You are just proving my point that you are ignorant.
Keep your ears plugged keep yelling bullshit and answer to nothing.
Sharia punishments are the best to deter all sorts of crimes.
- Thread starter saqibmkhan
- Start date
You are just proving my point that you are ignorant.
Keep your ears plugged keep yelling bullshit and answer to nothing.
Citizen X
President (40k+ posts)
You are just proving my point that you are ignorant.
Keep your ears plugged keep yelling bullshit and answer to nothing.
Birmingham manuscript: Before 647
Uthaman's Quran: 650s
Sanaa Manuscript: After 670s
The Sanaa manuscript does not match with modern quran. Neither upper layer or lower layer.
No complete Quran has been found prior to 8th century. In 7th century we only find pieces of well preserved manuscripts here and there but not a complete Quran.
1,400 years ago is not a very long time for books to just disappear or disintegrate like that, its likely that a full Quran did not exist prior to 8th century but there were pieces here and there, which were later complied in 8th & 9th century and completed with more verses added on.
So you will find some verses matching with modern Quran word for word and you will find most verses missing which were later added on.
So the evidence we found on ground contradicts with the Standard narrative that Quran was standardized by Uthman in Mid 7th century.
1. No complete Quran is found in 7th century
2. Even the manuscripts found after supposed standardization (Sanaa manuscript) have differences from todays Quran.
3. Manuscripts that we have found in 7th and 8th century show that Quran was evolving over time even after Uthman's supposed standardization. Words were being added on and removed. Both layers of Sanaa manuscripts differ from modern quran, and differ from each other which shows they were evolving. Manuscripts found after Sanaa show a gradual process of evolution of Quran. Each one we find is an evolution of the previous one we find.
These are established facts that these monkeys cannot deny. They can just plug their ears and pretend they cant hear it.
Last edited:
And is that supposed to be insult?
Its a discussion forum where people discuss things you inbred ???
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
Brother the dates, that you are providing, was the method carbon dating estimation used to estimate these dates?
Or is there a different way of measuring the hypothesis you are posing?
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
A couple of questions to Harris. Obviously he is not a scientist, so we will give him the benefit of the doubt. :)
1. What is the difference between established scientific fact and non - scientific fact?
2. Can established scientifics facts be challenged and can they be found to be contrary through new scientific research?
3. Is a scientific fact absolute in reality or only in as far as we(humans) can measure it?
4. Are there any assumptions and contraints considered when testing out theories and hypothesis?
5. Is the general principle of statistical confidence and margin of positive and negative error an indicator of absolute or near scientific absoluteness?
6. How accurate and precise are scientific measurements? What accuracy and precision should be acceptable by somebody who can comprehend the conceptions and exceptions?
7. Would other intelligent life in the universe consider the same numerical basics, and arrive at the same conclusions? Basically, would they have the same scientific approach and method?
On a side note, what has science got to do with atheism?
Isn't the atheistic thought predicated on the notion of disbelief and denial of any/all theistic concepts, which is also a non-scientific philopsoohical approach of the 1700s and 1800s?
1. What is the difference between established scientific fact and non - scientific fact?
2. Can established scientifics facts be challenged and can they be found to be contrary through new scientific research?
3. Is a scientific fact absolute in reality or only in as far as we(humans) can measure it?
4. Are there any assumptions and contraints considered when testing out theories and hypothesis?
5. Is the general principle of statistical confidence and margin of positive and negative error an indicator of absolute or near scientific absoluteness?
6. How accurate and precise are scientific measurements? What accuracy and precision should be acceptable by somebody who can comprehend the conceptions and exceptions?
7. Would other intelligent life in the universe consider the same numerical basics, and arrive at the same conclusions? Basically, would they have the same scientific approach and method?
On a side note, what has science got to do with atheism?
Isn't the atheistic thought predicated on the notion of disbelief and denial of any/all theistic concepts, which is also a non-scientific philopsoohical approach of the 1700s and 1800s?
Last edited:
Citizen X
President (40k+ posts)
Bro forget about this idiot. I presented to him a detailed study of both the Sanaa Manuscript and Birmingham Quran ( check my post #259 on page 13 )and it states its matches 100% with the current day, Quran it also has the section as well as my explanation and something even the most staunch orientalists does not argue about the how the diacritical marks were introduced in the Arabic language and how that kind of Arabic is even still taught today. Also his objection about why no complete copies Quran and the stupid thing he says 1400 years is not a very long time for a book. I mean come on the level of stupidity. Simple counter argument was how many complete books in Arabic can you find from that era?
And to top it all off the corker that just had me fall off my chair LMAO. Just because you present facts doesn't mean I have to believe you! This is like I believe the sun rises in the west but one day you wake me up before dawn and have me witness the sun rising from the east. But I still say hey just because you showed me the sun rises from the east doesn't mean I have to believe you!
I mean FFS! Come on man!!! And in 288 posts and 15 pages of him constantly bangin on about I have so much evidence that it will blow Islam out of the water and you people will be groveling at my feet to become atheists and after repeated asking to be shown said evidence whats the best he comes up with, a worthless video by that schmuck Dawkins! ?
And then he cries like a little baby why he's not being taken seriously!
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
I would have to agree here with you that he has a habit of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its a bad Pakistani trait that does not go away even if you become an atheist to move to Australia . ??
I just want to see whether he has the basic level of scientific knowledge necessary to research using scientific research methodology. Specificity is very important.
He gets offended and personal too quickly, calling people names and shit. Not a mark of a class A debater, or for that matter an intellectually honest person.
Infact in all his posts I read here and a few videos I saw last year (what a waste of my time), reek of of pseudo-intellectualism. Love the way he pronounces Pseudo though. ?
He ran away from my discussion and was trying to bait you. He runs away whenever he is cornered, and was calling you a runner. Talk about the irony that he ran away from Islam for Australian visa and PR, and has the gall to call others runners.
His modus operandi:
Find a run of the mill (rattu tota) mulla or somebody who has bare minimum knowledge of Islam.
Make a claim. (The bait)
Quote out of context. (His true expertise)
Don't let the other person speak.
Start laughing when the other person counters.
All counter facts are wrong or not scientific enough. The Harris Standard i call it. (Musalmano ke babon ki tarah, iska bhi wakhra ek jahan hai). ???
Get offended and personal.
Try and make the other person emotional or angry.
Close the call with Science Hafiz. ?? How original.
He needs to make up his mind whether he believes in scientism or athiesm. Too very separate things. When I look at him, I see a confused depressed guy who is trying too hard to convince himself that whatever he is doing is right.
Maze ki baat hai bhai dawat ka kaam kar rahe hain. ??? Yeh bhi tableeghio se churaya hua hai. Bhai ka apna kuch nahin hai. Research dusro ki, kaam dusro ka, apna bus youtube channel hai jispe bethe sun hindu rahe hote hain.
He can't answer the basic question that describes the philosophical concept of belief. Baki iske paas hai kuch nahin debate karne ke liye.
Jisko yeh logic kehta hai uski misaal: mera ghar apke ghar ke saamne, apka ghar mere ghar ke saamne, humara ghar aamne saamne.
Banda pooche ghar hai kahan. Master of running around in circles as you rightly pointed out.
But lets see what his answers are to my questions regarding science. We'll get to know how intellectual and honest he is, that is if he responds, and in a day or two.
In short: "Inse na ho paega." ??
I think you are confused about both what Science means and what Atheism means and I will clarify both for you.
Science just means knowledge. Human beings acquire, categorize and evaluate facts by studying the world around them.
The scientific method is a very precise and recent method in which we observe things, make hypothesis based on the facts we find on the ground and then we test these hypothesis with experiments and they can be independently be verified and yield the same results regardless of who tests it.
Its extremely rare that a theory be completely thrown out, but the beauty of science is that as more facts and information becomes available we can update the theory and keep improving it and making it more accurate.
So basically it is the best method we have for reaching the truth. If you make planes based on scientific method they fly, if you make rockets they take you to the moon, if you make medicine it cures people.
But if you follow faith, it leads some people to Hinduism, some people to Islam and some people to Nazism. Faith is the worst method we have for reaching the truth.
Atheism just means not believing in any religious dogma because there is no evidence to support it.
You can tell me that you are superman and i reply that I dont believe you until you show me evidence. Thats not an unscientific position, its actually a more rational position. No one has proven existance of God so far so its irrational to believe in it.
This concept is hard to grasp for religious people because religious people come to a conclusion first: That God exists and it is specifically the God of their religion which is the religion they are born in, and then they try to twist information to argue in favor of their specific God. While never proving God actually exists.
Logical people on the other hand start with the evidence first and sees where the evidence leads to before leading to a conclusion and this conclusion has to be supported by measruable data that anyone can verify independently and everyone arrives at same conclusion.
If we do not have enough information to reach a conclusion, we do not just make up a conclusion #goddidit we have the honesty and humility to say we dont know yet and when we have enough evidence we will reach the conclusion but we are not making a judgement if we do not have enough information.
But when superstitious people do not have enough information to mae a conclusion, they make up superstitious answers like earthquakes caused by turtle balancing earth on its back, lighting caused by Gods fighting, shooting stars caused by Allah firing missiles at devils (Quran65:5), and universe created by a bearded guy in the sky in 6 days while his throne floats on water (Quran11:17). All of these are arguments from ignorance. These things do not point to an all knowing entity but rather it points to the ignorance of the people who wrote these books trying to explain concepts that they did not understand.
Hope that clears it for you.
Science just means knowledge. Human beings acquire, categorize and evaluate facts by studying the world around them.
The scientific method is a very precise and recent method in which we observe things, make hypothesis based on the facts we find on the ground and then we test these hypothesis with experiments and they can be independently be verified and yield the same results regardless of who tests it.
Its extremely rare that a theory be completely thrown out, but the beauty of science is that as more facts and information becomes available we can update the theory and keep improving it and making it more accurate.
So basically it is the best method we have for reaching the truth. If you make planes based on scientific method they fly, if you make rockets they take you to the moon, if you make medicine it cures people.
But if you follow faith, it leads some people to Hinduism, some people to Islam and some people to Nazism. Faith is the worst method we have for reaching the truth.
Atheism just means not believing in any religious dogma because there is no evidence to support it.
You can tell me that you are superman and i reply that I dont believe you until you show me evidence. Thats not an unscientific position, its actually a more rational position. No one has proven existance of God so far so its irrational to believe in it.
This concept is hard to grasp for religious people because religious people come to a conclusion first: That God exists and it is specifically the God of their religion which is the religion they are born in, and then they try to twist information to argue in favor of their specific God. While never proving God actually exists.
Logical people on the other hand start with the evidence first and sees where the evidence leads to before leading to a conclusion and this conclusion has to be supported by measruable data that anyone can verify independently and everyone arrives at same conclusion.
If we do not have enough information to reach a conclusion, we do not just make up a conclusion #goddidit we have the honesty and humility to say we dont know yet and when we have enough evidence we will reach the conclusion but we are not making a judgement if we do not have enough information.
But when superstitious people do not have enough information to mae a conclusion, they make up superstitious answers like earthquakes caused by turtle balancing earth on its back, lighting caused by Gods fighting, shooting stars caused by Allah firing missiles at devils (Quran65:5), and universe created by a bearded guy in the sky in 6 days while his throne floats on water (Quran11:17). All of these are arguments from ignorance. These things do not point to an all knowing entity but rather it points to the ignorance of the people who wrote these books trying to explain concepts that they did not understand.
Hope that clears it for you.
Last edited:
100% match of a Quran to modern day except that 70% of it is missing LOL
Out of the 26 readable pages in Sanaa Quran there are 17 differences compared to modern Quran according to Islamic apologist Asma Hilali.
There are also no diacritical marks. Allah apparently was outsmarted by Arabs later on who came up with the idea that Diacritical marks make the Quran better.
Every time you ask me a question you shoot yourself in your own foot and every time I ask you a question you run away. Aik Mulhid ne tumhare neendei haraam kardi hahaha
These dates are the same as quoted by Citizen X and they are more or less agreed to by everyone.
Remember the people who used to say not even zair zabar is different. Zair Zabar is totally missing from every page of Quran found in 7th century. And this idiot here is claiming its 100% the same. This is what religion does to people, it robs them of their reasoning faculties.
Today there are more 30 versions of Qurans that can be found, with different words in them and entire lines missing or added on. Or the context of the lines changed. There are several 2+ hour break downs on these different versions of Quran by Abdullah Gondal on youtube.
But the problem with religious people is that they keep modifying their position and their religion.
First they said not even zair zabar is different, then they say the words are not different, when we show them these different words then they say its just different pronounciations. They will say anything and modify their religion and change goal posts than to admit their fallacy.
Last edited:
Who decided to put the diacritical marks? Uthman died in the previous century, there are more diacritical marks in the Quran than there are words in the Quran and its impossible to add all those marks in the exact same place on each and every word in every Quran in 2-3 continents unless the Quran was not standardized by Uthman but much later.
All evidence points to the fact that Uthman's standardization was a myth and there is no completed standardized Quran in 7th century. All the pieces of paper we have found are different from each other. They are well preserved but incomplete. Why we find them in 8th century but not in 7th century? What was there flood in Arabia in 7th century that washed away all the completed Qurans? In a scale of 1400 years, how does 100 years make that big of a difference that all Qurans disappeared in only those 100 years and not the other 1300 years?
And why do you trust these Abbasid liars and their Uthman myth? Didnt you say you only believe in Quran and not Hadiths?
I think its time for you to plug your ears again and start yelling bullshit because you do not have the stomach to face the facts.
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
You did not answer my questions on science that I asked in my response to you. This was in my previous post.
Science means knowledge. ???
And knowledge is science. And the world goes round.
Oh bhai Oh bhai you made me laugh out loud and made my day.
"Hypothesis based on facts." ???
Bhai thodi si research methodology parhlen.
"Can be independently verified."???
Bhai kuch khyaal karen. Generalization, deduction and induction ke concepts ko visit karen. Review, peer review, repeatability etc parhen.
Apko na science ati hai na research methods ka pata hai. Aap Allah Allah bhi nahi kar sakte. Ab dawkins dawkins kia karen. ???
Maza agaya. Yaar yeh mein QAU aur Nust apne doston se share karunga. Uff. Epic jawabat hai ???
Puri duscussion mein mera koi claim nahin hai. Saare claim apke hain or non scientific hain according to your Harris standard.
Let me teach you a little with the references you love so much. Also, learn how I am referening in context. :) Specificity goes a long way in an argument.
The word scientia in latin means kmowledge. There is no one single agreed upon definition of science in the scientific world. In the english world, and now the post-modern world (classification of the west):
"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the the form of testable possible explainations and predictions about the universe".
Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.
Reference:
- ... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."— p.vii Heilbron, J.L. (editor-in-chief) (2003). "Preface". The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. vii–X. ISBN 978-0-19-511229-0.
- ^ "science". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Archived from the original on September 1, 2019. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.
- https://www.britannica.com/science/science
Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.
The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. In fact, the scientific method is applied broadly in science, across many different fields. Many empirical sciences, especially the social sciences, use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics, together with outgrowths of these, such as decision theory, game theory, utility theory, and operations research. Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of induction.
Reference: https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
Atheism: it is not rejection of religious dogma
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism. too many sub references to quote. You can buy those books.
Atheism | Definition, History, Beliefs, Types, Examples, & Facts
Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Learn more about atheism in this article.
www.britannica.com
Woh Rang mein kehte hain "Bare ho ke aao".
Last edited:
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
Sawaal chana jawaab gandum. Mein ne pucha un manuscripts ki carbondating ya radio carbon dating hui hai ya results hain apke paas? i am not debating religion with you my friend. Mera sawaal kuch aur tha. Apko kese pata chala ke yehi dates hain. Woh baad ki baat hai ke sahi hain ke ghalat. Did you measure it yourself, validate or verify it ya mullon ki tarah andhi taqleed kar rahe hain.
Yeh bhi mein share karun ga QAU aur Nust apne academia ke circle mein
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
@ Harris Sultan
No offense, lekin abhi tak has raha hun mein. Pet mein dard hogaya hai yaar. Love you man! Science is knowledge. Yeh kamaal hai. Dunia ke saare philosophers, scientists chahe dehriay hon ya na hon, unko apne peeche chor dia hai ???. You really are a modern day Pakistani Einstien.
FYI Zair zabar pesh ko "A'araab" kehte hain arabi lughah mien. "Lughah" language ko kehte hain.
Mere pseudo-intellectual bhai ko na Arabi aati hai, na angrezi aati hai, na science ka asal mein pata hai aur na hi islam ka pata hai. Baki pakistanio jesa haal hai. Agar aap ko lagta hai ke aap mukhtalif hain to yeh bhi aap ki kaj fehmi hai.
Mein ne pehla kaha tha yeh bhai confusium sulphate hai. Upar se depression ka maara hua hai which I feel for. Depression is a serious matter and you should see a counseller or therapist about it. Unse baaki issues bhi discuss kar sakte hain.
No offense, lekin abhi tak has raha hun mein. Pet mein dard hogaya hai yaar. Love you man! Science is knowledge. Yeh kamaal hai. Dunia ke saare philosophers, scientists chahe dehriay hon ya na hon, unko apne peeche chor dia hai ???. You really are a modern day Pakistani Einstien.
FYI Zair zabar pesh ko "A'araab" kehte hain arabi lughah mien. "Lughah" language ko kehte hain.
Mere pseudo-intellectual bhai ko na Arabi aati hai, na angrezi aati hai, na science ka asal mein pata hai aur na hi islam ka pata hai. Baki pakistanio jesa haal hai. Agar aap ko lagta hai ke aap mukhtalif hain to yeh bhi aap ki kaj fehmi hai.
Mein ne pehla kaha tha yeh bhai confusium sulphate hai. Upar se depression ka maara hua hai which I feel for. Depression is a serious matter and you should see a counseller or therapist about it. Unse baaki issues bhi discuss kar sakte hain.
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
Another claim based on your own delusions. Science nevers claims it can or will explain every and all things, and or could explain in terms of absolutes. It has never claimed it will lead you to the truth. Matlab kuch bhi.
Basically science has improved the mechanistic/physical universal truths of this world that are supposed to make the human condition better. All or most innovation is done for survival of the human race.
Access is faster and scale is grander for the universal truths which are as follows:
Travel
Trade
Business
Communication
Medicine
Housing
Clothing
Food production
War
And thats about it for the positive aspects. What took months and years to do now happens much quicker.
How is all this what we call technological progress taking you closer to the truth?
Are we closer to finding out who or what made the universe or how it came into existence? What is the purpose of life? Time itself it still an unexplainable phenomenon and always will be because we can only observe time in and through the scientific lens of this world. We dont really know what happens in the rest of the universe that we observe. Conjecture and theories are as many as one can come up with.
April mein standard model hi urh gaya hai science ka. Ab naya model banayenge jo kuch arse baad phir urh jaega.
It is so pitiful that people believe in something for a time that gets disproved and they die believing the wrong thing. How are they reaching the truth?
You don't have answers my friend.
Yaar kahan se sochte ho. Rationality has nothing to do with science, generally. Logical inference does.
Rational is the state or quality of a human being to contemplate and agree to reason. Rational is bound by the five senses and one's experience. Logical inference is deterministic and conclusive through step based mathematical approaches.
And you can't hold a rational position and then ask for scientific evidence which is logical. On the contrary, a scientific position will require logical or deterministic evidence.
Another case of your intellectual dishonesty.
Plus abhi to types of evidence pe baat nahin hui and the limitations of science that the scientists themselves accept.
Last edited:
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
Very Nice Sir. I was saving something similar for later but you've managed the argument quite well here.It is hilarious when you lot ultimately have to go back to your mai baap peer baba murshid dawkins! lol
? ? ? ? ? You want me to go round in circles about your absolutely baseless outlandish claims with you at 4.00am in the morning. Sorry dude, got better things to do! lol
See when you say stupid and ignorant shit like this, it just cements the position to everyone you have absolutely no fekin' clue what you are on about and not done even the most basic rudimentary research on this subject. Arabic didn't have no diacritical marks because it was Arabic for the Arabs. You can find lessons on this type of Arabic of it on Youtube even today, I think its called meccan or hijazi Arabic, not sure though.
Just like when native urdu speakers write in fast shorthand don't write zer, zabar, pesh etc etc but a native urdu speaker perfectly understands what is written.
Diacritical marks came in much much later when Islam spread and non arab started to accept it, and to make it easier for them and correct their pronunciation diacritical marks were introduced. The Quran or its message didn't change, just the way the script was written slightly changed. No new words or lines were added, no text was omitted. Just the T's were crossed and i's dotted.
You make your own shit up without even the most basic research and pass it off as fact. Even the most staunch critic of Islam doesn't have an issue with this, because this is well known fact on the evolution of the Arabic language. Your worthless objection is like saying one book is totally different form the other because incorrect use of capital letters and no dots on the letter i ?
Another worthless and pointless objection. The correct version would be no Quran has survived completely from that time period simply because the Quran wasn't scribed down as book chapter one chapter two etc etc, nor was it revealed in order it is today. It was complied into one Mushaf by Usman, no one denys this fact. And as I've mentioned arab bedoiun culture till today is a spoken culture. Book making wasn't really a thing back then. Like I asked how many other Arabic books have been found from that era?
Your shitty argument would hold some weight if we had a vast collection of Arabic books from that time and only the Quran was missing in its complete form. Then one could say this was odd. But its the other way round, the only remnants of any book in Arabic are from the Quran and they match up 100% with the Quran of today.
Now let me school you on how its done and blow orientalists like you who have no real argument of their own but just regurgitating nonsense from people like John Wansbrough out of the water.
Ever heard of the Birmingham Quran Manuscript?
These have been dated by your goras and their is no dispute in this to the time of the Prophet Muhammad.
Its text is 100% identical to a contemporary standard text of the Quran Emilio Platti said that "scholars largely refuse today the late dating of the earliest copies of the Qurʾān proposed for example by John Wansbrough". David Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam at the University of Birmingham, states that "the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death."[8] Joseph Lumbard also claims that the dating renders "the vast majority of Western revisionist theories regarding the historical origins of the Quran untenable," and quotes a number of scholars (Harald Motzki, Nicolai Sinai) in support of "a growing body of evidence that the early Islamic sources, as Carl Ernst observes, 'still provide a more compelling framework for understanding the Qurʾan than any alternative yet proposed.'"
Birmingham Quran manuscript - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In a nutshell
Time frame established of manuscripts to be from the Prophets lifetime, giving under 5% margin of error from carbon dating.
"radiocarbon analysis showed that there is a 95.4% chance that the parchment on which the Quran fragments were written can be dated sometime between 568 and 645CE. This means that the animal from which the skin was taken was living sometime between these dates. .........Furthermore, we know that the Prophet lived between 570CE and 632 CE, which makes those discoveries quite interesting, by showing that the Birmingham and Sanaa documents can be considered among the oldest manuscripts in the world."
Different/Changed/Manufactured Quran theory shot to pieces.
"The first results, based on character analysis and word analysis, have shown that the two old folios are very similar to their corresponding part contained in the present Quran (Uthmanic compilation). Furthermore, the comparison between Birmingham folios (corresponding to folios 3-4) and Sanaa folio (referenced by 029006B), which correspond to the end of chapter 19 and the beginning of chapter 20, shows that the two texts present a great similarity too."
You can read this detailed study on it here. Your diacriticis are also discussed here.
THIS is how you present and argument, backed by links and studies. Not just make up shit and ask others to prove it for you. I said blah blah blah. Now prove what I said is wrong! When in reality whatever you blurt out YOU have to prove it. NOT ME!
BUT OF COURSE
None of this matter, because you are not here to have a debate and exchange ideas and maybe accept a different POV or even change your stance on some issues. You are a militant athiest whose only aim is to WIN and just regurgitate nonsense you have picked up from you murshids like Dawkins or Sultan if you're not him that is and that by reading such "earth shaking discoveries" everyone will apostate.
You in a nutshell : Don't bother me with facts my mind is already made up
JazakAllah.
My argument with Harris is on his intellectual dishonesty. Read my latest posts if you get the time.
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
You're the confused one man! I said you need to make up your mind. Either you believe in scientism or atheism. They are two separate isms.
You gave me a story of Science and Atheism. Jisme you called Science knowledge ? ? ? ? .
Even your definition of Atheism is wrong.
Your statement "So basically it is the best method we have for reaching the truth." and the reference I am providing is the same statement below. Your belief is not actually in atheism, its in scientism.
Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"
The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.
In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Mary Midgley, the later Hilary Putnam, and Tzvetan Todorov to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.
More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". This use of the term scientism has two senses:
- The improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
- "The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience". Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism The actual references are
Brother Our Prophet (SAWS) came to teach us our religion, I am teaching you yours. The irony!
Correct your religion man.
Last edited:
Taalib-e-Haq
Voter (50+ posts)
@ Mulhid
Even your handle is grammatically incorrect. A mulhid is a deviant or somebody who deviates according to the usage in the Quran. The word used is Yulhiduna
which is from the root L-H-D, which means to deviate.
So your handle basically means a deviant. is that what you are trying to portray?
Intellectual dishonesty even in naming yourself! Afreen hai aap pe! ? ? ?
The actual arabic term for an atheist is dahriya. But your actual belief is in scientism.
Pakistani Sansdaan or Sansdaan should be your handle. ???
Even your handle is grammatically incorrect. A mulhid is a deviant or somebody who deviates according to the usage in the Quran. The word used is Yulhiduna
which is from the root L-H-D, which means to deviate.
So your handle basically means a deviant. is that what you are trying to portray?
Intellectual dishonesty even in naming yourself! Afreen hai aap pe! ? ? ?
The actual arabic term for an atheist is dahriya. But your actual belief is in scientism.
Pakistani Sansdaan or Sansdaan should be your handle. ???
Last edited:
Citizen X
President (40k+ posts)
What evidence? You should be the last person to be talking about evidence, writing bullshit in big bold fonts does not make your crap evidence. 300 post and 15 pages in you have brought zilch to the table as evidence. Bring forth some evidence and we'll talk.
P.S : Google the word evidence before you even attempt a reply. Because you seem to have difficulty with a lot of simple words.
