Can anyone please refute these verses of Quran (or at least their interpretations)?

[WinterHold]

So, Atlas, even religions that appear to contradict each were revealed by Allah? Are you saying Allah is deliberately trying to mislead people? Come on, you're not Ahmadi -you do not believe Krishna and Buddha were prophets sent by Allah, do you? When have these two ever preached Tawhid?

The theory goes, like they became like this later on; they contradict it because "they got twisted". Taken out of context through years and years of constant forgery, see the concept of the "afterlife", I was stunned when I found out that Ancient Egyptians believed in it too, Ancient Chinese...etc.

They might be prophets indeed, who got worshiped, just like Jesus peace be upon him.

[ReptilianPeon]

I'm sure the Hindus are adamant that their texts have been the same since the start - after all they have the Vedic Chants, which mean even if all of the Vedas were destroyed people would still have access to perfectly memorized Vedas.. When you say "constant forgery" is just conjecture. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. Sure, Hindus kiss black stones too, and Christians are always trying to say Muhammad held Pagan beliefs, just as Hindus say Muhammad copied from them.

I just recently found out that there is/was a branch of Ismā'īlī Shīʻa that believes there were only seven Imans (rather than the twelve modern twelvers who are part of Jafari rather than Ismā'īlī), aptly named the Seveners. Don't think your religion is the exception. People are always disagreeing with things and they all have biases. Maybe they thought: Jesus had twelve disciples so why can't we have twelve Imams?

So what if the Quran hasn't changed? The works of Shakespeare haven't changed nor have the musings of Confucius. If people love something they will take good care of it. Yet somehow the Quran is special for not being changed even though loads of literature doesn't change.

There are a growing number of scholars that say Jesus didn't exist. Noah has been debunked already because his story is just so ridiculous and a rehashing of the Epic of Gilgamesh.. That it is interesting. If people can say one prophet didn't exist then why believe the others.

[RozKek]

Welcome. I will quote you one of my earlier posts which adresses this issue. I will just cut out the irrelevant parts


Also I advise you to search for something that you're skeptical about with debunked at the end. E.g "Scientific miracles debunked"

Keep in mind the last paragraph wasn't directed towards you.

Best regards, 

I had an opinion about that argument:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42223-po...pid1242465

I'm actually shocked that there are people accepting your historical lack of of info; RozKek, when you said that "Arabs had a huge empire before Islam".

Anyhow, I personally don't incline towards the science thing in the Quran that much; sure, there are these obvious verses and even more, but the main thing that makes you relate with the Quran is life and the book's logic. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can sense and feel the shortness of life, things like why the universe is so big, why evil exists, then you come to the concept of the merciful God who is at the same time vengeful, his mercy, punishment, might can all be seen in the law of the universe; how things that don't stand in line vanish and go, burned in huge cosmic explosions, but the scene gets interrupted by a dear giving birth..or baby ducks perhaps?

That what makes me believe; mainly. Scientific stuff make it stronger; make me shake too.

I don't trust scholars in general, I also don't their tone in many cases; totally not my taste, not being a sunni or shia, I go with the Quran alone, anyhow, my own way. God blesses at the end of the day.

I didn't notice your response, I will respond in not too long.

Regarding the paragraph bolded by me: Your experience about how cool the universe is isn't evidence for god.

[RozKek]

What is there to refute?

This is standard post hoc rationalisation. Forcing ignorant religious texts to try to fit modern scientific discoveries.

Here is a post on a different forum from a Hindu with a list of the passages in the Hindu religious texts that are equally "impressive" as those in the Quran. I'll bet Zakir Naik wouldn't accept them as proof for the Hindu god, right?

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/s...see.84199/

The link was truly stunning. Stunning.
God might've revealed all these secrets to ancient Hindus, and little by little they twisted their religion to produce the polytheism of today, just like Christianity, and just like Sunna/Shia Islam.

I think it's very weird for an ancient hindu, to waste his time writing thousands of sentences, that actually fit the scientific narrative, all this religions are revealed by the SAME ENTITY, God, Allah, the Father, Krishna...etc the same, and the last religion is the Quran, that was revealed to destroy all the forgery of humans that twisted the old religions, and to teach us how to live.

"God might've..." Prove god's existence first.

[WinterHold]

The link was truly stunning. Stunning.
God might've revealed all these secrets to ancient Hindus, and little by little they twisted their religion to produce the polytheism of today, just like Christianity, and just like Sunna/Shia Islam.

I think it's very weird for an ancient hindu, to waste his time writing thousands of sentences, that actually fit the scientific narrative, all this religions are revealed by the SAME ENTITY, God, Allah, the Father, Krishna...etc the same, and the last religion is the Quran, that was revealed to destroy all the forgery of humans that twisted the old religions, and to teach us how to live.

"God might've..." Prove god's existence first.

Oh sorry for jumping at you; since I too take so much time to respond, I gotta excuse you. Please forgive my arrogance and rash comment.
Please TYT.

I can't prove God, but the problem is about our standards; to me the universe is an enough of an evidence, to you that evidence that I'm putting forward is not enough; so you see it's kinda of... an infinite cycle? 
You know -just like me- what the end of this discussion is: I'm taking a leap of faith that you don't wanna take, so the conclusion of this debate is that we agree to disagree kinda thing..

Don't get sidtracked..the main topic is about the points mentioned above, not the classic useless discussion of "prove God" that everybody knows how it's going to end, it brings such dejavus , so please take you time answering my defense for Prophet Mohammed; especially how he came to to decipher ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs..

[robvalue]

What would a universe look like that wasn't evidence for God?

[WinterHold]

What would a universe look like that wasn't evidence for God?

A mess, I would say, not an organised chaos, giving the illusion of emptiness and unlawful movement, but in reality, everything is governed by an embedded law, that guaranteed the existence of life, at least for a fraction of the lifespan of the universe.

[robvalue]

What makes you think it would be like that?

Isn't it premature to make a decision, since we have exactly one reality to study and nothing to compare it to?

I'd call this reality a right mess anyhow. Just a load of stuff shooting around the place for no apparent reason. Sure, there appear to be rules. But we have no idea what caused those rules, if anything. Or if the rules are truly uniform.

[RozKek]

"God might've..." Prove god's existence first.

Oh sorry for jumping at you; since I too take so much time to respond, I gotta excuse you. Please forgive my arrogance and rash comment.
Please TYT.

1) I can't prove God, but the problem is about our standards; to me the universe is an enough of an evidence, to you that evidence that I'm putting forward is not enough; so you see it's kinda of... an infinite cycle? 
You know -just like me- what the end of this discussion is: I'm taking a leap of faith that you don't wanna take, so the conclusion of this debate is that we agree to disagree kinda thing..

2) Don't get sidtracked..the main topic is about the points mentioned above, not the classic useless discussion of "prove God" that everybody knows how it's going to end, it brings such dejavus , so please take you time answering my defense for Prophet Mohammed; especially how he came to to decipher ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs..

<numbers added by RozKek>

1) Evidence isn't subjective, like I've said, your cool experience about how the universe is not evidence. And you're admitting that you're taking an irrational leap of faith. You cannot justify your belief in god with evidence other than "the universe" which really isn't evidence.

2) I did answer your defense for Prophet Mohammed (check your alerts); especially how he came to "decipher ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs"

[robvalue]

People often make a big deal out of life.

What's so special about it? It replicates and can move around a bit more. So what? What's stopping this kind of stupid thing happening on its own?

Clearly nothing is stopping it, since it happened. It's rationalization after the fact to insist it couldn't have happened without some greater influence.

We're pattern spotters. It's how we evolved. So I do understand how people see design everywhere, even though there is no evidence of actual design. Also we want to feel special.