Islam or Atheism

[Mystic]

Well I stopped believing it was the Divine word of God when I realized the some of the errors I found were not solvable (after much discussion with Muslims).

But you're still a Muslim?

No I'm not.

[Joel]

But you're still a Muslim?

No I'm not.

Oh, I must've read you wrong! I apologise.

[Mystic]

No I'm not.

Oh, I must've read you wrong! I apologise.

Not a problem.

[pocaracas]

After some days, I finally went through the video.
What a sham of a debate.
That Hamza guy mixes his infinites and when Krauss tries to explain what he's done, it goes terribly wrong... -.-'
Everything else of this Hamza's argument comes from that, so screw it... wrong premisses, no matter how good the reasoning is, lead to wrong results.
Krauss did try to show that, but got mixed up in the small talk and, with all the emotional baggage that came before the debate, I can't blame him...

The Universe is finite, it has finite energy.
Space-time, on other hand... Here we have to speculate. We can only observe space-time in the Universe.... but we can speculate, extrapolate, that space-time exists beyond the Universe. At first, Krauss wanted to go with the most common view that space-time originated with the BigBang, but he then tried to make an example of things where space-time goes well beyond the Universe, so I'm not making things up, here.
The mathematics of all the physical theories yield either zeros or infinities at the bigbang for space and time, that's one of the reasons why the bigbang is called a singularity. We cannot know anything beyond the bigbang. We can speculate.
Theists speculate a god.
Atheists speculate a myriad of other things.
One of those things is the infinite space-time. Infinite emptiness, stock full of quantum fluctuations that yield no particles, and no energy.... except, sometimes... just sometimes (and, since space-time is infinite, these sometimes may be infinite times)... the fluctuations are so large that they yield energy, mass, and a big bang.... with the corresponding negative energy part, so that overall you get zero total energy. At that location of space-time, this bigbang morphs space-time itself, shrinks a lot of it to a zero dimensional space and immediately expands... The mechanism behind it, is unknown... as I said, this is speculation.
This speculation has the advantage of not requiring a super entity which will beg the question of "how did that entity come into being?", much like we could ask "how did these quantum fluctuations come into being?"... Always there.... what appears more likely? A super complex god that has always been there? Or some random fluctuations that are everywhere and everywhen?

[archangle]

no doggma?

"there is no god, gods, or any higher powers".

ruff ruff. ma.

[Joel]

no doggma?

"there is no god, gods, or any higher powers".

ruff ruff. ma.

I'm not sure who/what this is aimed at, but I assume it's atheism.
There is no dogma to atheism because it is simply: "I don't believe your claim about God."

[pocaracas]

no doggma?

"there is no god, gods, or any higher powers".

ruff ruff. ma.

"There doesn't seem to be any god(s), and if there are, they are hiding too well as to render our world practically void of such entities."

How's that?

[radorth]

Yeah never read anything immoral in the Qur'an.

Yeah, too bad about the hadith.

Since you folks are always comparing Jesus and Muhammed, shouldn't you show where Jesus was marrying 12 year old's?

Why switch to Lot now?

[Polaris]

It really depends on the atheist...most atheists are normal, but you have quite a few vocal atheists who don't adhere to genuine academic discord and who rarely live by reason..compared to those atheists, Islam makes more sense.

[Muslim Scholar]

Krauss doesnt represent atheism.

Atheism isnt a monolithic block marching under one banner and having the same arguments in debate.

Every atheist is an individual who reached athism through his or her own conclusions, hence represents him or herself.

Atheism has no dogma.

But they have the same stupid attitude

Rejecting the obvious
even rejecting proofs of God existence

---

It's refreshing to hear somebody acknowledge that there are errors. I respect that.

It leads me to a question: how do you take it as the divine word of God, when it is erroneous in places?

It cannot, if the Quran has a single (Proven) Error then it is not from God

The problem is the understanding of people which can be erroneous, not to forget translation, interpretation, media which can be big sources of errors as well.