bornagainathiest Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Hello. For a while this forum was visited by a lady calling herself Eemaan, who is a devout Muslim fundamentalist. Here is her profile page. http://www.ex-christian.net/user/6724-eemaan/ She and I have discussed this website at length... https://sites.google.com/site/islamidawa/home ...and she claims that science can 'prove' the truth of Islam and the Quran. However, this 'proof' is conditional on my acceptance of what she defines as science and her definition of bona fide scientific data. Eemaan has referred me to Islamic websites, to Islamic books and to Youtube vids made by Muslims. These are the scientific 'proofs' she wanted me to accept. Well, she messaged me again recently and here is a full transcript of our dialog. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 26 June 2013 - 08:49 AM Hi, sorry for being missing for a really long time. After a while i did not have much time to came here, and also i kind of lost interest to come on here, probably because i didnt come here for a long time. i had to tell myself that i have to come because i made a challenge, or a promise,and as a Muslim im trying my best to keep it. but its up to u now, if u want to continue it or leave it. and sorry for the long time that i took.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 26 June 2013 - 08:52 AM also may i say, im seeing some messages as deleted...i mean i can still see and read them but its deleted.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 26 June 2013 - 02:42 PM Hi, sorry for being missing for a really long time. After a while i did not have much time to came here, and also i kind of lost interest to come on here, probably because i didnt come here for a long time. i had to tell myself that i have to come because i made a challenge, or a promise,and as a Muslim im trying my best to keep it. but its up to u now, if u want to continue it or leave it. and sorry for the long time that i took.. Hello Eemaan. As far as I'm concerned nothing has changed between us. If you still hold to the notion that science proves the Quran, then please make your case by citing and/or linking to the accredited and peer-reviewed scientific papers that will back up your claims. Nothing less than this is acceptable to me. If your claims don't meet this standard then they are most likely pseudoscience or heresay. Please note that I'm not interested in any books, youtube videos, websites or anything else from you - only the peer-reviewed science papers. True, bona fide science is found only in peer-reviewed papers that are published in trustworthy, reliable and accountable sites. Here are some links to sites who's content I will trust. http://www.sciencedirect.com/ https://en.wikipedia..._search_engines http://www.scientifi...blications.net/ http://www.senseabou...eer-review.html http://rstb.royalsoc...CFWbJtAodUwoALA http://en.wikipedia....ntific_journals If you cannot and/or will not offer me any accredited and peer-reviewed science papers to back up your claims about the Quran, then we have nothing further to say to each other. My position on this is not negotiable - so if you message me with anything that doesn't meet my standards I will not reply and will delete what you send. Should you persist I will put you on 'ignore' or I may even lodge a formal complaint against you with this forum's Moderators. Goodbye. BAA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 26 June 2013 - 10:17 PM lol why would i persist? i have other things to do, and i lost my interest in debates and things like that. im only back because of the challenge or promise, which i dont feel right to ignore. dont worry i wont persist, lets see if i can meet "your standards"... i will go through the websites and see what is there, it might take a few days. then i will be gald to be done, you see i have no interest to debate with people who debate to critisize, that means your heart is closed. you only want to be right. or maybe im wrong.... we'll see.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 27 June 2013 - 07:11 AM lol why would i persist? i have other things to do, and i lost my interest in debates and things like that. im only back because of the challenge or promise, which i dont feel right to ignore. dont worry i wont persist, lets see if i can meet "your standards"... i will go through the websites and see what is there, it might take a few days. then i will be gald to be done, you see i have no interest to debate with people who debate to critisize, that means your heart is closed. you only want to be right. or maybe im wrong.... we'll see.. This link will give you some guidance, Eemaan. http://blogs.agu.org...or-my-students/ Please read thru the article carefully and take note that my position is exactly the same as Professor Callan Bentley's. If something is scientifically valid, then it must follow the accepted path used by scientists worldwide. Specifically, it must appear in a properly accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal or website. If it cannot meet that standard, then I'm not interested. Also, if it cannot meet that standard, then whatever claims being made are not scientific - even if their supporters claim that they are. It is the global scientific community that defines what is or isn't proper science - not those outside of it. Within that community, any scientist who makes a claim is expected to support it with repeatable, reproducable, observable and testable data. They are expected to submit this data in the form of a scientific paper, for peer-review, prior to it being published in an accredited journal or website. If their work fails the process of peer-review, then it is deemed unfit for publication and is not accepted as being scientifically valid. Please also note that the appearance of evidence, data or claims in newspapers, magazines, journals, books, videos or websites outside of those recognized and used by global scientific community are not acceptable to scientists as genuine science. (Nor to me, either.) It is the scientists themselves who define what is science and nobody else. Fyi Eemaan, the above example shows Christian Creationists trying to undermine valid science by promoting their own brand of religiously-inspired pseudo-science. The discipline of science is strictly neutral and agnostic when it comes to any and all religious, theological and supernatural matters. Science cannot become involved with or committed to anything religious or to anyone with a religiously-inspired agenda. So, Professor Bentley's response (and mine) would be the same to any person of any religious persuasion. It doesn't matter if the people making the scientific claims are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Rastafarians, Buddhists, Mormons, Atheists, Wiccans or Satanists. They all have to abide by the same rules and make their claims thru the only proper pathway that is scientifically acceptable - peer-review in an accredited journal or website. I say this to make it clear to you that your religious beliefs are irrelevant to your scientific claims (which must stand or fall on their own scientific merits) and that the rules of how science governs itself apply equally to you, as they do to anyone, anywhere. Thanks, BAA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 30 June 2013 - 09:41 AM The six websites you posted, i went to them but didtn read them, they are too much going on in those websites. And the blog link you posted, well there is more of technology going on there, not science. I dont see any explanations, anything. If you want to say that i couldnt do it, or meet your standards, then thats ok. But one thing is for sure, science can always change, there could have always been a missing link and what is true today may not be true tomorrow. But what comes from the One, who created all this, will remain the same. You went to atheist, and back to religion, then back to atheism. There has to be a point that you need to reach of which you are sure of, and wont turn back. You are relying so much on science, but did you really look into Islam? Maybe you did but with a closed heart. Did you know that there are scientists themselves who converted to Islam? We had a few conversations, one of them being about the mountain peg. Its still unrealistic that when i had given all proves and everything, you still couldnt get it. The Qur'an was absolutely right about it and even when i gave all the evidence, you still seemed to twist the words. Well it was clearly there but you didnt see it. Maybe you were looking at it to critize and not to learn. Well im sorry, im not able to look at the websites properly. But perhaps i could give links too that could show Qur'an is real. Dont say that you dont want youtube videos or other links, when it comes to learning, the material is around the web. Did you know Qur'an talked about the moon reflecting the light of the sun?? Did you know Qur'an talked about the two seas which have different sea water but are yet running in the same sea, but they do not mix with each other? The Qur'an talks about the embryo? So many things? Do yourself a favor, and learn about the only Truth if you are up for it. So many great speakers in Islam where once unbelievers. Think the true religion will be that which is for everyone around the world, and that is Islam for everyone. People all over the world have found the truth. From rappers such as Loon, to once upon a time big atheists. I suggest you see youtube videos of miracles of Qur'an, of poeple converting, of science in the Qur'an, and questions and answers by great scholars, such as Yusuf Estes, AbdurRaheem Green, and so forth. And finally i leave you with this, the Qur'an about the finger tips which everyone has it differently: (1. Nay! I swear by the Day of Resurrection.) (2. And nay! I swear by An-Nafs Al-Lawwamah.) (3. Does man think that We shall not assemble his bones) (4. Yes, We are able to put together in perfect order the tips of his fingers.) (5. Nay! Man desires to break out ahead of himself.) (6. He asks: "When will be this Day of Resurrection'') (7. So, when Bariqa the sight.) (8. And the moon will be eclipsed.) (9. And the sun and moon will be joined together.) (10. On that Day man will say: "Where (is the refuge) to flee'') (11. No! There is no refuge!) (12. Unto your Lord will be the place of rest that Day.) (13. On that Day man will be informed of what he sent forward, and what he left behind.) (14. Nay! Man will be well informed about himself,) (15. Though he may put forth his excuses.) Thanks -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 30 June 2013 - 02:34 PM Goodbye Eemaan. Please don't message me again until you satisfy the conditions I've outlined. BAA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 01 July 2013 - 04:08 AM Good --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent 01 July 2013 - 04:08 AM Anyways, thats why i said, science will change, and if its right its always confirmed with Qur'an, you just have to find it. bye --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . . . So there you have it! Islam and the Quran are scientifically proven ...but only if you first accept what Eemaan says is science. Now, I have a few things to say about all of this, but first I invite your comments and thoughts. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Yes, I remember Eemaan and noticed that she had disappeared. I wonder whether the Koran presents some scientifically accurate stuff because it was compiled in the 8th century CE and originated in the 7th. there was a lot more "science" by then than there was when Genesis et al were produced. E.g. Anaxagoras had already theorized in around 450 BCE that the moon shines with light reflected from the sun: http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7890/who-discovered-first-that-the-moon-does-not-have-its-own-light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Wow. Eemaan didn't want to read your links because "...they are too much going on in those websites," and yet she wants us to take her word for it that there's genuine science in the Qur'an? What. A. Fucking. Hypocrite. It's obvious that a lot of modern-day believers are not comfortable admitting to belief in divine magic -- Not just Muslims, but also Christians, New Age types and others. That, IMO, is why they make these pathetic attempts to shoehorn their religions into a pseudo-scientific context. It's an ego thing, and in sadly all too many cases it's enough to bluff would-be believers who are weak in their knowledge of science. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 13, 2013 Author Share Posted August 13, 2013 You're right on the money, Astreja. On this page... http://kaheel7.com/eng/index.php/unseen-miracles/405-scientific-facts-about-day-of-resurrection ...there's a lovely red and green astronomical image that the Muslim author claims to be bona fide scientific support for a verse in the Quran. "The photo looks like a red flower which is the same as what Allah told us in the Quran 1,400 years ago." Really? And there's me thinking that it's actually a computer-processed, false-color composite image of the Cat's Eye nebula! So it's not really a rosy red color then? Uh... no. And the true color of this nebula? Is this right? http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/64884main_image_feature_211_jwfull.jpg Or this? http://www.astro.umd.edu/~jph/catseye.jpg This? http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/fitsimages/screen/mike_herbaut_8.jpg Or..? http://www.waid-observatory.com/images/ngc/NGC6543-2012-07-30-HLA-715.jpg . . . What's happening here is that the Muslim is... lying ...about the pic on his site. He's carefully selected only a rosy red image so that it matches up with the content of verse 37, Surat Ar-Rahman. And as you say Astreja, those without the requisite knowledge of the science behind the image will get taken in by the lie. This lie is going out in nine languages across the 'Net. The hypocrisy just sickens me! BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaitingInfinity Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 That was eye-opening. I always wanted to hear what a fundamentalist from another religion other than Christianity would say about science proving their religion. It sounded really similar. No real argument, just dancing around what their book says is true, saying we as nonbelievers just didn't truly listen the first time, and saying they don't comprehend the scientific evidence that is presented by the opposing side. Substitute the Bible and Christianity anytime she says the Qur'an and Islam and its uncanny. That was really interesting! Thanks for sharing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeker001 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 You know, I can honestly respect a religious person if they admit that science doesn't actually prove their point, but they believe it is the truth anyway for personal reasons. To say that science proves their point requires them to use science to prove their point or to show where the science shows it, using the standards. To claim scientific reasoning, requires using scientific standards. You can't have one without the other. Otherwise , that is pseudoscience and that is putting words in the scientific community's collective mouths. Unless one can find where the scientific community deems it legitimate, anyone has grounds to call bullshit on that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 There might be a couple of things in the "holy books" that are true, scientifically speaking. So what? These books, that have deluded billions, weren't written by dummies. Still, no cure for cancer spelled out. Go figger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts