How to Make an Atheists Head Explode

[Cleitus]

http://youtu.be/z0DT6uljSbg

[Styrian Mujo]

LOL

[The King, I am]

http://youtu.be/z0DT6uljSbg

my head exploded

Where does god come from?
surely he had a start?

[Cleitus]

my head exploded

Where does god come from?
surely he had a start?

No he didnt had a Start, he did make the laws of our Universe Time Matter etc...

[Cleitus]

http://youtu.be/uCuiBOnNXjw

[The King, I am]

No he didnt had a Start, he did make the laws of our Universe Time Matter etc...

When you say he didn't have a start that contradicts alot of stuff

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

No he didnt had a Start, he did make the laws of our Universe Time Matter etc...

So God came from nothingness, is what you're saying.

[Proctor]

lmfao

[Cleitus]

So God came from nothingness, is what you're saying.
No he was there since ever he is not Material, he made our Universe and the Laws of our Universe.

[Cleitus]

He is Time and Roomless.

[Cleitus]

He is the Transcendent one.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

No he was there since ever he is not Material, he made our Universe and the Laws of our Universe.

So like I said, you believe he came from nothingness.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

He is the Transcendent one.

Why one and not a group? If there is one, there could be more.

[Cleitus]

So like I said, you believe he came from nothingness.

You think only material but he is more, he Builded the Laws of our Universe you DONT Understand that its thousand times more Complex, he Builded the Matter the Time everything.

[Cleitus]

Why one and not a group? If there is one, there could be more.
How many Chickens do you need for one Egg ? 10?
and again he is not Material you are to close minded my Friend.

[dude]

I am posting to acknowledge I actually watch the video. However, it is not worth to say anything else about this non-sense.

[Cleitus]

I am posting to acknowledge I actually watch the video. However, it is not worth to say anything else about this non-sense.

Your live is nonsense you dumb Donkey.

[dude]

Your live is nonsense you dumb Donkey.

Satan loves you!!

[Cleitus]

Consensus gentium

[Cleitus]

Satan loves you!!

Hmm who knows

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You think only material but he is more, he Builded the Laws of our Universe you DONT Understand that its thousand times more Complex, he Builded the Matter the Time everything.

Um, I supposedly think only in material but yet you give God a gender.

You don't understand that every word that comes out my mouth is a thousand times complex... so complex that I have no need to explain anything I say.


How many Chickens do you need for one Egg ? 10?

You do need a rooster.


and again he is not Material you are to close minded my Friend.

Maybe God has a wife, a mistress, and some pals who created their own worlds.

[dude]

Hmm who knows

He does. Because Jesus said to forgive the lost souls. You instead get angry, which means your spirit is filled with Satan's wishes and make you forget about Jesus and follow his teachings. If I were you I would spend more time reading the bible this week to make up for your sins.

[Cleitus]

Psalms 53:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

[Cleitus]

He does. Because Jesus said to forgive the lost souls. You instead get angry, which means your spirit is filled with Satan's wishes and make you forget about Jesus and follow his teachings. If I were you I would spend more time reading the bible this week to make up for your sins.

Jeshua whipped the Pharisäens out of the Synagouge, is that Pacifism ? Jeshua was not a Pacifist.

[Cleitus]

Jeshua was a Israelite Nationalist.

[Cleitus]

Matthew 10:34 - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

[dude]

Jeshua whipped the Pharisäens out of the Synagouge, is that Pacifism ? Jeshua was not a Pacifist.

But you're still sinning, sinner. Go pray. I'll go do something fun.

[Cleitus]

But you're still sinning, sinner. Go pray. I'll go do something fun.

Sometimes i do sins im not Perfect. Thats why i Pray every Day.

[Cleitus]

But you Sin and dont feel bad for doing it, dirty Kaffir.

[dude]

I love this thread!!!
Thanks for giving me a laugh. The beauty of all is that you posted this to angry the Atheist and you actually did the opposite.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUfAZp6rni2ezTIvRaIHjkCMOAxR00p UFSDsggD3eWn3JF52PfNQ

[Methusalem]

Very good video. I enjoyed it.

[Wolf_Blood]

Religion owes a lot to uneducated people.

[Sacrificed Ram]

The question isn't if god exists or not exists, but what you consider god.

Some consider EVERTHING is god (OMNIPRESENCE), others consider NOTHING is god.

There are even who considers both EVERTHING and NOTHING is god.

god is much more a relative concept than an absolute object.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5tRWl4b_hI

[Gustave H]

No he was there since ever he is not Material, he made our Universe and the Laws of our Universe.

Makes sense to me. :rolleyes: :thumbs up

[wvwvw]

"I remember a near-death experiencer say that their experience of being one with God was like suddenly knowing absolutely everything - like suddenly becoming aware of every grain of sand in the universe and knowing why it was put there." (Kevin Williams)

"Many near-death experiencers have tried to describe God and it is clear that words are useless when trying to completely convey what God is. In fact, the very term God is practically a useless term, if not the most useless term because it has been abused by so many for so long.

"Imagine all of reality, everything that there is, to be a gigantic dream. It is a dream for which there exists nothing outside of it. This dream is pure thought, emotion, deeds and words. The dream is every event that was, is and will be. Some words that have been used in an attempt to describe this dream are:

a. As pure thought, this dream is Mind itself. It is Light that contains all the knowledge there is. The Light is what everything is made up of.

b. As pure emotion, this dream is unconditional Love itself. It is the power that holds everything together - the power behind every atom.

c. As pure Being, this dream is Life itself. It is thought put into action - into the physical and every other dimension of reality. The dreamer is living Spirit with Mind as the builder and everything (the dream) is the result.

Near-death experiencers who have seen the light know without a doubt they have seen God. Once they enter into the light of God they never want to leave. But they are often told it is not their time to die and so they return having this experience of God seared into their very hearts and minds. They carry this experience back with them to share with others, but they sometimes find difficulty doing so. But their experience with the light and the lessons they learned are just too important to keep to themselves. For example, one particular experiencer said he was told the time is now for humanity to know for certain there is life after death. Many aspects of the NDE are now considered common knowledge among the public such as the light, the tunnel, the being of light, etc. Clearly, NDE testimonies are bringing information about God to Earth.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Is beautiful listen everybody, not put cartoons talking in our place.

[Longbowman]

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2012/acs-press-pac-august-8-2012/advanced-explosives-detector-to-sniff-out-previously-undetectable-amounts-of-tnt/_jcr_content/pressPacContent/columnbootstrap_0/column1/image_4.img.jpg

[Sacrificed Ram]

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2012/acs-press-pac-august-8-2012/advanced-explosives-detector-to-sniff-out-previously-undetectable-amounts-of-tnt/_jcr_content/pressPacContent/columnbootstrap_0/column1/image_4.img.jpg

Molotov Version:
http://patrick.net/forum/content/uploads/2014/08/rambo_iii_tank_buster.jpg

[Loki]

The question isn't if god exists or not exists, but what you consider god.

Some consider EVERTHING is god (OMNIPRESENCE), others consider NOTHING is god.

There are even who considers both EVERTHING and NOTHING is god.

god is much more a relative concept than an absolute object.



I don't believe anything is God. No proof of its existence.

ps: my head hasn't exploded yet.

[wvwvw]

I don't believe anything is God. No proof of its existence.

ps: my head hasn't exploded yet.

Evolutionary Studies Suggest that Atheists, Whatever They Say to the Contrary, Really Do Believe in God
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st088461.html

Boyer's article in Nature continues this line of argument: "Religious thought and behaviour can be considered part of the natural human capacities, such as music, political systems, family relations or ethnic coalitions." He continues, "religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities." In a striking comment, he points out that these religious predispositions exist in humans from a very young age

Boyer gives every sign that he himself is an atheist, writing things like, "When people proclaim their adherence to a particular faith, they subscribe to claims for which there is no evidence," or "Religious concepts and activities hijack our cognitive resources." So it's not surprising that he suggests evolution is the ultimate cause of our religiosity

he simply sees religion as an extension (or "hijacking") of human "standard cognitive capacities," however they might have arisen:

So is religion an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution? Perhaps one day we will find compelling evidence that a capacity for religious thoughts, rather than "religion" in the modern form of socio-political institutions, contributed to fitness in ancestral times. For the time being, the data support a more modest conclusion: religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities.

The philosopher and author Paul Copan cuts right through such arguments with clean logic. He writes:

The inventor Thomas Edison said that humans are "incurably religious." History certainly bears this out. But why have humans been so religiously inclined across the millennia and civilizations? Neo-atheists Dawkins and Dennett interpret the phenomenon this way: theology is biology. To Dawkins, God is a "delusion"; for Dennett, religious believers are under a kind of "spell" that needs to be broken. Like computers, Dawkins says, we come equipped with a remarkable predisposition to do (and believe) what we're told. So young minds full of mush are susceptible to mental infections or viruses ("memes"). Charismatic preachers and other adults spew out their superstitious bilge, and later generations latch on to it and eventually create churches and religious schools. Even if there isn't a "God gene," humans have a certain religious urge -- an apparent hardwiring in the brain that draws us to supernatural myths.
Some conclude, therefore that God doesn't exist but is simply the product of predictable biological processes. One big problem with this statement: it is a whopping non sequitur. It just doesn't follow that if humans are somehow wired to be religious, God therefore doesn't exist. This is what's called "the genetic fallacy" -- proving or disproving the truth of a view based on its origin. In this case, God's existence is a separate question from the source of religious beliefs. We need to sort out the biology of belief from the rationality of belief.

There's more to say here. We could turn the argument on its head: if God exists and has designed us to connect with him, then we're actually functioning properly when we're directed toward belief in God. We can agree that natural/physical processes partly contribute to commitment to God. In that case, the basic argument of Dawkins and Dennett could actually support the idea that religious believers are functioning decently and in order.

On top of this, we're left wondering why people would think up gods and spirits in the first place. Why would humans voluntarily sacrifice their lives for some intangible realm? Maybe it's because the physical domain doesn't contain the source of coherence, order, morality, meaning, and guidance for life. Humans, though embodied, are moral, spiritual beings; they're able to rise above the physical and biological to reflect on it and their condition. This can result in the search for a world-transcending God.

Attempts by these New Atheists to explain away theology as a useful fiction or, worse, a harmful delusion fall short of telling us why the religious impulse is so deeply embedded. If God exists, however, we have an excellent reason as to why religious fervor should exist.

(Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, pp. 29-30 (Baker Books, 2011) (emphases in original).)

Copan is exactly right: If God exists then we would predict that humans should have this innate tendency toward religiosity. Critics of religion will forever chase inadequate explanations for these religious tendencies. Science 2.0 gives a good example of this fruitless thinking:

If a tendency to believe in the reality of an intangible network is so deeply wired into humanity, the implication is that it must have an evolutionary purpose. Social scientists have long believed that the emotional depth and complexity of the human mind means that mindful, self-aware people necessarily suffer from deep existential dread. Spiritual beliefs evolved over thousands of years as nature's way to help us balance this out and go on functioning.

So religion evolved to help us cope with the reality that we really live in a meaningless universe? How convenient that is for those who believe we live in a meaningless universe! But why should anyone feel "existential dread" in the first place, if not for the fact that we long for something greater and beyond our mortal lives? Why is that longing for greater purpose there in the first place? This argument reduces to "religion evolved to meet a need" without, however, bothering to explain where the need itself came from.
Well, where does it come from? Perhaps the answer was given by a different Pascal -- not Pascal Boyer but Blaise Pascal. Centuries ago, he argued that if we find a "God-shaped vacuum" (a popular but apt paraphrase of his view) in the human heart, that is simply because God put it there.

[Sacrificed Ram]

This video is fallacious because presumes the atheist believe in cause and effect phenomenon, but atheism doesn't presume the belief in cause and effect phenomenon, is just only NOT believe in existence of god(s), only it.

Atheism doesn't have doctrines. Attack sciential concepts and theories is not fight against atheists because even much of such concepts were developed by theists!

Above 90% of scientists are theists.

It is only run on the hand of Buddah.
http://www.popopots.com/images/FLO%20Lg%20Lotus%20Buddha%20-%20Hands%20up.jpg

[StormBringer]

A high calibre round should do the trick. xD

[Loki]

Evolutionary Studies Suggest that Atheists, Whatever They Say to the Contrary, Really Do Believe in God


I really don't believe in God, no matter what study you want to pull up. :picard1:

[Loki]

Above 90% of scientists are theists.


Source?

[Raikaswinþs]

He is the Transcendent one.

why not She?

[wvwvw]

why not She?

Because of Jesus

[wvwvw]

QUOTE:

God's wisdom in the Proverbs is personified as a female (e.g., Proverbs 1:20, 8:11, 9:1), yet we are told in the New Testament that Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24).

But, for the most part, God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible as having a male personage.

However, in Genesis chapter 1 we are told that man (mankind; as opposed to "a man") is created in the image of God, both male and female...

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)
Therefore, we should not be surprised if God has both a "maleness" and "femaleness" to Him, so both men and women can relate to God. God could be considered as motherly (hen) and yet be called the Heavenly Father (which is what Scripture often calls Him).

Of course, God is so far beyond us, that He is certainly not a man or a woman. Though we are made in His image, and reflect some of who God is, we as humans certainly don't represent all that God is.

[Loki]

So God has a penis. I wonder how big it is.

[Raikaswinþs]

QUOTE:

God's wisdom in the Proverbs is personified as a female (e.g., Proverbs 1:20, 8:11, 9:1), yet we are told in the New Testament that Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24).

But, for the most part, God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible as having a male personage.

However, in Genesis chapter 1 we are told that man (mankind; as opposed to "a man") is created in the image of God, both male and female...

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)
Therefore, we should not be surprised if God has both a "maleness" and "femaleness" to Him, so both men and women can relate to God. God could be considered as motherly (hen) and yet be called the Heavenly Father (which is what Scripture often calls Him).

Of course, God is so far beyond us, that He is certainly not a man or a woman. Though we are made in His image, and reflect some of who God is, we as humans certainly don't represent all that God is.

Fair enough, despite all the intellectual gymnastics needed to come up with that text, the end result sounds reasonable enough, I can respect that belief, even if don't buy into it.

[Cyrus III]

Funny video

[Sacrificed Ram]

I dislike when people trying to put Sciences versus Religions, when they find a strugle Theism vs Atheism.

Sciences and Religions even walk together, religion can even be a branch of science and vice versa. Believe in god doesn't imply unbelief in science, believe in science doesn't imply unbelief in god. This is just fallacy.

Theism vs Atheism is at most a philosophical discussion or a simple case of personal taste.

[щрбл]

A high calibre round should do the trick. xD

that was rude!

[StormBringer]

that was rude!

I was just posting a rational answer, don't Atheists always blame religious people of not being capable of that xD

[Sacrificed Ram]

The discussion is as scientific as it is philosophical.

There are only a science that can define WHAT is GOD: Religion. But such science(s) isn't an unanimity.

[respectmyauthroritah]

My head is just fine

[Sacrificed Ram]

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f125/mirk3/sexy_redhead_13_zpsbe99d10c.jpg
Really, my "head" always explode with it.

[Dandelion]

Old video as it refers to 5 star votes.

Something can't come from nothing!

[Ballist]

I found something interesting to think about. Love the editing, too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuAfmJ3LS4s

[Desaix DeBurgh]

I'm not watching a video because that is anti-intellectual. If someone wants to point me to an article or book I would be glad to refute it. Theists are so stupid and anti-intellectual they resort to anti-intellectual media etc..

I'm sure I can refute any theist or deist nonsense you throw at me.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

God is still not scientific., just because of the law of cause and effect is not true when it comes to the origin of the universe does not prove gods existance. It just supports the big bang theory.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

But how did the big bang theory happen?

No one knows, science is always progressing and we are always learning. But the concept of god itself is much more self conflicting than the big bang theory. You claim god is a entity or being but yet is everywhere at once and watching what you are doing???? Loving but willing to cause needless pain and destruction. Tell me of the miracle of the human amputees that was given their limbs back

[Dandelion]

funny how it was Islam and Christianity who first suggested THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT

Actually that was known way before Christianity. Eratosthenes even has relatively accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth just by using sticks and shadows.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

but atheists believe the universe came from nothing... then they say from other universe, then they stop becase they don't know how that other universe came to be before our universe... they say from nothing... but even nothing has something... ask an atheist to explain space particles, they will tell you about infinite energy but even infinite energy has a root, where it came from.

Whatever, retard, the genius Stephen Hawking said this :

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


He is smarter than any of you retarded deists and theists. God is improbable and violates the rule of occam's razor so according to science god probably doesn't exist and never did.

[TommyT]

If you are not an atheist or at least agnostic then you really cant be considered intelligent.

[Ballist]

Whatever, retard, the genius Stephen Hawking said this :

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


He is smarter than any of you retarded deists and theists. God is improbable and violates the rule of occam's razor so according to science god probably doesn't exist and never did.

Hey, watch the insulting.

And here's the article, Mr. Genius.

http://scienceislam.com/quran_human_embryonic_development.php

[Ballist]

If you are not an atheist or at least agnostic then you really cant be considered intelligent.

How ironic, you can't even write a proper sentence.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

but how sure are you of it.. can you make perfume out of nothing? or a seed out of nothing?

Its the most logical theory out there. God theory is already played out, its been eliminated from the ladder matches. So yes I am confident in the big bang theory, unless we make new scientific discoveries that show another way the universe was started.

[Pjeter Pan]

I lost my faith at 15, realized it was all bullshit.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

so you agree everything is made up of something but not energy?

Some Quantum mechanic theories argue that everything is made up of energy. However, it makes no sense for you to try to think on that level. The real world does not embody our species’ concepts of space, time, and causality. We perceive things through a scaffolding of three-dimensional space, in a tense of past-present-future, and within a framework of casual connections. As 20th century physics has confirmed, these constructs are not even a component of the world that we can describe mathematically and measure with special instruments. Newtonian concepts of space and time do not apply to the macro world of special and general relativity or to the micro world of quantum mechanics.

[TommyT]

How ironic, you can't even write a proper sentence.

I could if I gave a damn to utilize commas and such but some of us really can not be arsed to do so whilst online.

[altin]

If there is a God that consciously created the universe, then who created God?
If God has always existed, what was he doing alone for eternity without an universe?

But, dear believers, don't think too much to answer it. I don't want your heads to explode.

[TommyT]

most doctors are believers 72% of doctors believe in God... i guess you're wrong there..
Doctors are specialized people that does not necessarily make them all intellectuals.

[Ballist]

I could if I gave a damn to utilize commas and such but some of us really can not be arsed to do so whilst online.

Well, if you are going to criticize people who believe in religion for "not being intelligent", at least write a proper sentence and seem intelligent.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

most doctors are believers 72% of doctors believe in God... i guess you're wrong there..


by the way of doctors believe in God
https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&...believe+in+god
getting into medicine is hard.. so how wrong atheists are to assume someone stupid for being a deist or theist. so think again when you call a person stupid.

The majority of elite scientists don't believe in God and elite scientists have higher IQs than doctors. For example the average IQ of a physicst, not an elite physicist which is higher, is at least 133. For example, the average IQ of graduate students of physics is 133. The average doctor has an IQ in the 120s. Most scientists in the Royal Society and the National Academy of sciences, elite scientists, don't believe in god and they are alot smarter than doctors. They are doctors themselves, actually, with PHDs but not medical doctors.

[TommyT]

Well, if you are going to criticize people who believe in religion for "not being intelligent", at least write a proper sentence and seem intelligent.

You are equating intelligence to something as pedantic as punctuation on a forum. Quite a mistake.

[Ballist]

You are equating intelligence to something as pedantic as punctuation on a forum. Quite a mistake.

Sieg heil!

http://i62.tinypic.com/2rff38z.jpg

[TommyT]

Sieg heil!

http://i62.tinypic.com/2rff38z.jpg

I don't get it.

[TommyT]

doctors are very very smart and intellectual otherwise they would not be allowed to operate on people

I operated on a monkey once, I removed its brain and replaced it with that of my cousin Joe, he acts much the same as he did before, but he is much more handsome now, and less hairy.

[Ballist]

I don't get it.

:picard2: It's the grammar Nazi flag.

[TommyT]

:picard2: It's the grammar Nazi flag.
Thanks for that! I am pretty ignorant of internet memes or usually very late on them lol.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

no doctors are scientists... probably the smartest scientist out there.

What you just said makes no sense because it is not proper english. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[JoeyGee8688]

Sieg heil!

http://i62.tinypic.com/2rff38z.jpg

All vill bow down before zeh Word Reich!

[Ballist]

Thanks for that! I am pretty ignorant of internet memes or usually very late on them lol.

It's OK. :)

[TommyT]

is that supposed to be sarcasm? its not working.

No that has nothing to do with sarcasm. You'd realize that if you knew how ugly Joe was... :/ Joe was so ugly even Ripley couldn't believe it.

[TommyT]

funny how most doctors believe in God and they are considered the most intellectual people on earth who score highest marks at university... most even do good at other subjects such as physics...

Here is what I mean by it. The major religions are quite easy to disprove as absolute literal truths by simply doing historical research and scientific analysis the existence of God itself however can neither be fully proven nor disproven as its an abstract untestable belief ultimately. Therefore whilst we can come to an educated conclusion on it, if one is to declare they know with certainty God exists they are displaying an absolutist mentality that is not arrived at rationally. Faith is not the lack of doubt. Doubt itself is an integral element of faith.

[Ballist]

Hey, Kevin. Did you read that article?

I have plenty more.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/212/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/214/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1560/

[Desaix DeBurgh]

funny how most doctors believe in God and they are considered the most intellectual people on earth who score highest marks at university... most even do good at other subjects such as physics...

I already refuted your nonsense elite scientists, with doctorates of philosophy (PHDs), are alot smarter than doctors. Doctors and lawyers are of similar intelligence levels. Even the average physicist, not an elite scientist, has a higher IQ than the average medical doctor. Hell, even the average mathematician has a higher IQ than the average medical doctor. I don't why you are so delusional that you think medical doctors are the smartest people. Mathematicians and physicists etc.. are certainly smarter than medical doctors.

[TommyT]

hmmm no still not working... try again.

Joe was so ugly when he threw a boomerang it didn't come back.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

Hey, Kevin. Did you read that article?

I have plenty more.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/212/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/214/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1560/

Is that source a government or highly respected organization in the scientific field? Or some nobodies?

[Desaix DeBurgh]

All vill bow down before zeh Word Reich!

Nazism was a peasant movement populated by the worst in German peasant scum. Its "Aryan" philosophy and aspirations were a complete joke, and its blind devotion to nationalistic jingoism was the height of psychological blindness and wishful thinking. You can't make genetic Aryans - a race of kings - out of a nation of genetic turnip-peasants

[Ballist]

Nazism was a peasant movement populated by the worst in German peasant scum. Its "Aryan" philosophy and aspirations were a complete joke, and its blind devotion to nationalistic jingoism was the height of psychological blindness and wishful thinking. You can't make genetic Aryans - a race of kings - out of a nation of genetic turnip-peasants

Oh my God, it was a fucking joke. :lol:

[TommyT]

keep trying... i like those who never give up.

Joe was so ugly when he visited a haunted home he came out with an application.

[Ballist]

Is that source a government or highly respected organization in the scientific field? Or some nobodies?

It is by an imam. Imams are supposed to thoroughly know the Quran. He even sourced information from books, from people who know their shit.

[TommyT]

you got a thumbs up for trying.

You smiled at least, admit it! ;)

[TommyT]

you got that right...
:D

I tend to do that! :D

[Desaix DeBurgh]

Doctors are very very smart smarter then a philosopher, but you being atheist don't like it because the majority of them believe i God, if they were so stupid why risk allowing them to operate on others? mathematicians are smart and so are physicists... but who learns maths biology physics chemistry bio-meds ect ect all at the same time? DOCTORS!

The average doctor doesn't even have an IQ high enough to get into Mensa but the average physicist does.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206681/Why-doctors-clever-used-be.html

www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

You are just an average person that is why you respect professionals like doctors so much while I don't. Ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind; they are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

It is by an imam. Imams are supposed to thoroughly know the Quran. He even sourced information from books, from people who know their shit.

Dude I am reading this one link face palm
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1/

He does not describe how the quran explains all the scientific details of all the stuff he is talking about. He is just referencing people of scientific background on the process of the atmosphere. In doing that he is just assuming the people of the quran knew all the scientific details that modern scientists know. You don't need a college degree to know that rain comes from the sky, any simp can figure that crap out. Nevermind about reading the other links that would be a waste of my time. You act like the quran made a relavation about that. And the sky is the ceiling is just metaphor as it being over you. But since they believe in heaven, they probably believe they are even physical structures in the clouds... Like the "gates of heaven" lol. The only physical things in the clouds were animals at those times. Nothing unless man made has been observed in the cloud that is physical in form unless its a asteroid or comet.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

Dude I am reading this one link face palm
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1/

He does not describe how the quran explains all the scientific details of all the stuff he is talking about. He is just referencing people of scientific background on the process of the atmosphere. In doing that he is just assuming the people of the quran knew all the scientific details that modern scientists know. You don't need a college degree to know that rain comes from the sky, any simp can figure that crap out. Nevermind about reading the other links that would be a waste of my time. You act like the quran made a relavation about that. And the sky is the ceiling is just metaphor as it being over you. But since they believe in heaven, they probably believe they are even physical structures in the clouds... Like the "gates of heaven" lol.

I never read shit by theologians because it is a giant waste of time. However, if some scientists or one important scientist endorsed that Iman's work I might read it but they haven't.

There are five basic ways to sort truth from falsehood:

Check the reliability of the authors you read: A theologian is a less- reliable source of information than a scientist.

Compare different sources of information on the same topic (books, magazines, webpages, etc), and note the areas of disagreement or omissions. Omissions often indicate bias, while points of disagreement should be investigated to see, if possible, who is really telling the truth. Sources with obvious bias need to be studied, since these will usually have the most telling criticisms of the other side.

Observe who is willing to debate, and who is not: The former are most likely to be telling the truth, while the latter are probably trying to keep their lies from being exposed.

Observe whether the arguments are clear or obscure: the latter are a good indication of muddled thinking, and a likely marker of error.

If you yourself have a bias, be sure to study the accounts of those biased against your view: Your enemies will tell you things your friends would never think of -- or never dare to mention if they did.

[Ballist]

Dude I am reading this one link face palm
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1/

He does not describe how the quran explains all the scientific details of all the stuff he is talking about. He is just referencing people of scientific background on the process of the atmosphere. In doing that he is just assuming the people of the quran knew all the scientific details that modern scientists know. You don't need a college degree to know that rain comes from the sky, any simp can figure that crap out. Nevermind about reading the other links that would be a waste of my time. You act like the quran made a relavation about that. And the sky is the ceiling is just metaphor as it being over you. But since they believe in heaven, they probably believe they are even physical structures in the clouds... Like the "gates of heaven" lol.

*sigh* You are a lost cause. He is not just referencing the scientists. He uses verses from the Quran and actually explains what happens with his sources backing him. That's the point of sources, to back your claim.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

lol... dailymail....
and that other website... sociology... lol... in the UK we call that mickey mouse.

It doesn't take a genius to know that physicists are smarter than doctors. For instance, lets think of some famous phyicists : Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein etc.. all geniuses with extremely high IQs. Now lets think of some famous doctors : Doctor Oz (definitely not a genius) etc.. here is a list of famous physicians :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicians

Obviously physicists are smarter than doctors. I don't why you are so delusional that you would even bother trying to argue with this. What are you stupid or something ?

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

*sigh* You are a lost cause. He is not just referencing the scientists. He uses verses from the Quran and actually explains what happens with his sources backing him. That's the point of sources, to back your claim.

Dude how the hell does just interpeting fallls from the sky to rain indicate they knew the whole process of the atmosphere and therefore are scientist????. Those observations were made much earlier than the quran. Thats like saying apples fall from the tree so I guess he knew the who complex biology of trees, photo synthesis, ectoplasm, cells, mitochondria ect.... Yet no where cited in the quran

[Desaix DeBurgh]

*sigh* You are a lost cause. He is not just referencing the scientists. He uses verses from the Quran and actually explains what happens with his sources backing him. That's the point of sources, to back your claim.

If you can get some credible sources i.e. scientists to endorse that bullshit then I'll read it otherwise I'm not wasting my time. I don't consider theologians credible sources compared to scientists etc..

[Ballist]

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jacques_Cousteau_%28Conversion_to_Islam%29

http://truereligiondebate.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/non-muslim-scientists-embraced-islam-after-discovering-the-miracles-of-the-noble-quran/

http://www.islamicbulletin.org/newsletters/issue_6/embraced.aspx

If you want to watch:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05A-xg1UjEY

[Desaix DeBurgh]

yes physics and mathematicians may be smarter... but not sociology... in the UK our version of smartest degree is different... in the UK subjects like sociology are called mickey mouse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9455548/University-admissions-most-competitive-degree-courses.html?frame=2300941
http://blog.concentra.co.uk/2013/03/20/most-competitive-university-courses-which-courses-are-the-hardest-to-get-onto/

mickey mouse degrees

I think sociology is bullshit due to confirmation bias and also there is so much fiction in modern sociology and so much sociology in modern fiction that it is sometimes hard to tell them apart.

However, I think this link :

http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

Has sociologists higher than Health & Medical Sciences because Health and medical sciences probably includes people like people studying to be nurses or something like that. I don't think it only includes people studying to be medical doctors. At least that would be my guess but I'm not sure.

[Petros Houhoulis]

This video is fallacious because presumes the atheist believe in cause and effect phenomenon, but atheism doesn't presume the belief in cause and effect phenomenon, is just only NOT believe in existence of god(s), only it.

Atheism doesn't have doctrines. Attack sciential concepts and theories is not fight against atheists because even much of such concepts were developed by theists!

Above 90% of scientists are theists.

It is only run on the hand of Buddah.
http://www.popopots.com/images/FLO%20Lg%20Lotus%20Buddha%20-%20Hands%20up.jpg

Atheists believe in the cause and efffect phenomenon, because it is an undisputable part of science since the times of Ancient Greece. If the Atheists believe in something, this is science...

You don't know the current number of theist scientists, or the religion of scientists of the past for that matter...

[Petros Houhoulis]

QUOTE:

God's wisdom in the Proverbs is personified as a female (e.g., Proverbs 1:20, 8:11, 9:1), yet we are told in the New Testament that Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24).

But, for the most part, God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible as having a male personage.

However, in Genesis chapter 1 we are told that man (mankind; as opposed to "a man") is created in the image of God, both male and female...

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)
Therefore, we should not be surprised if God has both a "maleness" and "femaleness" to Him, so both men and women can relate to God. God could be considered as motherly (hen) and yet be called the Heavenly Father (which is what Scripture often calls Him).

Of course, God is so far beyond us, that He is certainly not a man or a woman. Though we are made in His image, and reflect some of who God is, we as humans certainly don't represent all that God is.

Maybe god is transgender. (Ha!)

[Petros Houhoulis]

I dislike when people trying to put Sciences versus Religions, when they find a strugle Theism vs Atheism.

Sciences and Religions even walk together, religion can even be a branch of science and vice versa. Believe in god doesn't imply unbelief in science, believe in science doesn't imply unbelief in god. This is just fallacy.

Theism vs Atheism is at most a philosophical discussion or a simple case of personal taste.

Science sprang out of denial of religion. It shall never go back...

[Petros Houhoulis]

There are only a science that can define WHAT is GOD: Religion. But such science(s) isn't an unanimity.

Religion is not a science. Actually, not even theology is a science...

[Petros Houhoulis]

i know one! say this to atheists

"Why is it that everytime a muslim kills another muslim and shouts allah akber its religious, but an atheist like Stalin kills people and destroys their religious sites its not in th name of atheism?"

Because it was in the name of Communism, a political ideology, rather than Stalins' un-religious beliefs (assuming that Stalin disn't worship himself, and have all of Russia and the Communist world worship him as well!!!)


"Yo believe everything has an origin but not infinite energy?"

What origin? The universe was always there, no matter what those gooks say.


"explain space particles"

I don't give a shit about space particles. Prove god!

[wvwvw]

http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/No-Im-An-Atheist1.jpg

[LightHouse89]

LOL

Behold the God of Liberalism is defeated. Glory Glory Hallelujah! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrG0AwUJQDQ

[Petros Houhoulis]

I found something interesting to think about. Love the editing, too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuAfmJ3LS4s

What is interesting is the astounding stupidity of the Muslims, down to this day:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html


Embryology in the Qur'an


In the early 1980s, Prof. Keith Moore (http://www.ummah.org.uk/science/moore.htm), formerly an anatomist at the University of Toronto, Canada produced a special edition of his embryology textbook, the standard version of which has been widely used in medical schools around the world. Apparently when he first read what the Qur'an had to say about the development of the human embryo he was "astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established"[1]. Much has subsequently been written by Muslims in an attempt to demonstrate that the Qur'an, which is claimed to be God's ultimate revelation contains statements about how humans develop inside the womb which could not possibly have been known at the time that it was revealed to Muhammed. Indeed, a recent book confirms the extent to which this has been happening:
Dubai's medical school recently introduced a compulsory course for all students: Islamic Medicine. The program seeks to link all modern medicine, including genetics, to the Koran. Such courses have their genesis in orthodox Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have spent considerable sums on medical conferences at which leading Western scientists are asked to confirm that Koranic verses, which seem vague to the layperson, are in fact specific predictors of modern science. Videos and pamphlets from the conferences have been circulated throughout the Muslim world by the Saudis [2].
If it is indeed true that certain verses accurately foretell modern scientific ideas which could not be tested in the seventh century, then it implies that the Qur'an must have had a divine author. It is the intention of this paper to examine what exactly was known about the human embryo at the time of Muhammed in order to see whether any of the theories expressed in the Qur'an were true or indeed well known before this time.

The origins of life according to the Qur'an There are at least 60 verses which deal explicitly with human reproduction and development, but these are scattered throughout the Qur'an and many of the themes are repeated over and over again, as is common to much of the book. A useful place to begin would be the material out of which we are created. One would expect the Qur'an to be unambiguous about such an elementary matter, but the verses listed show just how much uncertainty there appears to be in our origins. Note that except where indicated the translation used is the translation of Yusuf Ali (Saudi Revised Edition).
Could it be from earth?
11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth
Or dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)?
15:26,28,33 We created man from sounding clay
17:61 ... Thou didst create from clay
32:7 He began the creation of man from clay
Did we come from nothing?
19:67 We created him before out of nothing
No, we did not!
52:35 Were they created of nothing?
Did we come from mud?
23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire
Or water?
25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)
Could it be dust?
3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....
Perhaps we arose from the dead or from one person?
30:19 It is He who brings out the living from the dead
39:6 He created you from a single Person (see also 4:1)
To resolve the considerable ambiguity about what exactly we are made of, it has been suggested that all of the above are complimentary accounts, in the same way that a loaf of bread could be said to be made of dough, flour, carbohydrate or molecules. This evades the issue however. The metaphorical description of God making man out of the dust of the earth is ancient and predates the Qur'an by thousands of years; it is found in the Bible in Genesis 2:7. If this was literal it would be in direct scientific conflict with evolutionists who maintain that life was created out of the oceans, but Muslims maintain that we were created both from the oceans and from earth.

The drop of fluid or semen In a number of places we are informed that man is created from a drop of fluid (semen, seed or sperm):
16:4 He created man from a drop of fluid (Pickthall)
16:4 He has created man from a sperm-drop
32:8 He made his seed from a quintessence of despised fluid
35:11 ... then from a little fluid (Pickthall)
53:46 (he created) from a drop of seed when it is poured forth (Pickthall)
53:46 From a sperm-drop when lodged (in its place)
56:58 Have ye seen that which ye emit (Pickthall)
56:58 Do you then see? The (human Seed) that ye emit
75:37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth (Pickthall)
75:37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
76:2 We create man from a drop of thickened fluid (Pickthall)
76:2 We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm
77:20 Did We not create you from a worthless water (semen, etc.)? (Al-Hilali & Khan)
80:19 From a sperm-drop He hath created him
86:6-7 He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.
Could any of this have been known to sixth-century Muslims at the time of Muhammed? Surely that procreation involves the emission of a drop of fluid has been well known from the earliest days of civilization. In Genesis 38:9 the Bible tells us that Onan "spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother". The verses which describe the origin of life as a drop of emitted fluid are therefore no more than a direct observation as to what is released during the act of sexual intercourse. We hardly need to rely upon divine inspiration to inform us of this fact.
In the verses listed above nutfah is used when describing the fluid which gushes out during sexual intercourse and clearly this can only refer to semen. However, Prof. Moore is keen to translate nutfah in sura 76:2 as "mingled fluid" [3] and explains that this Arabic term refers to the male and female fluids which contain the gametes (male sperm and female egg). While it is true that the ancient Greeks would not have been able to see individual sperm or eggs, these only being visible through the microscope, the Qur'an emphatically does not mention sperm or eggs; it simply says nutfah. This can reasonably be translated semen, or at a push, germinal fluid - which was a term used as early as Hippocrates [4] who spoke of male and female reproductive fluids (but obviously could not have been aware of the cells contained in the fluids). If Moore wishes to translate nutfah as germinal fluid, he inadvertently reinforces that the Qur'an is borrowing this term from the Greeks.
Sura 86:6 is interesting since it claims that during the act of sexual intercourse before which a man is created, the "gushing fluid" or semen issues from between the loins and ribs. Semen is apparently coming out of the area around the kidneys and back, which is a real problem for we know that the testicles are the sites of sperm production (although the ancient Greeks were not so convinced. Aristotle for example amusingly believed that they functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages open during sexual intercourse [5]).
The explanation offered by Muslims [6] for the strange statement in this sura relates to the fact that the testicles originally develop from tissue in the area of the kidneys, when the man from whom sperm is gushing forth was himself an embryo. In other words, in a very convoluted fashion the sperm originates from the area between the loins and ribs because that is where the testicles which are producing the sperm originally form.
There is a rather less complicated explanation for this verse however. The Greek physician Hippocrates and his followers taught in the fifth century BC that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis [7]. Clearly according to this view sperm originates from the region of the kidneys, and although there is obviously no substance to this teaching today, it was well-known in Muhammed's day, and shows how the Qur'an could contain such an erroneous statement.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/Image14.gif
A bust of Hippocrates
Of course it could be argued against all this that the reference to coming from the loins is merely a metaphorical figure of speech. We can find examples of this in sura 7:172 "when thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants" or 4:23 "prohibited to you (for marriage) are ... wives of your sons proceeding from your loins". But if so then it has to be accepted that this is a common usage for Middle Eastern cultures [8]; in the Torah God promises Jacob that "kings shall come out of your loins (chalatzecha)" (Gen 35:11). Later in the Bible a promise is made to David's "son that shall come forth out of your loins" (I Kings 8:19) and in the New Testament Peter refers to the same person as "one from the fruit of his loins" (Greek osphus). However, these are examples of a metaphorical use of the word "loins" (Arabic sulb). Sura 86:6 is clearly talking about the physical act of intercourse; gushing fluid and ribs (tar a'ib) are both very physical and in the context of this verse they clearly refer to the site of semen production as wrongly taught by Hippocrates. So we have found the first example of an incorrect ancient Greek idea re-emerging in the Qur'an.

Embryological development in the Qur'an Sura 22:5 says "We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then from a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes." Sura 23:13-14 repeats this idea by saying God "placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah), then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature." 75:38 also says man becomes an alaqa and 96:2 says we came from alaq.
Moore however goes further and incredibly he claims in a later edition of his textbook that the Qur'an "states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning" [9]. This really would be amazing if it was true. Actually the Qur'an says nothing of the sort.
We have to ask what the precise meaning of these words is in order to know whether the verses contain important scientific statements that have only recently been discovered, as Moore and others claim. In comparison with the meaning of nutfah, it is rather more difficult to understand what alaqa means. Many different suggestions have been made: clot (Pickthall, Maulana Muhammed Ali, Muhammed Zafrulla Khan, Hamidullah), small lump of blood (Kasimirski), leech-like clot (Yusuf Ali), and "leech, suspended thing or blood clot" (Moore, op. cit.). Moore suggests that the appearance of an embryo of 24 days' gestation resembles a leech, though this is rather debatable. In side view the developing umbilicus (genetically part of the embryo) is almost as big as the "leech-shaped" part into which a human is formed and the developing placenta (which also consists of tissue that is genetically from the embryo) is much larger than the embryo. It is claimed that the ancient sages would not have been able to see an embryo about 3mm long and describe it as leech-like, but Aristotle correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, by which the embryo "clings" to the uterus wall in the fourth century B.C. [10]. It is impossible to believe the suggestion of Bachir Torki [11] that alaq in 96:2 means links, referring to the gene code of DNA, as this makes a nonsense out of other verses where the word is used, such as 22:5 ("we made you from a drop of sperm, then from that a gene code, then from that a little lump of flesh....").
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/Image15.gif
A 24/25 day embryo at the alaqa stage, approx. 2 mm long
To establish a definition for alaqa we might take a look at the Qamus al-Muheet, one of the most important Arabic dictionaries ever compiled, by Muhammed Ibn-Yaqub al-Firuzabadi (AD 1329-1415) [12]. He says that alaqa has the same meaning as a clot of blood. In 96:2 the word alaq is used, which is both a collective plural and a verbal noun. The latter form conveys the sense of man being created from clinging material or possibly clay, which is consistent with the creation of Adam in the Bible from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and some of the other Qur'anic verses listed above. However, the translators of the Qur'an have all translated alaq as "clot" as opposed to "clinging" in 96:2 because the use of the singular alaqa elsewhere forces them to use "clot" here too, despite the attraction for the meaning "clinging" or leech-like which is perhaps more scientifically accurate.
Another source of information are the early Muslim commentators. Ibn Kathir wrote that when the drop of water (nutfah) settled in the womb it stayed there for forty days and then became a red clot (alaqa), staying there for another forty days before turning to mudghah, a piece of flesh without shape or form. Finally it began to take on a shape and form. Both ar-Razi and as-Suyuti [13] claimed that the dust referred both to Adam's creation and to the man's discharge; nutfah referred to the water from the male and alaqa was a solidified piece of blood clot. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (died about AD 1350) wrote that "the foetus is a living or dead babe animal which is sometimes found in the womb of a slaughtered animal, and its blood is congested" [14]. Another great physician, Ibn al-Quff wrote some 13 out of 60 chapters from "On Health Preservation" about embryology and pregnancy. He included a further stage of development one week after conception, the foam stage or raghwah. Up to 16 days the embryo was alaqa (clot) and after 27 to 30 days the clot turns into a lump of meat, mudghah [15]. These dates must be regarded as very approximate but are nevertheless a major improvement on what one of the most reliable Hadiths says about foetal development, as we shall see later.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/Image16.gif
A 26/27 day embryo, said to resemble a mouthful of flesh, but only 3 mm long
Moving onto the next stage of development, Razi described the mudghah as being a little piece of meat the size of what a man can chew. The idea that mudghah means chewed flesh is a later, and less accurate translation of the word, but the idea has persisted because it is claimed that the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine. It must be said that not only is this an imaginative interpretation however, but besides, Moore cannot claim that the mudghah should occur at 26-27 days since at that point the embryo is a mere 4mm long. One would have to wait around 8 weeks before the embryo was the size of chewed flesh (if a mouthful is defined as being 20-30mm wide), which is what mudghah really means. And in the following Hadith, transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim, Muhammed claims that the mudghah stage occurs between days 80 and 120. Yet by this time the foetus is considerably larger than a lump of flesh the size of which a man can chew, and looks very human-like and totally unlike meat.

`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that Allah's Messenger ... said: "Verily your creation is on this wise. The constituents of one of you are collected for forty days in his mother's womb in the form of blood [sperm?], after which it becomes a clot of blood in another period of forty days. Then it becomes a lump of flesh and forty days later Allah sends his angel to it ..."
Thus according to Muhammed, the drop of sperm remains in the womb for 40 days, then becomes a clot for a further 40 days, then a lump of flesh for 40 days [16]. It has been shown that human sperm can only survive inside a woman's reproductive tract for a maximum of 7 days; at 80 days the embryo has very definitely acquired the shape of a human being and looks nothing like either a clot or a mouthful of flesh.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/Image17.gif
An eleven week foetus, real size 7.5 cm, but according to Muhammed still at the alaqa stage, a clot of blood
The final stage of human development which the Qur'an describes is the creation of bones, and the clothing of bones with flesh. However, according to modern embryologists including Prof. Moore, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle ("flesh") develops [17]. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially. Whereas however most of the muscle tissue that we have is laid down before birth, bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one's teenage years. So far from bones being clothed with flesh, it would be more accurate if the Qur'an had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely false, but is directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen, as we shall see shortly.

Some possible explanations Aristotle believed that humans originated from the action of male semen upon female menstrual blood [18] which leaves us with something of a dilemma. If we translate alaqa as "clot" it means that the Qur'an is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely no stage during which the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in which an embryo might appear like a clot is during a miscarriage, in which case the clotted blood which is seen to emerge (much of which comes from the mother incidentally) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. So if ever an embryo appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a human; it would be a dead mass of bloody miscarrying flesh. Since Muhammed had several wives it is entirely likely that he would be very familiar with miscarriages. Alternatively it could be hinting at Aristotle's incorrect belief that the embryo originated from the combination of male sperm and female menstrual blood.
Moore avoids this problem by translating alaqa as a leech, since he is well aware that there is no stage in development when the embryo is a clot. As we have seen however, this is only to justify his interpretation that an embryo of 24-25 days is a clinging leech-like alaqa and one at 26-27 days is a mudghah with teeth-marks. A further problem with this view is that if the alaqa is translated "leech" because it appears to be clinging to the uterus wall, does this mean that the foetus only clings to the uterus wall for a few days? Obviously it remains attached for the entire nine months of gestation.
There are other problems with Moore's interpretation too. Not least is the claim of Muhammed that the dates of the alaqa and mudghah were 40-80 days and 80-120 days of gestation respectively, rather than 24-25 days and 26-27 days. It also begs the question as to why, if the Qur'an really is giving us a highly precise scientific account of human development, it only mentions four stages, nutfah, alaqa, mudghah, plus the clothing of bones with flesh. Between fertilization and day 28 for example Moore lists no fewer than 13 stages in his textbook. Why does the Qur'an say nothing about any of these other stages? The reality is that the more ambiguous the meaning of the Arabic terms, and the more meanings that can be attached to certain words, the less convincingly can they be said to be highly precise scientific terms.
However, the most convincing explanation, and the most worrying for those who maintain that the Qur'an is God's eternal Word, untampered with and free from any human interference, is that the Qur'an is merely repeating the teaching of the enormously influential Greek physician Galen. If this is the case, not only is the Qur'an wrong, but it also plagiarises ancient Greek literature!


http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/Image18.gif
A picture of Galen



http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/Image19.gif
The Asclepion at Pergamon (modern Bergama in Turkey)
[Click here (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/asclepieion.htm) for further pictures of this hospital]



The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is identical to that taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey). Galen taught that the embryo developed in four stages as detailed below.
Galen: De Semine in Greek
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/Image21.gif
English translation:
But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...
... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow [19].

Qur'an: Sura 23:13-14 in Arabic for comparison
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryoimg/Image22.gif
English translation:
Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh (Mudghah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!
The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody vascularised foetus with unshaped brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood") corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to [mudghah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move [20]. If the reader is in any doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concludes
"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages" [21].

Stages of development - a modern idea? It has been said that the idea of the embryo developing through stages is a modern one, and that the Qur'an is anticipating modern embryology by depicting differing stages. However many ancient writers besides Galen taught that humans developed in different stages. For example in the Jewish Talmud we learn that the embryo has six stages of development. Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology [22]. The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as


golem (formless, rolled-up thing);
shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);
'ubbar (something carried);
v'alad (child);
v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and
ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).

Yet with the benefit of modern science we now know that the formation of a human being is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, hence the reason why there is so much contemporary confusion about abortion and embryo research. For if we develop as a continuous process it is impossible to draw hard-and-fast boundaries about when life starts. This makes a nonsense of the Qur'anic verse which says (71:14) "When He created you by (divers) stages".

More examples of borrowing from ancient Greek writers If we look at what the ancient Greeks taught we can clearly see that all the other references to embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith can also be traced directly back to them. For example there is a Hadith in which Muhammed is questioned about why a group of red camels have a grey camel among them, and it is due to a hidden trait. But Aristotle noticed that babies who were born that looked unlike either of their parents would often take on the appearance of their grandparents [23], so that the characteristic skipped a generation, being what we now know as recessive. He also tells us of a woman from Elis who took a black husband and although their daughter was not black, their daughter's daughter was black, demonstrating a gene which skipped a generation in exactly the same way as Muhammed described [24].
Another Hadith says "If a male's fluid prevails upon the female's substance, the child will be a male by Allah's decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed" [25]. Surely this is not referring to dominant and recessive genes at all, as certain Muslims have claimed [26], but is simply repeating the incorrect belief of Hippocrates that both men and women produce both male and female sperm. The sex of the resulting child is determined by which sperm overwhelms the other in strength or quantity:
"... both partners alike contain both male and female sperm (the male being stronger than the female must originate from a stronger sperm). Here is a further point: if (a) both partners produce a stronger sperm then a male is the result, whereas if (b) they produce a weak form, then a female is the result. But if (c) one partner produces one kind of sperm, and the other another then the resultant sex is determined by whichever sperm prevails in quantity. For suppose that the weak sperm is much greater in quantity than the stronger sperm: then the stronger sperm is overwhelmed and, being mixed with weak, results in a female. If on the contrary the strong sperm is greater in quantity than the weak, and the weak is overwhelmed, it results in a male" [27].
Earlier in the Hadith, Muhammed says that the reproductive substance of men is white and that of women is yellow. This sounds very much like the content, white and yellow, that is found inside developing chick-eggs, and which Aristotle was known to dissect [28].
Later in the same Hadith an angel is apparently sent by Allah to shape the embryo and ask what sex it is going to be. Notwithstanding that sex is actually determined at the moment of conception according to whether the fertilised egg has two X chromosomes (female) or an X and Y chromosome (male), and that there is some ambiguity about the age of the embryo when the angel appears (Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported that Muhammed said 40 or perhaps 50 days, not 42, and Abu Tufail maintains that Muhammed said to Hudhaifa b. Usaid that sperm resided in the womb for 40 days), Hippocrates taught that it took 30 days for the male genitals to form and 42 for the female embryo [29]. No wonder the angel has to wait for forty-two days before it learns the child's sex. In reality, prior to 7 weeks of gestation the ovaries and testes appear identical and the external genitalia only start to diverge around 9 weeks.
Sura 39:6 says that God made us in stages in threefold darkness. There have been many interpretations of this verse, including that of as-Suyuti who said that there were three membranes surrounding the foetus, one to carry nutrients to it, another to absorb its urine, and the third to absorb other waste products. Elsewhere it has been suggested that they are the abdominal wall, the uterine wall and the amniotic sac in which the foetus sits. This is entirely observable to the naked eye, as Hippocrates described dissecting pregnant dogs to find puppies sitting in the amniotic sac inside the uterus [30]. A rather macabre practice of Queen Cleopatra was to rip open the wombs of her pregnant slave-girls in order to see their foetuses, according both to Rabbinic traditions and Plinius [31]. Furthermore, the Romans introduced the custom of opening the womb of a pregnant woman if she died before she had delivered her baby; the woman and her baby would be buried side-by-side, thus giving rise to the term "Caesarean section".
It is said by Muslims that sura 80:20 describes how easy Allah has made it for delivery of the infant, but this contradicts sura 46:15 ("his mother beareth him with reluctance and bringeth him forth with reluctance"). In fact 80:19 is talking about man's origins from a drop of sperm, and 80:21 about his death and burial, so it is entirely logical that 80:20 refers not to the process of parturition (giving birth) but to the whole of man's life being made easy for him by God. In the context this makes a lot more sense, does not contradict 46:15 and does not go against the weight of obstetrical evidence that makes giving birth one of the most dangerous things a woman can do in her life. (In Mozambique, childbirth is the seventh most common cause of death in women, and worldwide a woman dies in labour every 53 seconds.) The Biblical teaching that women give birth with much pain (Genesis 3:16) is far more realistic.
Sura 46:15 also says, "The duration of pregnancy and separation [weaning] is thirty months" and sura 31:14 informs us that "his separation is at the end of two years". This implies that the duration of a normal pregnancy is six months. Nowadays with advanced neonatal facilities it is just possible for a small proportion of babies born at 24 weeks' gestation to survive, albeit with severe disabilities in many cases. In Muhammed's day no babies could have survived at so premature an age, and the Qur'an is wildly inaccurate about the duration of a normal pregnancy.
Sura 33:4 says that Allah has not put two hearts into any man. Yet duplication of the heart has been admitted, albeit with reluctance by Geoffrey-Saint-Hilaire and celebrated anatomists including Littre, Meckel, Colomb, Panum, Behr, Paullini, Rhodius, Winslow and Zacutus Lusitanus [32].
In other places the Qur'an contains commands which have been claimed to be fantastically advanced and sensible, when in fact they were known and followed by far more ancient civilizations. In sura 2:222, Allah tells Muhammed that menstruation is an illness and men must not have sexual intercourse with their wives until they are cleansed from their periods. Yet 2000 years earlier Moses received the command not to have sexual intercourse during a woman's period (Torah: Leviticus 18:19) but this was very definitely not for health reasons, but for religious, ceremonial reasons. Having sex during one's period is hardly likely to cause male infertility, endometriosis and fallopian tube damage, as has been claimed by some Muslims with no scientific evidence, even if it might be unpleasant for the couple. But perhaps more importantly menstruation is not an illness; indeed the shedding of the endometrial layer of the uterus helps to prevent uterine cancer. Progesterone has to be included in hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in post-menopausal women to induce an artificial menstruation every month to prevent a build-up of endometrium which could become cancerous!

But how could Muhammed have known these things? It is one thing to find the Qur'an repeating the same embryological ideas as those described originally by the ancient Greeks, but is there any way in which we can be sure that the material was familiar to the Arabs of Muhammed's day? Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based upon Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD 532 [33]. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti [34].
The Nestorians experienced persecution from the mainstream church and fled to Persia, where they brought their completed translations of the Greek doctors' works and founded many schools of learning. The most famous of these by far was the great medical school of Jundishapur in what is now south-east Iran, founded in AD 555 by the Persian King Chosroes the Great (also known as Anusharwan or Nushirvan), whose long reign lasted from AD 531 to around 579.
The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of different schools of medicine foreshadowed the synthesis that was to be achieved in later Islamic medicine [35].
Arab medicine, to deal with only one side of this question, borrowed from many sources. The biggest debt was to the Greeks ... The medicine of Jundi Shapur was also mainly Greek. There must have been Syriac translations in the library of the hospital there long before the Arabs came to Persia ... According to Ibn Abi Usaybi'a the first to translate Greek works into Syriac was Sergius of Ra's-al-`Ayn [sic], who translated both medical and philosophical works. It was probably he who worked for Chosroes the Great and it was his translations in all probability which were used in Jundi Shapur [36].
According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti [37], the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [38]
He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [39]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him [40]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [41]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [42]
Harith Ibn Kalada was unable to father any children, and it is said that he adopted Harith al-Nasar (Nadr), who was apparently a cousin of Muhammed, and also a doctor by profession [43]. Interestingly Nadr mocked Muhammed, saying that the stories in the Qur'an were far less entertaining and instructive than the old Persian legends he had grown up with. Perhaps he recognised that the Qur'an had human sources for some of its stories? As a result of this Muhammed became his sworn enemy, and the Prophet put him to death following his capture in the Battle of Badr in 624 [39].
So we have just the link we need to show how "The translations (into Syriac) of Sergius Ras el Ain, penetrated to Jandi-Shapur. During the first years of the 7th century [more likely the end of the sixth century], Harith ben Kalada studied medicine there and Muhammad owed to Harith a part of his medical knowledge. Thus, with the one as well as the other, we easily recognize the traces of Greek (medicine)." [44] To summarise: Sergius died about the time that Chosroes the Great began his reign, and may even have been employed by Chosroes to translate Galen from Greek into Syriac. Halfway through his reign Chosroes founded Jundishapur, where Galen's manuscripts must surely have been kept in translation. Towards the end of his reign he had an audience with Harith Ibn Kalada, who later became associated with Muhammed.
We also know that according to Muslim traditions part of at least one verse in the Qur'an that relates to the developing human came originally from human lips. While Muhammed was dictating verse 23:14 to `Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, the latter got carried away by the beauty of what he heard about the creation of man, and when Muhammed reached the words "another creature" his companion uttered the exclamation "Blessed be God, the best of creators!" Muhammed accepted these words as though they were the continuation of his revelation and told Ibn Abi Sarh to write them down, even though they were quite clearly his companion's words, not Muhammed's or Allah's words [45].
This really does beg the question: since we know that at least one verse of the Qur'an contains the added words of a mere human being, how can we possibly be sure that this did not happen anywhere else in the Qur'an?
After the fall of Alexandria in AD 642 knowledge of Greek medicine spread even more rapidly throughout the Arab world. In the 9th century Hunain Ibn Ishaq (AD 809-873) made perhaps the definitive Arabic translation of Hippocrates and Galen [46], [47], [48] and al-Kindi wrote over twenty medical treatises, including one specifically on Hippocrates.
Indeed, the writers of the Arabic medical literature acknowledge as their sources the major Greek and Indian medical traditions. For example, one of the earliest Arabic compendiums of medicine is Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom" [49], [50], written by a Christian convert to Islam in about 850 at Samarra in Mesopotamia. In it he said that he was following the rules set down by Hippocrates and Aristotle regarding how to write his treatise. It contains 360 chapters, and the fourth Discourse, beginning at chapter 325 is entitled "From the Summaries of Indian Books". Chapter 330, from Sushrata, "The Genesis of the Embryo and of the Members" claims that the embryo results from mixing of sperm and menstrual blood (vis-a-vis Aristotle!) and describes various constituents of the embryo. The medical historian Arthur Meyer summed up the whole of the Arabic embryological tradition when he said that at-Tabari "depended largely upon Greek sources, which would seem to imply that he could obtain little from the Arabs. Moreover, since Aristotelian and Galenical teaching survived side by side for over a thousand years without a known Arabic counterpart, it is doubtful if the latter existed" [51].
An extraordinary passage from the writings of the medieval philosopher Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya shows how heavily the later Arabic writers depended upon the Greek doctors; in one continuous discourse [52] the words of Hippocrates explain the Qur'an and Hadith, and the latter are used to explain Hippocrates. For example:
"Hippocrates said ... 'some membranes are formed at the beginning, others after the second month, and others in the third month ...' That is why God says, 'He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, by one formation after another in three darknesses'. Since each of these membranes has its own darkness, when God mentioned the stages of creation and transformation from one state to another, He also mentioned the darknesses of the membranes. Most commentators explain: 'it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta' ... Hippocrates said, 'The ears are opened, and the eyes, which are filled with a clear liquid.' The Prophet used to say, 'I worship Him Who made my face and formed it, and opened my hearing and eyesight' etc. etc" [53].
Here is someone writing a medical account who includes Hippocrates (bold type), the Qur'an and Hadith (bold italics), commentaries on them (italics) and his own thoughts (normal type) in one and the same paragraph. Of course the intelligentsia of Muhammed's time would have been familiar with both Greek and Indian medicine.
Other embryologists were known but added nothing new to Galen, for example Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn 'Abdallah Ibn Sina (AD 980-1037) who wrote a Canon Medicinae. Clement of Alexandria included familiar information and believed that the embryo was formed through the combination of semen and menstrual blood. Lactantius of Nicomedia in AD 325 opened eggs at varying stages of development.

It seems that not even Prof. Moore is sufficiently convinced by the scientific "facts" in the Qur'an to risk his reputation as a highly respected professor of anatomy in the medical establishment. The Islamic edition of his textbook is not available even in the British Library or the US Library of Congress, let alone other medical libraries in Western countries [54], presumably because he is aware that not only do the Islamic contributions in it contradict known science, but they also contradict what he has written in the standard version of his textbook. And ironically in the bibliography for the first chapter, "A history of embryology", in both the standard and Islamic versions he refers to Needham's important work on the history of embryology [55]. Needham however is unimpressed with the Arabic claims of embryology and after writing almost 60 pages about ancient Greek, Indian and Egyptian embryology he dismisses the entire Arabic tradition in less than one page, concluding that "Arabic science, so justly famed for its successes in certain fields such as optics and astronomy, was not of great help to embryology". After listing some of the verses in the Qur'an about embryology he dismisses them as merely "a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda" [56], in other words a mixture of Greek and ancient Indian teachings. In the most recent (1998) edition of The Developing Human, Moore also directs his readers to a book which contains another essay by Basim Musallam, which again points out how similar the Qur'anic science of embryology was to that of Galen, and how this close association was never questioned by the ancient Muslim scholars [57].
In conclusion then there is not a single statement contained in the Qur'an relating to modern embryology that was not well known through direct observation by the ancient Greek and Indian physicians many centuries before the Qur'an was written. Morever, much of what the Qur'an actually does say about embryology is scientifically inaccurate. The ancient physicians' works were translated into Syriac in the century preceeding Muhammed, and were therefore accessible to non-Greek speakers. We know that one of the Companions of the Prophet was a doctor who trained at the very same medical school that the Greek translations were kept and taught at. We even know that at least one of the verses which describes embryology, sura 23:14 contains the words of another of Muhammed's companions. We are forced to conclude that, far from proving the alleged divine credentials of the Qur'an, its embryological statements actually provide further convincing evidence for its human origins.
References

Keith L. Moore (Saunders, 1982) The Developing Human, 3rd edition with Islamic Additions, p. viiic
J. Goodwin (Plume/Penguin, 1995) Price of Honor - Muslim Women Lift The Veil Of Silence On The Islamic World, p. 145
Moore, op. cit., pp. 14a, 446f
Hippocratic Writings (Penguin Classics, 1983) p. 320
Aristotle (English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann, 1953) Generation of Animals, 717b
Famsy Conference (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/018bce2778b84e88), 8 July 1995; a related explanation is made here (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.aspx?type=question&qid=100).
Hippocratic Writings, op. cit., pp. 317-8
W. Campbell (Middle East Resources, 1986) The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science (http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/contents.html), pp. 181-182
K. L. Moore, (Saunders, 1998) The Developing Human, 6th edition, p. 10
Aristotle, op. cit., 740a
B. Torki (1979) L'Islam Religion de la Science, p. 178
Al Munjid fil Lugha wala'aam (Dar Al Mashreq sarl, Lebanon, 1987)
As-Suyuti, trans. Elgood (Ta-Ha, 1994) As-Suyuti's Medicine of the Prophet, p. 184ff
Iman Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (English trans. Mahammad Al-Akili, Pearl, 1993) Natural Healing with the Medicine of the Prophet, p. 284
Sami K. Hamarneh (Cairo, 1974), The Physician, Therapist and Surgeon Ibn al-Quff, p. 105
al-Bukhari, 8.593; Muslim Kitab an-Nikah, MCII
K. L. Moore, op. cit.(1998), pp. 56, 63, chapters 15 and 16
Aristotle, op. cit., 729a
Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101
A. W. Meyer (Stanford, 1939) The Rise of Embryology, p. 27
B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54
J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 77
Aristotle, op. cit., 767b, 769a
Aristotle, op. cit., 722a
Sahih Muslim CXXV (entitled "The characteristic of the male reproductive substance and the female reproductive substance, and that the offspring is produced by the contribution of both")
Famsy Conference, op. cit.
Hippocrates, op. cit., pp. 320-1
J. Needham, op. cit., p. 53
Hippocrates, op. cit., p. 329
Hippocrates, op. cit., p. 345
B. Palmer (ed.) (Paternoster Press, 1986), Medicine and the Christian Mind, p. 19
G. M. Gould, W. L. Pyle (Julian Press, 1896) Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine p. 296
G. Sarton, (Williams and Wilkins, 1927) Introduction to the History of Science, vol I, pp. 423-424
A. A. Khairallah (American Press, Beirut, 1946) Outline of Arabic Contributions to Medicine, p. 24
H. Bailey (ed) (Cambridge University Press, 1975) Cambridge History of Iran, vol 4, p. 414
C. Elgood (Camrbidge University Press, 1951) A Medical History of Persia, p. 98
See for example Ibn Abi Usaybia, "Classes of Physicians" in 649 AH/1242AD; or al-Qifti, "History of the Philosophers", 624AH/1227AD.
M. Z. Siddiqi (Calcutta University, 1959) Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature, p. 6-7
E. G. Browne (Cambridge University Press, 1962) Arabian Medicine, p. 11
M. J. L. Young [I]et al., (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Religion, Learning and Science in the `Abbasid Period, p. 342
A. A. Khairallah, op. cit., p. 22
C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 66
C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 68 (Click here (http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/nadr.html) for further information about this)
L. LeClerc, Histoire de la M‚decine Arabe (Burt Franklin, New York; originally published in Paris, 1876) vol I, p. 123
Commentary of al-Baidawi, The Lights of Revelation (Dar al Geel), p. 184 (see on sura 6:93 for an explanation of 23:14; click here (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/sarh.html) for further information about this)
M. Meyerhof (1926) New light on Hunain Ibn Ishaq and his period, Isis, vol 8, pp. 685-724
H. Bailey, op. cit., p. 415
E. G. Browne, op. cit., p. 24-26
M. Meyerhof (1931) Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom", one of the oldest Arabic Compendiums of Medicine, Isis, vol 16, pp. 6-54
Ali b. Rabban-al-Tabari, ed. M. Z. Siddiqi (Frankfurt am Main: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 1996, originally published in 1928) Firdausu'l-Hikmat, or Paradise of Wisdom, in vol 29, "Islamic Medicine"
A. W. Meyer, op. cit., p. 27
Ibn Qayyin (Damascus, 1971) Tuhfat: Tuhfat al mawdud bi ahkam al-mawlud, pp. 254-291
B. Musallam, op. cit., p. 56
This information was accurate as of November 1996. Obviously this "oversight" could be easily rectified by Muslim efforts in reaction to this paper. But at the time of writing (the first edition of this article), more than 14 years after the publication of the "edition with Islamic additions", this special edition of the textbook was not listed in these library catalogues.
K. L. Moore, op. cit.(1998), p. 15
J. Needham, op. cit., p. 82
B. Musallam, The human embryo in Arabic scientific and religious thought, in, G. R. Dunstan (ed.) (University of Exeter Press, 1990) The human embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European traditions, pp. 32-46

Copyright 1996, 1999 by Dr. Lactantius.
The author is a practising medical doctor in the United Kingdom and would be pleased to hear your responses at lactantius@hotmail.com. His namesake Lactantius (http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/08736a.htm) was a celebrated apologist of the early church.

Qur'an and Science (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/index.htm)
Answering Islam (http://www.answering-islam.org/index.html) Home Page




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#Embryology_in_The_Qur.27an


In 1980 Dr. Moore was invited to Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) to lecture on anatomy and embryology at King Abdulaziz University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdulaziz_University). While he was there, Moore was approached by the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University for his assistance in interpreting certain verses in the Qur’an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%E2%80%99an) and some sayings in the Hadiths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadiths) which referred to human reproduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction) and embryological development. Moore says that he was amazed at the scientific accuracy of some of the statements which were made in the 7th century AD:
For the past three years, I have worked with the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helping them interpret the many statements in the Qur’an and Sunnah referring to human reproduction and prenatal development. At first I was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-11) Moore worked with the Embryology Committee on a comparative study of the Qur’an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%E2%80%99an), the Hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) and modern embryology.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-Moore1986-12) The Committee presented and published several papers with Moore and others co-authoring a number of papers. [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-HumanDev-13)

Moore is not a Muslim[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-14) but his work with King Abdulaziz University's Embryology Committee has been critiqued on atheistic grounds by biologist PZ Myers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers). [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-15) In 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal) on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an." [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-16)



For a more detailed account of the Islamic lies, look here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6751B1499911C7BB

For the "real Islamic science", take a look here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn7JaB9pqew

...And here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COKhf9c5isA

...And here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOCcReZ-9eU

And finally here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfK3x_czN3k

Muzzie assholes!!!

[Petros Houhoulis]

but atheists believe the universe came from nothing... then they say from other universe,

In fact the original tenets of science suggested that something has to come out of something else. It is impossible to produce something from nothing. Even the "Big Bang theory" suggests that the cosmos was infinately condensed before the big bang, not that it came from nothing.


then they stop becase they don't know how that other universe came to be before our universe... they say from nothing... but even nothing has something...

Nothing has nothing, stop masturbating Muzzie!


ask an atheist to explain space particles, they will tell you about infinite energy but even infinite energy has a root, where it came from.

I don't give a damn about space particles. Prove god...

[Petros Houhoulis]

funny how it was Islam and Christianity who first suggested THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT

Not really. Ancient Greeks knew the world was round before Christ AND Mohammed. Take a look at Eratosthenes:

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


Eratosthenes of Cyrene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrene,_Libya) (/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ɛr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɒ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)θ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)iː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English); Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): Ἐρατοσθένης, IPA: [eratostʰénɛːs] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Greek); c. 276 BC[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#cite_note-1) – c. 195/194 BC[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#cite_note-2)) was a Greek mathematician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematician), geographer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographer), poet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poet), astronomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer), and music theorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory). He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria). He invented the discipline of geography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography), including the terminology used today.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#cite_note-Roller.2C_Duane_W_2010-3)
He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Hellenic_world), which he did by applying a measuring system using stades, or the length of stadia during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt#Obliquity_of_the_ecliptic_.28Earth.27s_ axial_tilt.29) (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit) and invented the leap day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_day).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#cite_note-4) He created the first map of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_world_maps#Eratosthenes) incorporating parallels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_latitude) and meridians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude), based on the available geographical knowledge of the era.
Eratosthenes was the founder of scientific chronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology); he endeavored to revise the dates of the chief literary and political events from the conquest of Troy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy). In number theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory), he introduced the sieve of Eratosthenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes), an efficient method of identifying prime numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number).
He was a figure of influence who declined to specialize in only one field. According to an entry[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#cite_note-5) in the Suda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suda) (a 10th-century reference), his critics scorned him, calling him Beta, from the second letter of the Greek alphabet, because he always came in second in all his endeavors.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#cite_note-6) Nonetheless, his devotees nicknamed him Pentathlos, after the Olympians who were well rounded competitors, for he had proven himself to be knowledgeable in every area of learning. Eratosthenes yearned to understand the complexities of the entire world.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#cite_note-Chambers.2C_James_T_1998-7)
Seventeen hundred years after Eratosthenes' death, while Christopher Columbus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus) studied what Eratosthenes had written about the size of the Earth, he chose to believe that the Earth's circumference was much smaller. Had Columbus set sail knowing that Eratosthenes' larger circumference value was more accurate, he would have known that the place where he made landfall was not Asia, but rather a New World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#cite_note-8)



Retarded Muzzies, go back to your caves, science is not your strong point!!!

[Petros Houhoulis]

But how did the big bang theory happen?

Some crazy "scientists" tried to explain the world. You don't have to take them seriously though...

[Petros Houhoulis]

how do you know he didn't learn it from the jews?

The Jews were busy with religious shit all of the time. They didn't write a singe paper on science during the Ancient times...

[Petros Houhoulis]

so you agree everything is made up of something but not energy?

Energy can be transformed to matter and vice versa. Otherwise there would be no nuclear power. Get used to it!

[Petros Houhoulis]

but how sure are you of it.. can you make perfume out of nothing? or a seed out of nothing?

You cannot make anything out of nothing. That's basic knowledge, really.

[Petros Houhoulis]

Hey, watch the insulting.

And here's the article, Mr. Genius.

http://scienceislam.com/quran_human_embryonic_development.php

I think we are not insulting you Muzzies enough. Your head is full of shit, and yes, the Quran copied Galen. Get used to it...

[Petros Houhoulis]

most doctors are believers 72% of doctors believe in God... i guess you're wrong there..

In which country?

There are no global statistics of doctors' beliefs...

[Petros Houhoulis]

but what caused those things?

by the way of doctors believe in God
https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=3byxVKnSCIGm8wfQjYHQBQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=how+many+doctors+believe+in+god
getting into medicine is hard.. so how wrong atheists are to assume someone stupid for being a deist or theist. so think again when you call a person stupid.

Crazy Americans. Lucky us, we are Europeans...

[Petros Houhoulis]

doctors are very very smart and intellectual otherwise they would not be allowed to operate on people

Not always. Some of them are dumb as fuck.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSt1m4NFUl8

[Petros Houhoulis]

no doctors are scientists... probably the smartest scientist out there.

They are not the smartest scientists out there for sure. The honor usually goes to rocket scientists and nuclear scientists as well.

[Petros Houhoulis]

Hey, Kevin. Did you read that article?

I have plenty more.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/212/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/214/

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1560/

Explain to me this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BOCcReZ-9eU

[armenianbodyhair]

So God came from nothingness, is what you're saying.

I know this is old, but I think he means that God created everything, and the concept of nothing along with it.

[wvwvw]

I know this is old, but I think he means that God created everything, and the concept of nothing along with it.

Back in 1984 there was a movie called The NeverEnding Story, followed by a few ill-advised sequels. In the story, "The Nothing" was destroying the imaginary world of Fantasia, which was saved by a little boy's imagination. A modern version of the movie might feature the new atheism's imaginary worlds, which are created by the "nothing," although this "nothing" also includes more than a little imagination and some slight-of-hand by its proponents.

[armenianbodyhair]

Back in 1984 there was a movie called The NeverEnding Story, followed by a few ill-advised sequels. In the story, "The Nothing" was destroying the imaginary world of Fantasia, which was saved by a little boy's imagination. A modern version of the movie might feature the new atheism's imaginary worlds, which are created by the "nothing," although this "nothing" also includes more than a little imagination and some slight-of-hand by its proponents.

Is it on netflix?

[Petros Houhoulis]

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jacques_Cousteau_%28Conversion_to_Islam%29

Yes, you are stupid. Cousteau never converted to Islam, according to your very own source:


The following letter of clarification (dated 1991) from Didier Cerceau of the Cousteau Society emphatically states that Cousteau did not convert to Islam. Note that this is an official communication made by Cousteau's Foundation and he did not repudiate it.




http://truereligiondebate.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/non-muslim-scientists-embraced-islam-after-discovering-the-miracles-of-the-noble-quran/

Lies, lies and more lies:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzrSWJYRiYU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eziurUGGens


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJUu1wfUzec


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aR7uFYuiKk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#Embryology_in_The_Qur.27an


In 1980 Dr. Moore was invited to Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) to lecture on anatomy and embryology at King Abdulaziz University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdulaziz_University). While he was there, Moore was approached by the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University for his assistance in interpreting certain verses in the Qur’an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%E2%80%99an) and some sayings in the Hadiths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadiths) which referred to human reproduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction) and embryological development. Moore says that he was amazed at the scientific accuracy of some of the statements which were made in the 7th century AD:
For the past three years, I have worked with the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helping them interpret the many statements in the Qur’an and Sunnah referring to human reproduction and prenatal development. At first I was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-11) Moore worked with the Embryology Committee on a comparative study of the Qur’an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%E2%80%99an), the Hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) and modern embryology.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-Moore1986-12) The Committee presented and published several papers with Moore and others co-authoring a number of papers. [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-HumanDev-13)

Moore is not a Muslim[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-14) but his work with King Abdulaziz University's Embryology Committee has been critiqued on atheistic grounds by biologist PZ Myers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers). [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-15) In 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal) on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an." [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore#cite_note-16)




http://www.islamicbulletin.org/newsletters/issue_6/embraced.aspx

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


Maurice Bucaille (French pronunciation: ​[moris byˈkaj] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_French)), 19 July 1920, Pont-l'Évêque, Calvados (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont-l%27%C3%89v%C3%AAque,_Calvados) - 17 February 1998[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-1)), son of Maurice and Marie (James) Bucaille,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-Galegroup-2) was a French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) medical doctor, member of the French Society of Egyptology (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_Society_of_Egyptology&action=edit&redlink=1), and an author. Bucaille practiced medicine from 1945–82 and was a specialist in gastroenterology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastroenterology).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-Galegroup-2) In 1973, Bucaille was appointed family physician to king Faisal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_of_Saudi_Arabia) of Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia). Another of his patients at the time included members of the family of then President of Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Egypt), Anwar Sadat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Sadat).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-3)

The Bible, The Qur'an and Science In 1976 Bucaille published his book, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science which argued that the Quran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran) contains no statements contradicting established scientific facts.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-bbcradio-4) Bucaille argued that the Quran is in agreement with scientific facts, while the Bible is not. He states that in Islam, science and religion have always been "twin sisters" (vii). According to Bucaille, there are monumental errors of science in the Bible and not a single error in the Quran. Bucaille's belief is that the Quran's descriptions of natural phenomena make it compatible with modern science. Bucaille concludes that the Quran is the Word of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God). Bucaille argues that some of the most celebrated scientific discoveries in the 20th century, were described in detail and accuracy. Bucaille gives examples of astronomy, embryology, and multiple other subjects that had major advances in the 20th century.

Bucaille argues that the Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) has been distorted because of numerous translations and corrections as it was transmitted orally. He highlights, in his words, "numerous disagreements and repetitions", in the Old Testament and the Gospels. In his analysis, Bucaille claims he makes use of many propositions of Biblical criticism, such as the documentary hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis).

Bucailleism "Bucailleism" is a term used for the movement to relate modern science with religion, and especially that of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-5) Since the publishing of The Bible, the Quran and Science, Bucaillists have promoted the idea that the Quran is of divine origin, arguing that it contains scientifically correct facts.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-7)
According to The Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal), Bucailleism is "in some ways the Muslim counterpart to Christian creationism" although "while creationism rejects much of modern science, Bucailleism embraces it". It described Bucailleism as being "disdained by most mainstream scholars" but said it has fostered pride in Muslim heritage and played an important role in attracting converts.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-StrBedfel-8)

Reception Maurice Bucaille’s concordist theories have faced some criticism. William F. Campbell maintains that Maurice Bucaille does not evaluate the Qur'an with the same standards he uses to judge the Bible. Indeed, Bucaille demands that the Bible comply with 20th-century scientific language, while he finds acceptable that the Quran is not written with such scientific rigor, because the Qur'an, as he writes: "is expressed in a language that suits farmers or nomads of the Arabic peninsula".[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-9) Thus, he claims Bucaille is not objective.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#cite_note-10)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#Bucaillei sm


One well-known proponent of this argument is Maurice Bucaille (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille), a French physician and author of the book The Bible, The Quran and Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille#The_Bible.2C_The_Qur.27an_and_Sci ence), whose translator into Indonesian, Dr. Muhammad Rasjidi, former Professor for Islamic Studies at McGill University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGill_University) and former Indonesian Minister for Religious Affairs characterizes as "a half-baked mish-mash of pseudo-science and pseudo-exegesis".[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-18) Maurice Bucaille asserts in his book that "he could not find a single error in the Qur'an", and that the Qur'an does "not contain a single statement which is assailable from a modern scientific point of view", which led him to believe that no human author in the 7th century could have written "facts" which "today are shown to be keeping with modern scientific knowledge".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-EOQ_SAQ-1) Scholars criticize, that "Bucaille bends the meaning of the Arabic words to suit his own ideas."[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-19) and "Bucaille proposes new meanings for Qur'anic words to bring them into accord with modern scientific knowledge, without requiring any standard philological justification."[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-20)

The search for Qur'anic references to and prophecies of modern scientific discoveries has become a "popular trend" in some Muslim societies;[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-21) as a manifestation of the popularity of the scientific miracles belief, the Muslim World League at Makkah formed a committee named Committee on the Scientific Miracles of the Qurʾān and the Sunna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Scientific_Signs_in_the_Quran_and_Su nnah) to investigate the relation between Qur'an and science, headed by Zaghloul El-Naggar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaghloul_El-Naggar).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-EOQ_SAQ-1)
According to some recent studies of the relationship between science education and religion, one of the ways in which science education in strongly Islamic societies is impacted by religiosity is when "acceptable" scientific discoveries can be found to have been anticipated or "identified" by the Qur'an, with consequent implications for what is taught and not taught.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-22)
Criticism of consistency Taner Edis, author of An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam, describes this point.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-23) He argues that Muslims are more likely to view the Quran as the direct word of God, and so it must be reconciled with their growing respect for science and technology. Edis suggests that Muslims often have a vested interest in finding passages whose interpretation can be stretched to describe modern understanding. He warns that reading into (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis) books like this can be misleading, since the method can be used to support any number of contradictory facts.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-TanerEdis-24) Russel Glasser (a Skeptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic) from the The Atheist Experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_Experience) TV show with Matt Dillahunty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) and Jeff Dee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Dee)) likewise suggests that reading into the Quran like this amounts to cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29) and risks simply confirming the biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) of the investigator.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-25)

Criticism of pseudoscientific thought High energy physicist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) Pervez Hoodbhoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Hoodbhoy) has written on the phenomenon of pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) based on Quranic scripture in the Muslim world, ranging from claims that Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein)'s Theory of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity) proves the existence of heaven in Islam, to claims that, according to the Quran, nuclear energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy) comes from Genies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie).[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-IslamicFailure-26) He observes that the prevalence of such pseudoscientific concepts has led to significant decline in scientific output from Muslims since the distant past.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-IslamicFailure-26) Hoodbhoy's book "Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality", provides more details about the rise of such kinds of pseudoscience promoted by Wahhabis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabis) such as claims of the Quran's containing "scientific miracles" and the Islamic creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism) of Harun Yahya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_Yahya).[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts#cite_note-27)




If you want to watch:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05A-xg1UjEY

Fake as hell...

[wvwvw]

Is it on netflix?

No idea, I haven't watched the movie. I was actually quoting from here: ;)

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_is_there_something.html

[Desaix DeBurgh]

why do atheists get mad when they hear that someone very very clever believes in God?...

Actually americans are divided 50/50
Britains one is more complicated... 72% said they were christian... but then it also suggests that 25% have no religion... and only 38% believe in God...

there is a problem with these statistics... because someone ticking "no religion" doesn't necessarily mean "I don't believe in God" the statistics should be more specific...
i remember i ticked no religion once bt told everyone i believed in God, even though there was no question if i believed i God.

God told me he wants you to dress up in a sexy outfit and let me spank you and if you don't comply he is going to indiscriminately kill many cute baby kittens :naughty2: :

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo257/webuser/bad-girl-spanked.gif

[Desaix DeBurgh]

Back in 1984 there was a movie called The NeverEnding Story, followed by a few ill-advised sequels. In the story, "The Nothing" was destroying the imaginary world of Fantasia, which was saved by a little boy's imagination. A modern version of the movie might feature the new atheism's imaginary worlds, which are created by the "nothing," although this "nothing" also includes more than a little imagination and some slight-of-hand by its proponents.

The NeverEnding story is clearly a Childrens' movie. That you would seriously reference it in the presence of adults, here, shows how puerile the inferior mind of theists are or in the very least how puerile yours is. It takes a puerile mind to need a crutch like the idea of an imaginary friend known as God.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

why are atheists always angry?

i remember once when I doubted God, it didn't make me smarter... I was just dumb... failed some exams... and I remember once when I strongly believed in him i did very well... why do atheists believe intelligence has anything to do with believing in god? it doesn't! ?

God just told me he killed a kitten and there is more to come if you don't comply. You better change outfits and bend over. :dev

[Desaix DeBurgh]

I once doubted God... I was still dumb... failed my exams... so i guess being atheist doesn't make you that smart... and I remember a girl who strongly believed in God, her name was Amina a devoted muslim, I remember it was usually her name called up in class for highest score.. the teacher would be like..."Amina you got the highest score 98% 99% well done"

Actually, if you were smart you would have realized that arguments from personal experience are never convincing since they are anecdotal and can't be quantified objectively. However, you are in luck : you happen to meet me. Now, if you dress up in a sexy outfit, bend over, and let me spank you that could be the best thing that ever happened to you. I might decide that I want to be your master so I will do all the thinking and make all the decisions for you and your life would greatly improve but I make no guarantees that I will decide to be your master for life.

[Petros Houhoulis]

why do atheists get mad when they hear that someone very very clever believes in God?...

Actually americans are divided 50/50
Britains one is more complicated... 72% said they were christian... but then it also suggests that 25% have no religion... and only 38% believe in God...

there is a problem with these statistics... because someone ticking "no religion" doesn't necessarily mean "I don't believe in God" the statistics should be more specific...
i remember i ticked no religion once bt told everyone i believed in God, even though there was no question if i believed i God.

Actually there is a score of priests and even imams who DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/can-you-be-an-atheist-priest


Can you be an atheist priest?

New congregations that don’t do God may be a sign of the times

by Jessica Abrahams (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/author/jessica-abrahams) / December 12, 2013 / Leave a comment (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/can-you-be-an-atheist-priest#respond)
Published in January 2014 (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/issues/214) issue of Prospect Magazine
Ollie Killingback spent most of his career as a clergyman for the Church of England—and for much of that time he was an atheist. “I had doubts before I entered the Church,” he says. “The study of theology [during ordination training] was supposed to relieve those.” It didn’t and he entered the ministry anyway. “I’d been on that track for so long… [but] I found myself with more and more unsatisfying situations where I couldn’t, with what I had been taught, find an adequate answer.”
Other priests go further. “Iain” still works as a Protestant minister in Ireland. In an interview with the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, he referred to God as “total and absolute nonsense” adding that trying to instil religious faith in children amounts to abuse. His congregation doesn’t know this, only his wife; he can’t look at her while he’s preaching. Ollie and Iain are members of the Clergy Project, an international online group of more than 530 clergymen and women who do not believe in God. Many have left the ministry, but about a quarter have not and use pseudonyms online. The project, founded in 2011, receives about 50 applications a month (although not all join—the group has a stringent screening process to protect the anonymity of its members). Some of the newest members are imams in Islamic countries.
Daniel Dennett, the philosopher, and his collaborator Linda LaScola published a study in 2010, “Preachers Who Are Not Believers,” for which LaScola interviewed six non-believing Christian clergymen. Dennett wondered then how many secret non-believers there were still standing in the pulpit. Research is limited, but Catherine Dunphy, Executive Director of the Clergy Project who formerly trained to be a Catholic chaplain, has watched the group grow 10-fold in two years. “If you speak to members of the Clergy Project, the one thing that is heard over and over again is that ‘we’re the tip of the iceberg.’ This is something that we believe is pretty rampant,” she says. “The majority of clergypeople know what it’s like to doubt, and there’s a good percentage that are in the closet with their doubts and have relinquished their faith.”
Leaving the priesthood is not like leaving other jobs. A priest who declares his or her atheism faces financial and social repercussions: income and home depend on the Church. Some lose their spouses and families. Others have faced threats. Dunphy recommends that members of the Clergy Project use pseudonyms on the site as “exposure is something that is greatly feared by members living in Islamic countries and in the evangelical south of the US, who encounter great stigma from their communities and families when they come out as atheists. Some have even had their lives threatened, or had harm threatened against them.” She attributes the rapid growth of this project to education and access to atheist literature online. But it must also echo the wider trend towards secularism among the public, which Peter Kellner describes above.
A survey conducted by the Free University of Amsterdam in 2006 found that one in six Protestant priests in Holland were either atheist or agnostic. But while ministers like Iain feel that they are lying outright to their congregation, non-belief among clergymen is not always perceived as a problem. Some follow the tradition of “Christian non-realism,” most famously expounded in the UK by Don Cupitt in the 1980s, which holds that God is a symbol or metaphor and that religious language is not matched by a transcendent reality. This position was supported by the Dutch priest Reverend Klaas Hendrikse in his 2007 book Believing In A Non-Existent God, which led to calls for his removal from the Church; but a General Synod found his views were widely shared.
In 2011, Canon Brian Mountford of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin in Oxford, published Christian Atheist: Belonging Without Believing, containing interviews with a dozen “Christian atheists,” among them the author Philip Pullman. When Mountford spoke about these interviews to his congregation, he was surprised by how many approached him afterwards to say they thought they might be a Christian atheist; the book became a Blackwell’s bestseller.
Such arguments are more easily accommodated within mainstream Christianity than within evangelical traditions, which may explain why the majority of Clergy Project members are former evangelicals. But in some mainstream traditions, non-realists have even risen to senior positions—Reverend Gary Hall, for example, who was appointed as Dean of the Washington National Cathedral (an Episcopal church) last year, once told Richard Dawkins that, “I don’t believe in the God you don’t believe in either.”
“I think the Church has to take very seriously indeed all those who don’t believe in a metaphysical god but value community, the moral compass of Jesus, and the elevating, religious experience of beauty in church music, liturgy, poetry, art and drama,” Mountford told me. “The Church has to risk engaging with the spirit of the age even when that threatens some of its most sacred cows. In doing so it will find that many people want to rediscover spiritual value, seriousness and community in lives isolated by the TV and computer screen.”
Even some clergy who have left the Church because of their atheism feel there is value in the community and the time for reflection offered by religion, and have set up secular congregations (for another take on this idea, read our review of Ronald Dworkin’s Religion Without God on p72). Gretta Vosper, a member of the Clergy Project who previously led a United Church congregation in Toronto, took most of her parishioners from the Christian congregation to a humanist one. Another member of the Clergy Project, a Lutheran pastor in Houston, set up a secular congregation after he left the church called Houston Oasis, which describes itself as “a community grounded in reason, celebrating the human experience.” Some of his former parishioners left the Lutheran church to join the new atheist one. Harvard University’s humanist chaplaincy (founded by a former Catholic priest) has opened a 3,200 sq ft “humanist hub” for a “godless congregation,” and there is another in Arizona.
“Atheist churches” have flourished this year in Canada, the US, the UK and Australia. Congregations attempt to draw out the socially and psychologically beneficial aspects of traditional church gatherings without the need for God. Alain de Botton’s “Temple for Atheists” in London, proposed last year, never got off the ground, but several successful projects have done so.
One of the most popular is the Sunday Assembly, founded at the beginning of 2013 by comedians Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans in London, but now with branches all over the country, as well as Melbourne and New York. When I went to one meeting I found a congregation of around 250 heathens—Evans claims it is up to 600 some weeks. Services are themed; this time it was “stargazing,” which began with well-known “hymns”—“Reach for the Stars” by S Club 7 and “Starman” by David Bowie—accompanied by a band. There was a lecture from an Oxford astrophysicist on the universe, and an acappella group performed a song about the solar system. Afterwards, we were encouraged to commune with our neighbours over tea, to join book groups and voluntary organisations.
“I spend most of my time sat at my desk on the internet,” Evans says. “I’m no sociologist, but I’m pretty sure that’s not good for us.” We live in isolation, she says, not knowing our neighbours. “Community is what the church used to provide,” and though many of us no longer believe in God we still want that sense of community.
Dunphy agrees. “I think that what Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans have established with the Sunday Assembly is that there’s this need to have a communal experience, to have some fun, to talk about shared values, to articulate things that we find interesting and to have a discussion.” With organised religion declining, “you need to have something to fill that gap,” she says.
The Sunday Assembly was originally held in a former church, but the land was still owned by the Church and they were asked to leave. It’s now held in a larger venue in Bethnal Green. But there’s a historical symmetry about the idea of a humanist gathering taking place in a former church. Religions tend to recycle the buildings, symbols and rituals of their predecessors: pagan temples were transformed into Catholic churches; Catholic churches taken over by Protestants; and Protestant churches now adopted by secular humanists. Some may balk at the idea of a church being repurposed by atheists, but it’s part of a tradition of such conversions.
“I do not know if the [traditional] church will survive,” says Dunphy. “Just over a century ago Robert Green Ingersoll predicted that in 100 years churches would be dead… That has not happened. But I think the influence of religion will decline and some churches may morph. If we look at the phenomenon of the Sunday Assembly or the Houston Oasis, those [groups] are speaking to the need or the desire for community among human beings.” In that way, the Sunday Assembly—a group of atheists gathered in a former church for a sermon from a university lecturer—may offer a glimpse of what religion might look like in the future.
CORRECTION: This article originally stated that Daniel Dennett “interviewed six non-believing Christian clergymen for his 2010 study, ‘Preachers Who Are Not Believers.’” The interviews were in fact conducted by Dennett’s co-author, Linda LaScola.



You see, there are some religious people who are smarter than you.

The Yankees are mostly religious, the Europeans are mostly Atheists, except perhaps the South Europeans and especially the Balkaners.

We are not mad. You are STUPID and POORER than us:

http://www.godandscience.org/images/religionvsiq.gif

[Petros Houhoulis]

but you said the universe was made from nothing...

I didn't say that, not even the Big bang theory or the "parallel universe" theory suggests that.


but now your saying you can't make something out of nothing... which one is it?... surely if everything can't be made out of nothing then the universe didn't pop out of nothing...

explain space particles? explain cosmic ray lights?

The Universe was always there, I don't give a damn about space particles or cosmic ray lights.

Prove god.

[Petros Houhoulis]

why are atheists always angry?

Why are the religious people usually stupid?


i remember once when I doubted God, it didn't make me smarter... I was just dumb... failed some exams... and I remember once when I strongly believed in him i did very well... why do atheists believe intelligence has anything to do with believing in god? it doesn't!

So, now that you believe in god, you became smarter? Bullcrap.

Intelligence has something with believing in god:

http://www.godandscience.org/images/religionvsiq.gif

[Petros Houhoulis]

How come 0+1=1?

Because 0+x=x.

[Petros Houhoulis]

I once doubted God... I was still dumb... failed my exams... so i guess being atheist doesn't make you that smart... and I remember a girl who strongly believed in God, her name was Amina a devoted muslim, I remember it was usually her name called up in class for highest score.. the teacher would be like..."Amina you got the highest score 98% 99% well done"

I can train my parrot to repeat a lesson as well. Getting the highest grades isn't proof of intelligence, but usually proof of how hard you study.

In any case, the average students excell in real life, while the top notch students are usually unable to unstuck from their curriculum...

[Petros Houhoulis]

i think you will be surprised a lot of atheists call those who believe in God stupid... at my school it was the religious ones who did better than those who were not so religious people, I wasn't religious at school at all and I failed some exams, but the ones who were religious did very very well... especially the muslims girls on science, I believed in God somewhat but I was not that strong at believing... funny when I believed in him once strongly I did better at school and got better grades...

Success in school is related to how hard you study. Success in life has more to do with intelligence, and as Bill Gates says:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/568877-i-choose-a-lazy-person-to-do-a-hard-job


“I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”


― Bill Gates (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/23470.Bill_Gates)

Intelligent Atheists are usually LAZY PEOPLE. They don't read to pass the exams, they read for their own leisure. Your religious buffoons might succeed in school, but we shall succeed in life...

[Petros Houhoulis]

Prove that the universe was always there... you can't have it both ways.. one minute the big bang theory the next it was always there.

I don't believe in the Big bang theory.

The universe was always there, because it was always there. No need to prove that. You need to prove who created god...

[Petros Houhoulis]

why do atheists get angry when they hear about intelligent theists?

Because they are not intelligent enough to prove the existence of god.

[Petros Houhoulis]

i can relate to that shit so hard, but to be honest lazy isnt something you wanna be, it sucks

I can be uberlazy and overworked to death. At school I was one of the best pupils, but I would rarely read. Most often than not I would only remember what was told in class, or read encyclopaedias for the fun of it!

[breaker]

if it's related to how hard they study then why call believers stupid?

isaac newton was a devoted christian and a strong believer in god today he remains the most celebrated scientists/Physicists mathematician.

bill gates is agnostic
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/bill-gates-it-makes-sense-believe-god

Isac newton lived in a era where religion was still important.

bill gates is agnostic meaning that he belives religion is fabricated and god exists.

[breaker]

god sounds wrong, more like a deity

i agree.

[Drawing-slim]

I know god

[Petros Houhoulis]

if it's related to how hard they study then why call believers stupid?

isaac newton was a devoted christian and a strong believer in god today he remains the most celebrated scientists/Physicists mathematician.

bill gates is agnostic
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/bill-gates-it-makes-sense-believe-god

Isaac Newton wrote a lot of religious crap beyond his scientific corpus. Luckily for him, all of that shit is forgotten.

The most celebrated mathematician is still Archimedes, and we just figured out:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWRK4ptw58w

Agnostic is not a person believing in god. Agnostic is a person declaring his ignorance on the existence of god...

[Petros Houhoulis]

I know god

He doesn't know you.

[Drawing-slim]

He doesn't know you.Of course not. If humans are not suppose to know God he too isn't supose to know his God=me.

[breaker]

I am god bow to me suckers or i will bring vengeance and strike with furious anger :cool:

[Petros Houhoulis]

Of course not. If humans are not suppose to know God he too isn't supose to know his God=me.

I shall add you to that list:

http://www.oddee.com/item_98878.aspx


10 Crazy People That Claimed To Be God http://www.oddee.com/imgs/ti.png 2/24/2014
http://www.oddee.com/imgs/au.png by Marcus Blake (http://www.oddee.com/About/MarcusB/)
http://www.oddee.com/imgs/ca.png Strange People (http://www.oddee.com/strange-people/)
http://www.oddee.com/imgs/views.png 56,599 views
http://www.oddee.com/imgs/tags.png Tags: god, crazy, messiah, messiah complex


There are plenty of people out there with a Messiah complex. Here are ten crazies with big delusions of grandeur–people that claimed to be God with somewhat disastrous results.

We know the word “crazy” is a little redundant in the title, but you catch our drift.

1

Florida Native Tells Police That He Is God and Asks Them to Cut Off His Penis
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_Mugshot-Michael-Joseph-Silecchia.png
Sure, there are people who have claimed to be God and terrible things have come out of that, but when you involve the act of cutting off a penis, that takes crazy to a whole new level!

Police were called to Campus Club Apartments in Gainsville, FL after getting a report that residents witnessed 19- year-old Michael Joseph Silecchia running the halls of the building. According to police, the suspect stated that he was “straight” and that he was “God." Silecchia then stripped and begged cops “don't cut off my penis.” However, Silecchia's last shred of sanity disappeared when he changed his mind and asked the police to indeed cut off his penis. Things then turned ugly when Silecchia punched a female officer in the head while the police were trying to subdue him. The police eventually had to use a taser on the potentially penisless “God.”

To nobody's surprise, Silecchia later told the police that he was on acid. He was later taken into custody and given a medical evaluation.
(Source (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/26/lsd-tripping-florida-man-claims-to-be-god-and-asks-police-to-cut-off-his-penis/))


2

Self-Proclaimed Messiah Responsible for the Death of 911 Followers
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_I-Believe-in-Jim-Jones-Jonestown-Massacre.jpg
Along with David Koresh, Jim Jones was possibly the most notoriously crazy person to claim to be God. He is responsible for the utterly gut wrenching Jonestown Massacre in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978.

Jones, a paranoid drug addict infatuated with power, claimed that he was the reincarnation of Jesus, Buddha and Gandhi. This untrained Christian preacher from Indiana founded the People's Temple Full Gospel Church and moved his congregation from the U.S. to Guyana due to an expose in New West magazine.

Claims of abuse and human rights violations led to a Congressional investigation of Jim Jones in Guyana spearheaded by Congressman Leo Ryan. Ryan and a NBC film crew discovered that people were being held against their will in Jonestown. When the congressman announced that he was willing to take anyone who wished to leave back to the United States, Jones launched an attack on Ryan and his entourage and used that to influence his followers to commit mass suicide.

A total of 918 people died that day. Jim Jones died of a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. (Source (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/jonestown/index_1.html) | Photo (http://consciouslifenews.com/another-anniversary-forgotten-november-souls/))


3

Florida Woman Claims to be God and Sets Car on Fire With Her Dogs Inside
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_Alexandra-Barnes.jpg
On April 24, 2013, Alexandra Barnes of Daytona Beach, FL, walked inside a BP gas station, went behind the counter and grabbed a lighter. As the she ran out, another clerk ran after her and wrestled her to the ground. She broke free and with her car already doused in gasoline, Barnes grabbed another lighter and proceeded to set fire to the vehicle.

A witness–Larry Romero–jumped into action when Barnes screamed that her babies were in the car. The babies turned out to be the Barnes' dogs. Romero pulled the dogs from the car and grabbed Barnes, who was sitting in oncoming traffic in the middle of I-92 claiming to be God.

Barnes was taken to a local hospital for observation and the only damage to the gas station was a melted pump hose – well, that and probably some canine psychological damage.
(Source (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/woman-set-car-fire-gas-station-claimed-she-was-god/nXXHZ/) | Photo (http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/apr-26-woman-allegedly-torches-car-claims-god-1917375/))


4

Sect Leader Causes the Deaths of 75 People in a Standoff with the FBI
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_koresh.jpg
Vernon Howell, a.k.a. David Koresh, was a self-proclaimed prophet and the final leader of the Branch Davidian sect.

In the 1930's, Lois and Ben Roden, Davidian founders, believed that a new Messiah would arrive, signifying the beginning of the “last days.” Upon joining the church in 1981, Howell became close to Lois Roden and after her death gained control of the Davidians. Howell changed his name to David Koresh, and became the church's new leader and Messiah.

Under Koresh's control, rumors of child abuse and illegal weapons within the Branch Davidians ran rampant, resulting in The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and FBI issuing a warrant for Koresh's arrest on February 28, 1993. Four ATF members died in the resulting shoot-out with the Davidians, who lost six of their own.

Negotiations with Koresh dragged out over 51 days. He stalled for time by confusing negotiators with biblical imagery and claimed he was writing religious documents he needed to complete before he surrendered.

The siege finally ended when the FBI carried out a final assault to take members of the sect by force. The “last days” the Roddens had predicted for the Davidians were finally at hand–the compound caught fire and 76 members of the Branch Davidians, including David Koresh, perished inside.
(Source (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/koresh/1.html) | Photo (http://favisonlus.wordpress.com/tag/waco/))


5

Messianic Cult Leader of “The Family” is Responsible for the Tate-LaBianca Murders
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_charlesmanson-db0151709c2bf9671a7551fb88a8877d73cae84b-s6-c30.jpg
Let's jump from one murderous, frustrated musician with a Messiah complex to another. What list would be complete without Charles Manson?

Perhaps the most infamous, homicidal, Messianic cult leader of not only the ‘60's, but of all time, Charlie was born as “No Name Maddox” to 16-year old prostitute Kathleen Maddox. He spent the majority of his youth in various reform schools, prison and the like.

When Manson was released from prison just in time for the 1967 “Summer of Love”, he moved to the epicenter of Flower Power, San Francisco and gained a following. The following eventually became the hippie cult known as “The Family”.

Manson moved his “Family” to an abandoned ranch just outside of Los Angeles, and proceeded to manipulate his followers with his own religious philosophy. “I'm God to my friends. I'm the devil to my enemies. When I look to the future, I'm the prophet. When I must lay down the law for our earth, I'm the son of man.”

Manson prophesied an upcoming race war in which black people would slaughter white people. To ignite the race war, Manson ordered some members of “The Family” to go on a killing spree, which resulted in the deaths of actress Sharon Tate and several others. This set off a reign of terror in Los Angeles for several months and ended the spirit of peace and love of the 1960's for many.
(Source (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/manson/murder_1.html) | Photo (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129175964))


6

Colorado Man Claims to Be God and Beats a 70-year old Man to Death
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_zachary.cooper.mug.shot2.jpg
In 2013, 25-year-old Zachary Joseph Cooper of Denver, CO, had been recently discharged from the military and suffered from mental illness. He was in the care of his mother, Janet Seguras and their neighbor, 70-year-old Tony Morales.

While his mother was out shopping, Cooper beat Morales to death with a baseball bat and slit his throat. After arriving home, Segura found her son naked and “making comments about being in Heaven and referring to himself as God.” Cooper also told her that he had “killed the devil” after the alleged incident.

Cooper has been charged with first-degree murder and is being held without bail.
(Source (http://www.christianpost.com/news/man-claims-he-is-god-that-he-killed-the-devil-after-beating-70-year-old-man-to-death-in-colorado-106954/) | Photo (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/10/murder_denver_city_park_28th_adams.php))


7

Brazilian Man Claims He is Jesus Christ Reincarnated
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_article-0-1A777E0700000578-595_964x643.jpg
Taking his first name as an acronym from Jesus Christ's cross, “Inri” and his last name meaning “Christ,” Inri Cristo is a 66-year-old Brazilian man who believes he is Jesus Christ reincarnated.

Having heard voices since his childhood, Cristo received his first revelation he was Christ while undergoing a fast in Santiago, Chile, in 1979. On this occasion, the voice said, “I am your father: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” His website claims that his is the same face as that on the Shroud of Turin.

As the leader of his own church, “SOUST”– an acronym for Supreme Universal Order of the Holy Trinity–Cristo has many female followers, many of which live on the church compound and have been following him for decades–the oldest is 86 and the youngest only 24. His provocative views on capitalism, abortion, atheism, birth control and even Christmas have caused so much controversy that he has been expelled from several countries including the U.S. and Britain.

Cristo remains in the public eye making numerous appearances on tour and in Brazilian media. The vegetarian and self-proclaimed Messiah broadcasts his teachings every week live on his website to this day.
(Source (http://www.odditycentral.com/news/meet-inri-cristo-the-man-who-thinks-he-is-jesus-reincarnated.html) | Photo (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535168/Man-thinks-hes-Jesus-hundreds-young-women-follow-world.html))


8

Cult Leader and Self-Described “Higher Being” Convinces His Followers to Commit Suicide to Attain a "Level Above Human"
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_1065-421066.jpg
Marshall Applewhite and former partner Bonnie Nettles, founders of the Heaven's Gate cult, believed themselves to be “walk-ins”– higher beings who took control over two middle-aged human bodies designated for their use to teach humanity. Their followers believed it too, and gave up their lives and worldly possessions in the belief that Earth was to be “recycled." The only way to survive was to leave immediately.

In March 1997, that time had come. Applewhite spoke to his followers of a spacecraft that was trailing the comet Hale-Bopp. The church leader claimed that the “only way to evacuate this Earth” was to stage a mass suicide so their souls could board the spacecraft. In his taped speech, he said that after their deaths, the UFO would take them to “another level of existence above human.”

38 members, including Applewhite, left Earth for that “next level” in a rented mansion in suburban San Diego. They carried $5.75 in their pockets for their interplanetary toll.
(Source (http://www.biography.com/people/marshall-herff-applewhite-236006) | Photo (http://backdropsrus.me/tag/marshall-applewhite/))


9

Self-Proclaimed Messiah is a Tranvestite and Former British Intelligence Spy
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_drag.jpg
David Shayler – a former member of the MI5 (Security Service) – proclaimed himself to be the son of God by saying, “I am the messiah and hold the secret to eternal life." He is a also a transvestite whose alter ego – Delores Kane – lives in a squat in Surrey.

Shayler initially achieved notoriety in 1997 when he leaked secret documents to the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday. Believing that intelligence services were deliberately planting stories in newspapers and mainstream media, Shayler later joined the 9/11 Truth Movement, a movement believing the 9/11 attacks to be fraudulent.

In addition to having a conspiracy theory for every major act of terrorism over the past few decades, he also claims to have divine powers, which allow him to influence the weather, prevent terror attacks and predict football scores.
(Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200089/Call-Delores-says-MI5-whistleblower-David-Shayler.html))


10

Pedophilic Sect Leader Claims to be God is Arrested on Sex Charges
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a98878_img-New-Mexico-Court-of-Appeals-upholds-Wayne-Bent-s-convictions.jpg
Michael Travesser, a.k.a. Wayne Bent, leader of The Lord Our Righteousness Church in New Mexico, revealed himself to be the Messiah in 2000.

He predicted the world would end in 2007 but stated that God said to “stay with me one more year.” A year later, Bent was arrested on sex charges for three counts of sexual conduct with a minor. The church leader has acknowledged that he has had sex with his followers in the past.

Comparing himself to Jesus Christ, Bent told the media, "The current upheaval over me and the present contest is well under way. It was the same for Jesus. Jesus had not committed any crimes, so the authorities had to invent some crimes to crucify him over. It is the same for me also. I have committed no crimes, but many crimes are being imagined and concocted in the minds of men to try and kill me again.”
(Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/06/sect.leader.arrest/) | Photo (http://www.koat.com/news/New-Mexico-Court-of-Appeals-upholds-Wayne-Bent-s-convictions/21491696))