Thursday, August 4, 2011

Note from a Muslim reader

I received this email from a Muslim reader.  His email is in blue, my comments are in black.  I'm too busy traveling to write a long reply, so I thought the readers would like to take this one in the comments section. And notice how well this relates to my last post about hating Islam, not Muslims.

"i wrote to you about a year ago trying to debunk your atheist beliefs but the truth be told, you handed me my balls in a bag.
i tried talking about the bombardier beetle (not sure if that's the correct spelling) but to my later on discovery after research is that there was no mystery there. Again, after some research into my religion (Islam), i felt the urge to say something because writing you makes me wanna research more, find the truth if you will.

i believe that you jumped into atheism right after Christianity. Christianity on its own made you decide religion is not for you. the problem here is that you immediately attacked the rest of the religions whether Abrahamic or not due to exposure to false Christianity and being unable to SEE your creator."

Not being able to see the supposed creator is not the only problem.  There are many more.  But it was actually the study of more of the world's major religions, not ignorance of them, that convinced me that they were all wrong.  My final deconversion occurred after taking a course in world religions in high school.  They all sounded as ridiculous as the last, and none were able to provide any evidence.  Read more here.

"so ill just state a few scientific areas which my religion touches on.

1. the Qur'an talks about the big bang theory but doesn't call it a big bang but a separation
2. the Qur'an also stated that the universe is expanding when everyone thought it was static.
3. the Qur'an was first to describe the earth as oval shaped rather than circular
4. the Qur'an spoke in great detail about the formation of an embryo waaaaayyyyy before science did"

I haven't yet encountered a religion that doesn't claim its holy literature, if interpreted in just the right way, might contain some knowledge (amid all of its vagueness) that could only have been given divinely.  They also all ignore the things that the literature did not know.  Yours is no different.  This is not evidence of gods.

"just asking you you to read a text before ignoring or disproving it. you can search for scientist who turned to Islam after finding the answer for the questions they couldn't solve, in the Qur'an (im not trying to convert anyone or anything, just reference)."

And for every one of those scientists you name for me I can give you a list of a hundred scientists who have NOT converted to Islam.  But you're ignoring them, as I mentioned above.  You also need to look at the decline of science in the Muslim world after Islam became dominant.  There are videos on YouTube documenting the lack of scientific papers and Nobel Prizes from Muslim scientists.  The Arabs used to be some of the best in the world.  Then Islam happened.

"Ramadan kareem ya m3alim

P.s. A creator that gives you everything and on top of that reveals him/her self is shit"

My parents gave me life and they revealed themselves.  You only say this because it doesn't reveal.  But if it did, you wouldn't say it was shit.  Just like faith wouldn't be considered a virtue if it wasn't needed due to a lack of evidence.  Exactly how is showing someone you exist after giving them something a shitty thing to do?


David McNerney said...

the Qur'an spoke in great detail about the formation of an embryo waaaaayyyyy before science did

I think the best example of how unrealistic this is, is the recently doorstep debate between PZ Myers and Muslim creationist.

Firstly, the point was made that Aristotle (who I claim for science) had described embryology long before anyone had even thought of the Qur'an.

Then the creationist made some point on how the Qur'an describes an exact sequence of events in a specific order. To which Myers responds that the events happen in parallel and not in sequence.

And the creationist retorts that this is really amazing because that's the exact meaning of the word that just seconds before meant sequential.

Jim said...

I, personally, disregard any text that makes invisible deities out to be real as a rule.

Just because Christianity is a joke doesn't mean the next-best religion should be taken seriously.

"This Christianity is bullshit. I hate made-up gods! What's that? Islam has the exact same thing, only slightly different? Well, I guess I'll believe in their bullshit because I would rather wean myself off of religion. That makes more sense."

Also, I don't know how you think "the Qur'an was first to describe the earth as oval shaped rather than circular" is a great argument. The Earth is most definitely a sphere. Sure, it bulges slightly at the equator due to its spinning, but one could hardly define it as an oval. Especially since the bulge is slight and unnoticeable to the naked eye.

Also, I would like to ammend the 'p.s' to work out a bit more logically.

A religion that gives you a creator that doesn't reveal him/her self is shit.

Magnamune said...

It seems like the language in the Qur'an is fundamentally fluid. Any word which is absolute in meaning, actually means multiple things. The word that apparently means expanding, also means static.

I don't remember the word, and am basing this off of a youtube video by therationalizer, in which he expalins this problem, andthe problem of embryology.

The thing I find most entertaining is the fact that the Qur'an/Bible/anyotherreligioustext is completely absolute, yet has hundreds of different interpretations. Way to go guys, you're trolling the world.

Jim said...

It pisses me off to no end when religious people can't stick to their own arguments. Christians demand that the Bible be taken literally, except Genesis, The Flood, and pretty much every part that makes their lives less comfortable.

The Bible said god created the world in 7 days.

"Oh, that's a figurative 7 days. It could mean 7,000 years."


"Well, Genesis is more of a metaphor describing the process, not really meant to be taken at its word."

Pick a fucking side. Either your holy book is literal or it is a bunch of good advice not meant to be taken literally. You can't pick and choose which parts you want to believe in. Scientists don't walk around suggesting that perhaps gravity doesn't exist because it makes flying into space harder. If you believe in your holy book, believe in it. I might disagree with your philosophy and religion, but at least I can respect the fact that you stand by it wholeheartedly. Nothing pisses me off more than people sitting on the fence.

Anonymous said...

I must have missed the part that is supposed to convince me that there is a "god".