Lets get this straight.

Originally posted by stoker
jaywill remember jesus said love your enimies, ."gets right up there noses"

I tried to erase that comment but was too late.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So does that mean that you think that blind faith in a religious book is a more trustworthy source of scientific information than reasoning in a human brain?

No, I mean that blond faith in science is excatly the same as blind faith in anything else.

Originally posted by ahosyney
No, I mean that blond faith in science is excatly the same as blind faith in anything else.

Firstly, I think you mean “blind faith” and not “blond faith” 🙂

Secondly, how can it be “blind faith” when it is based on actual physical evidence? The belief that there is a “god” is not based on any physical evidence nor logic hence I call it blind faith.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Firstly, I think you mean “blind faith” and not “blond faith” 🙂

Secondly, how can it be “blind faith” when it is based on actual physical evidence? The belief that there is a “god” is not based on any physical evidence nor logic hence I call it blind faith.

I asked him to show the physical evidence but he didn't. The only source of the information he presented is his own brain. So tell me what is the differece.

He belive that science support his ideas (and may be it is), but he didn't show that. For me it is a blind faith. Don't you agree ?

EDIT: yes I mean blind faith. If you look at your keyboard you will find the letters I and O are next to each other.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I asked him to show the [b]physical evidence but he didn't. The only source of the information he presented is his own brain. So tell me what is the differece.

He belive that science support his ideas (and may be it is), but he didn't show that. For me it is a blind faith. Don't you agree ?

EDIT: yes I mean blind faith. If you look at your keyboard you will find the letters I and O are next to each other.[/b]

The proof that the flood didn't happen is in the lack thereof.

We know now what evidence floods leave and we have found evidence of various floods.

The problem is, if there was a global flood such as the one described in the bible then there should be that same kind of evidence - there isn't.

The Sumerians had a very similar flood story and I think it is hypothesised that there was a flood of the Tigris and Euphrates that was a very major flood and that might have been the source of the story. Who knows, maybe there was someone who built a boat and brought some animals on it, although it's impossible that they would have been able to bring two of every species or "kind" on.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
The proof that the flood didn't happen is in the lack thereof.

We know now what evidence floods leave and we have found evidence of various floods.

The problem is, if there was a global flood such as the one described in the bible then there should be that same kind of evidence - there isn't.

The Sumerians had a very similar flood story and I ...[text shortened]... it's impossible that they would have been able to bring two of every species or "kind" on.

All the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me. In other words it may prove that the Bible is not true, or not from GOD, but it doesn't prove that there was no person called Noah, and there was a flood someday,

My problem here is all atheists here direct their arguments towards the Bible, and then generalize it to prove that GOD doesn't exist. This generalization is not scientficly correct, although every atheist use science.

EDIT: to make my idea clear go to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah

then look at the Islamic perspectives section and you will see that all of you proofs doesn't hold.

Originally posted by ahosyney
All the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me. In other words it may prove that the Bible is not true, or not from GOD, but it doesn't prove that there was no person called Noah, and there was a flood someday,

My problem here is all at ...[text shortened]... e [b]Islamic perspectives section and you will see that all of you proofs doesn't hold.[/b]

I doubt many people will argue that Noah never existed and there was never a flood. If that's all Muslims claim then it's perfectly reasonable. What people have trouble with is the worldwide flood, the Ark with every species on board and no other terrestrial life left on Earth (and salt water species probably in trouble too due to dilution of the sea with fresh water) etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I doubt many people will argue that Noah never existed and there was never a flood. If that's all Muslims claim then it's perfectly reasonable. What people have trouble with is the worldwide flood, the Ark with every species on board and no other terrestrial life left on Earth (and salt water species probably in trouble too due to dilution of the sea with fresh water) etc.

I just want to be honest. Not all Muslims belive it is a regional event. But all these views are affected by the Jewish view of the story, which we are asked by the prophet, not to belive them and not do deny them. In other words what in the bible is not an authentic source for information. But in the past Muslim scholars used to present the information in the Bible for Muslim readers without much comment on it in most cases. But today it is widly not accepted to use the information in the Bible by Muslims.

Quran clearly state that Noah was sent to a specific people, and the flood was directed to those people. And I didn't find any authentic reference from Hadith that say something else. In other words all the authentic Muslim sources states that the flood was directed to the people of Noah not every one.

Also Quran don't say anything about the ark size, or how it was constructed. The Hadith only talk about when it was landed.

Originally posted by ahosyney
All the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me. In other words it may prove that the Bible is not true, or not from GOD, but it doesn't prove that there was no person called Noah, and there was a flood someday,

My problem here is all at e [b]Islamic perspectives section and you will see that all of you proofs doesn't hold.[/b]

All the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me.

Usually this is because most people here believe in the bible. If you don't believe in the bible then they aren't directed to you.

In other words it may prove that the Bible is not true, or not from GOD, but it doesn't prove that there was no person called Noah, and there was a flood someday,

Right. That's the point. The point in the bible is that god mandated the building of the ark and that it was a worldwide flood. If it was a regular flood with some guy named Noah building a simple boat then it's not holy or special. It's like Moby Dick, except with a lower quality story.

My problem here is all atheists here direct their arguments towards the Bible, and then generalize it to prove that GOD doesn't exist.

I don't. I don't claim to prove that god doesn't exist. I don't believe in god until there is proof that god does exist. It doesn't exist by default.

This generalization is not scientficly correct, although every atheist use science.

Not every atheist uses science. It's not scientifically correct to believe god exists by default and then try and prove definitively that he doesn't exist. Theists have a hypothesis that god exists and we have to see whether those claims are correct or not.

The claims that there was a global flood are demonstrably incorrect.

EDIT: to make my idea clear go to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah

then look at the Islamic perspectives section and you will see that all of you proofs doesn't hold.

Well, I didn't offer any proofs that god doesn't exist, I did say that the lack of evidence proves that the worldwide flood didn't happen. Those are different things.

That reference oddly says nothing in the quranic quotes as it being regional, although it claims that the quran says it is. Even if it was regional and even if there was a regional flood - that just means that it's a story. So what? It certainly doesn't mean that it's the word of god.

The problem with saying that it was just a regional flood is that it seems to take away from the miraculous nature of it. Part of the point of the biblical flood, the way I see it at least, is that it had to have been the work of god and not just the rising of tides for example.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
All the arguments raised aganist the flood are mainly towards the Bible version of the story. As I don't belive in the Bible, all these arguments proves nothing to me.

Usually this is because most people here believe in the bible. If you don't believe in the bible then they aren't directed to you.

[i]In other words it may prove that the Bib ...[text shortened]... o have been the work of god and not just the rising of tides for example.

The flood story doesn't prove that GOD exist or that Quran is the word of GOD. On the other hand, disproving the global flood doesn't mean that Quran is not the word of GOD, and that GOD doesn't exist.

That is what I mean, using this argument to prove that GOD doesn't exist is not valid.

Originally posted by ahosyney

That is what I mean, using this argument to prove that GOD doesn't exist is not valid.

So we agree.

I don't believe in god because there is a lack of evidence that it does exist, not because I have proof that it doesn't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course everyone seems to think that the 'stupid people' are everyone except themselves. Of course you abandon your reasoning ability when it comes to your own beliefs.
There really is no difference between someone who believes that the world was inundated by a global flood (via a miracle) and someone who believes that a person died and rose again thre ...[text shortened]... further think that people like you who wont admit that you are doing so, are being dishonest.

You mean that christianity is not one religion, but many?
Many because everyone thinks that the others are wrong?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You mean that christianity is not one religion, but many?
Many because everyone thinks that the others are wrong?

Perhaps it is not so much that Christianity is not one religion, but rather there are many interpretations of it and a massive amount of politicking has happened in the last 1900 or so years. To an extent the far left and far right of Christianity might believe completely different fundamental things; that is, have a different Christology that they operate from. Certainly many denominations of Christianity might not go so far as to say others are wrong but maintain a de facto praxis in claiming their own inerrancy.

I personally have huge problems with orthodox Christian belief so that is not the side of the spectrum that I fall on.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I just want to be honest. Not all Muslims belive it is a regional event. But all these views are affected by the Jewish view of the story, which we are asked by the prophet, not to belive them and not do deny them. In other words what in the bible is not an authentic source for information. But in the past Muslim scholars used to present the information in ...[text shortened]... about the ark size, or how it was constructed. The Hadith only talk about when it was landed.

I don't think this is a Muslim vs Christian difference. It's a difference between rational, scientifically minded monotheists and the wacko fundamentalists. You'd fall into the former category. We're not talking to you.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I asked him to show the [b]physical evidence but he didn't. The only source of the information he presented is his own brain. So tell me what is the differece.

He belive that science support his ideas (and may be it is), but he didn't show that. For me it is a blind faith. Don't you agree ?

EDIT: yes I mean blind faith. If you look at your keyboard you will find the letters I and O are next to each other.[/b]

…I asked him to show the physical evidence but he didn't. …

You have got that back-to-front: the burden of proof is not on the person that refutes a hypothesis that some event occurred, the burden of proof is on the person that supports a hypothesis that some event occurred. It is you that is claiming that there was a wwflood event so it is you that has to provide physical evidence that there existed such an event to justify your claim. All he has to do to justify his claim is to point out that, according to science, there is no evidence of a wwflood which is exactly what he correctly said. He doesn’t have to show physical evidence that something didn’t happen to justify his claim it didn’t happen. The burden of proof must always rest on the person that claims there was a certain event.

…The only source of the information he presented is his own brain. So tell me what is the difference. …

The difference is that that he would claim the information presented in his brain originated from information from science books and other sources of scientist information and, if that is the case, that information was originally derived from observation of actual physical evidence or some other type of concrete evidence (such as a mathematical proof etc) otherwise it wouldn’t be correct to call it “scientific” evidence.

Because all “truly scientific” knowledge originates either directly or indirectly from actual observable evidence, it is not “blind faith” to belief such scientific knowledge. If some disaster killed most of the human population and I haven’t heard or seen my mother since the disaster then it is “blind faith” for me to believe that she must be still alive. But if I have just been talking to her, then it is not “blind faith” for me to believe that she must be still alive because of my observations of the physical evidence (I.e. I saw her physically talking, standing, existing etc) justify my belief that she is alive. Since all “truly scientific” knowledge comes from observation of evidence, it is not “blind faith” to believe it is valid knowledge.