of them have succeeded, either.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. All religion is a crock. All you can do is cite your own books as "evidence" and all that is evidence of is that people make up silly stuff.