PDA

View Full Version : quran scientific contradiction - geocentricism



Kumar_Das
22 July 2010, 07:10 AM
so I just made a thread earlier and was looking at chapter 25 after quoting a verse from it. there seems to be even more contradictions.

25:45

Have you not considered your Lord - how He extends the shadow, and if He willed, He could have made it stationary? Then We made the sun for it an indication.

the length of a shadow is based upon where on the earth's surface you are and the earths rotation on its axis while orbiting the sun.(sunrise to sunset)

the above verse shows a complete lack of understanding. it is what a medieval person looking up into the sky would assume how the shadow is casted.

also the following verses

25:46

Then We hold it in hand for a brief grasp.

(Pickthal)
Then We withdraw it unto Us, a gradual withdrawal?


25:47


And it is He who has made the night for you as clothing and sleep [a means for] rest and has made the day a resurrection.

only reinforces it.

its an idea that light shines already, but sun is an indication. and night is a "covering".

night isnt a covering/clothing, its the side of the earth not facing the sun.

if not for the sun, the earth wont even be in the first place let alone being in full darkness.

maxpsycho
12 December 2010, 09:09 AM
Are you honestly trying to intellectually refute Islam? You do realise that they believe their prophet went to heaven on a flying horse?

satay
12 December 2010, 10:23 AM
Admin note


Are you honestly trying to intellectually refute Islam? You do realise that they believe their prophet went to heaven on a flying horse? (Not that Hindus are that much better; we have flying monkeys who swallow stars and lift mountains)

I know you are new and an atheist. However, I would advice you to read the forum rules by clicking on the FAQ section (on the top toolbar). Mocking hindus, hinduism, india and Indians is not allowed can get you redirected out of this forum in a hurry.

Thanks and enjoy the discussions.

PARAM
12 December 2010, 10:33 AM
----------------

You are from Arya Samaj and become Atheist, but if you do not want any knowledge, or have any knowledge.

sanjaya
12 December 2010, 12:43 PM
Kumar, these are good points. It's obvious that even in modern times we use geocentric language, and talk about the Sun rising and setting. Thus I don't hold it against the Quran for making use of the same language. However, Muslims love to try and win converts by pointing out supposed "scientific miracles" in the Quran, i.e. statements that elucidate an advanced level of scientific understanding. It's only right for the rest of us to point out apparent scientific errors as a way of refuting the existence of scientific miracles.

maxpsycho
13 December 2010, 09:43 AM
Admin note



I know you are new and an atheist. However, I would advice you to read the forum rules by clicking on the FAQ section (on the top toolbar). Mocking hindus, hinduism, india and Indians is not allowed can get you redirected out of this forum in a hurry.

Thanks and enjoy the discussions.
I do hope that my comment wasn't taken to be malicious - it was purely a humorous remark on the irony of the situation; as Hindus (me being a nastika hindu, but a hindu nevertheless), we happen to belong to the rare group of believers that do not hold every single tenet of every school of thought to be true as we realise that many are mutually exclusive. However just as we may find the "facts" of other faiths to be erroneous, we mustn't forget that many injunctions in our own faith are also outdated and quite simply hilarious.

satay
13 December 2010, 11:12 AM
namaste max,

There might be a million problems with hinduism, hindus, india and indians. Exposing those is not the agenda of HDF.

I know you meant no harm with your comment but I have to draw the line somewhere and since you are new you might not know the rules of HDF so it was just a reminder.

Take Care.


I do hope that my comment wasn't taken to be malicious -However just as we may find the "facts" of other faiths to be erroneous, we mustn't forget that many injunctions in our own faith are also outdated and quite simply hilarious.

PARAM
14 December 2010, 10:30 AM
I do hope that my comment wasn't taken to be malicious - it was purely a humorous remark on the irony of the situation; as Hindus (me being a nastika hindu, but a hindu nevertheless), we happen to belong to the rare group of believers that do not hold every single tenet of every school of thought to be true as we realise that many are mutually exclusive. However just as we may find the "facts" of other faiths to be erroneous, we mustn't forget that many injunctions in our own faith are also outdated and quite simply hilarious.
You are from an Arya Samaj family, and become atheist because of this, but you did not try to find out the facts.
However you should try to understand that Modern Science has proved that even animals have languages and human can learn it as well. Dr. Doolittle types of stories also express same. Hanuman was not an ordinary, he was Divine so it was not impossible for him to do anything even in monkey form, while Koran is a total nonsense kind of subject, the proofs you can find in Koran they are not in good taste, so this is not possible any such person can have some divine power

maxpsycho
19 December 2010, 08:09 AM
Respectfully, sir, I would just make a few comments about your reply -

You said - "Modern Science has proved that even animals have languages and human can learn it as well" - As far as I know from reading zoological journals, no real animal "language" has ever been learned. The cases of the dolphin or the bonobos or other types of chimpanzees and apes communicating have come close to what we would call 'language'. But what I would like to point out, is that languages, the way humans have developed them, require consciousness of the self; which is something that hasn't seen to be evolved nearly to the same level as humans in any other species. And so I am fairly certain that there is no real human speaking with animals in their native tongue. Dr. Doolittle of course is simply a terrible movie and nothing more.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Koran - it is a terribly written book, written in an inane style, and the content is barbaric. This much I have no qualms with whatsoever. As far as the Hanuman story is concerned, again with the utmost respect for you and your faith sir, as I am not someone who holds the claims of religious scriptures to be absolutely true (owing to the enormous lack of evidence) I can't take the claim that the wind God had a son in the form of a primate with magical gifts, to be true either.

Would like to just caveat that my comments are not meant to be incendiary or derogatory in any way.

Eastern Mind
19 December 2010, 12:42 PM
Would like to just caveat that my comments are not meant to be incendiary or derogatory in any way.

Vannakkam: I find your repetition of this statememt offensive and naive as it doesn't take into account the reader's interpretation at all. It reminds me of dealing with schoolyard bullies, when confronted, say "We were just fooling around." Then when one speaks with the victim of the bully, another statement or sadder version is given. I tended to side with the victim.

A stronger version is the murderer who tells the judge, "But I didn't mean it."

The very fact an atheist comes onto a forum to argue with Hindus, to me, is by definition derogatory by nature.

On another topic, you also stated that the development of language requires a consciousness of the self. Now if this self you speak of is anywhere near to the meaning of 'Self' within Hinduism, then you have contradicted yourself completely.

I would just like to say that no offense is intended. The idea that I refute atheism and atheists as ridiculous presumptions is not meant to be derogatory or demeaning.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
19 December 2010, 12:59 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté max



we have flying monkeys who swallow stars and lift mountains

you see max, within sanātana dharma it teaches truths via saṃketa¹ , metaphors, etc. If one reads the ved, this is the approach.
So, for the common person that chooses not to investigate the wisdom behind the words they are left with pictures in their minds of flying monkeys, or cows smashing mountains (ṛg ved 1.7.3).


If one reads the śāstra-s without knowing they are written on 3 levels¹, the reader will remain confounded.


Yet that said, I would as you to please take a look at the question I have posed to you here, as I am genuinely interested in your response and POV : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=55272&postcount=9

praṇām

words

saṃketa - hint , allusion , signal or gesture; as this word is rooted (√) in kṛ ' to give a signal' The wise tell us there are 3 levels of interpretation that occur simultaneously:

ādhibautika आधिभौतिक - the physical level - derived or produced from the elements
ādhidaivika आधिदैविक- the cosmic level pertaining to the devatā
ādhytmika आध्यात्मिक- spiritual , of the Supreme, Self.

Sahasranama
19 December 2010, 01:30 PM
Hanuman is rudrarupa, I am not suprised that he can fly and eat the sun, I would be suprised if he could not fly and eat the sun.

sanjaya
19 December 2010, 03:52 PM
Vannakkam: I find your repetition of this statememt offensive and naive as it doesn't take into account the reader's interpretation at all. It reminds me of dealing with schoolyard bullies, when confronted, say "We were just fooling around." Then when one speaks with the victim of the bully, another statement or sadder version is given. I tended to side with the victim.

A stronger version is the murderer who tells the judge, "But I didn't mean it."

The very fact an atheist comes onto a forum to argue with Hindus, to me, is by definition derogatory by nature.

On another topic, you also stated that the development of language requires a consciousness of the self. Now if this self you speak of is anywhere near to the meaning of 'Self' within Hinduism, then you have contradicted yourself completely.

I would just like to say that no offense is intended. The idea that I refute atheism and atheists as ridiculous presumptions is not meant to be derogatory or demeaning.

Aum Namasivaya

I agree, and I would note that this behavior is common among atheists.

Maxpsycho, because you identify as Hindu I want to assume you have the same superiority complex that many Western atheists have inherited from their Christian friends. But I'm noticing the same sort of language I'd see in a Richard Dawkins book. Let's be serious. You can't say that Hinduism is ridiculous and/or foolish, and then claim that you mean no offense. I'm not saying that an atheist can't state his beliefs without being offensive. I have no problem with someone saying that they don't believe in God. But there's a difference between simple disbelief in God, and religious atheism.

Whatever atheists claim, I contend that most Dawkins or Hitchens followers practice their atheism as a religion. These new atheists base their religion around demeaning theistic religions (Christianity is what initially incited their anger, but I guess that now it's open season on any of us who happen to believe in the supernatural). They have specifically said in their writings that religions don't deserve any special respect, and should be treated the same as any other viewpoint expressed in public life. For example, political opponents will often bash each others' platforms. In much the same way, religion should be open to ridicule and should not be treated with special reverence. The New Atheism is a backlash against Christianity, which for centuries in European culture caused oppression of dissenters. Later on, in America, Christianity was still considered the "holy cow" (so to speak) of popular culture, and was treated with great reverence even by those who didn't believe in it. The New Atheists see themselves those who have overthrown this oppressive system and brought Christianity to the same status as the Republicans and Democrats (or whatever parties are in Britain).

Now here's the problem. Like most Westerners, these people think that religion=Christianity. So the New Atheists project all of their frustrations with Christianity, whether legitimate or not, on Hinduism. They come to India and think that they can strip the culture of Hinduism. To them, cows in the street are the same thing as inquisitions, and they believe that Hinduism ought to be treated with no special reverence. So of course one should get away with making comments about how our gods and goddesses are ridiculous and irrelevant in our modern, scientific society.

There is a very clear distinction between legitimate dissent and outright rudeness and arrogance. And I think it's pretty simple to avoid rudeness. No one is making any unreasonable demands by asking that atheists behave respectfully when discussing Hinduism. In short: if someone is of the opinion that depictions of Hindu gods are ridiculous, then that opinion is best kept to oneself.

yajvan
19 December 2010, 05:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

It is interesting to read other HDF members posts. Many good points have been offered.

I see max's contribution to HDF that allow us ( me ) to compare-and-contrast various value systems and beliefs.
If max's view is na+ astika or it is not so I would like to better understand this. I'd like to understand the root meaning of the Cārvāka's atheistical POV, the origin, their core view. I'd like to see if there is one piece of the puzzle that may be missing that brings the nāstika to their conclusions - I think I can learn.

If the conversations are not condesending or jalpa, we can benefit by viewing nigrahasthāna¹ , if that is possible. What is this fancy word? It means to view anothers argument/position that is inconsistent, perhaps even controdictory in nature. To me, it would be a 'blind spot' in the logic of application and belief of the Cārvāka's.

I think I wish to be the student and learn, observe and probe. Yet if the conversation becomes vitaṇḍā¹ (frivolous argument ) , then it will bear no fruit and I will admit my genuine interest was stepped on and learning perhaps is not possible within this type of forum ( suggesting 1:1 conversation may be most appropros).

praṇām

words

nigrahasthāna निग्रहस्थान - a term we find in the nyāya school defined as the following: the position of being unfit to carry on an argument from impossibility of agreeing about first principles
vitaṇḍā - perverse or frivolous argument; arguments or assertions of another without attempting to prove the opposite side of the question

PARAM
20 December 2010, 10:21 AM


As far as I know from reading zoological journals, no real animal "language" has ever been learned. The cases of the dolphin or the bonobos or other types of chimpanzees and apes communicating have come close to what we would call 'language'. But what I would like to point out, is that languages, the way humans have developed them, require consciousness of the self; which is something that hasn't seen to be evolved nearly to the same level as humans in any other species. And so I am fairly certain that there is no real human speaking with animals in their native tongue. Dr. Doolittle of course is simply a terrible movie and nothing more.
In this case you have less knowledge about it, many people have learnt languages of animals and can talk to them, of course not me, but it is possible. However Hanuman is Divine so he have powers, no commen person have this. And now if you have any doubt make a thread for it and members here can answer it, but no mocking or lies about Hinduism is allowed. Now please remain on topic

Adhvagat
20 December 2010, 11:14 AM
I agree, and I would note that this behavior is common among atheists.

Maxpsycho, because you identify as Hindu I want to assume you have the same superiority complex that many Western atheists have inherited from their Christian friends. But I'm noticing the same sort of language I'd see in a Richard Dawkins book. Let's be serious. You can't say that Hinduism is ridiculous and/or foolish, and then claim that you mean no offense. I'm not saying that an atheist can't state his beliefs without being offensive. I have no problem with someone saying that they don't believe in God. But there's a difference between simple disbelief in God, and religious atheism.

Whatever atheists claim, I contend that most Dawkins or Hitchens followers practice their atheism as a religion. These new atheists base their religion around demeaning theistic religions (Christianity is what initially incited their anger, but I guess that now it's open season on any of us who happen to believe in the supernatural). They have specifically said in their writings that religions don't deserve any special respect, and should be treated the same as any other viewpoint expressed in public life. For example, political opponents will often bash each others' platforms. In much the same way, religion should be open to ridicule and should not be treated with special reverence. The New Atheism is a backlash against Christianity, which for centuries in European culture caused oppression of dissenters. Later on, in America, Christianity was still considered the "holy cow" (so to speak) of popular culture, and was treated with great reverence even by those who didn't believe in it. The New Atheists see themselves those who have overthrown this oppressive system and brought Christianity to the same status as the Republicans and Democrats (or whatever parties are in Britain).

Now here's the problem. Like most Westerners, these people think that religion=Christianity. So the New Atheists project all of their frustrations with Christianity, whether legitimate or not, on Hinduism. They come to India and think that they can strip the culture of Hinduism. To them, cows in the street are the same thing as inquisitions, and they believe that Hinduism ought to be treated with no special reverence. So of course one should get away with making comments about how our gods and goddesses are ridiculous and irrelevant in our modern, scientific society.

There is a very clear distinction between legitimate dissent and outright rudeness and arrogance. And I think it's pretty simple to avoid rudeness. No one is making any unreasonable demands by asking that atheists behave respectfully when discussing Hinduism. In short: if someone is of the opinion that depictions of Hindu gods are ridiculous, then that opinion is best kept to oneself.

QFT... ;)

Eastern Mind
20 December 2010, 11:26 AM
Vannakkam: Having said all this above, I'd also like to say my father was an atheist. If not a downright atheist, at least an agnostic leaning heavily towards atheism.

I learned and hopefully have kept the following values from him: sense of humour, hard work, absolute honesty, complete sportsmanship, caring of fellow men, duty to country (He was a WW2 vet.) and more. But one major difference was that he never spoke of his atheist beliefs. As an adult, I had to observe it in practice, or draw it out of him.

I did not change into a Hindu. I merely discovered from within what I already believed. We don't learn theism. We discover it via the faculty of intuition.

Aum Namasivaya

Kumar_Das
20 December 2010, 07:55 PM
You are from an Arya Samaj family, and become atheist because of this, but you did not try to find out the facts.
However you should try to understand that Modern Science has proved that even animals have languages and human can learn it as well. Dr. Doolittle types of stories also express same. Hanuman was not an ordinary, he was Divine so it was not impossible for him to do anything even in monkey form, while Koran is a total nonsense kind of subject, the proofs you can find in Koran they are not in good taste, so this is not possible any such person can have some divine power

Proofs in the Quran? Really? Can you please show me?

Rationalist
20 December 2010, 08:22 PM
Actually, the Quran has been proven to have scientific truth in it. Some of the scientific topics it expounds upon are; the science of jihads, genocides, hatred, intolerance, and stupidity. There is indeed much one can learn from the Q'uran.

Kumar_Das
20 December 2010, 08:27 PM
maxpsycho, nice username.:rolleyes:

from the start he has no reason to post on my thread. probably just another sullah itching to respond to my owning of his shi**y "scripture".

I'll tell what he wanted to achieve with that post. Trying to highlight some absurdity of some sort within Hindu scriptures to show that we too have flaws.

Very much like the guy who has faeces sticking to his buttocks and stinks because of that, is laughed at by others, and he as a result of this trying to scratch and point at others that they too are like him therefore both share in filthyness and him looking less stinky in comparison. Such lowliness is only characteristic of Abrahamics.

Kumar_Das
20 December 2010, 08:42 PM
As for the discussion on Atheism. It would be better to have it seperately.

Atheism is a reasonable position. It comes in various stripes. And its not too much to ask of spiritual texts that do not appear to be contorted tall tales which can only be seen as products of ancient times or contradictory to logic and what is observed in the natural world.

I would say taking on being an Atheist temporarily to get a taste of it might even be good. Because instead of relying on blind faith and mere acceptance, you will suspend believing and following and instead force yourself to think and ask questions.

Of course spirituality and rationality are not contradictory but many fail to uphold both simultaneously.

A Maoist of course is in no way an open-minded and reasonable person. And some Atheists are only interested in taking the piss out of someone merely for the sake of it and acquiring reputation in public circles through pompous slandering of theists and theistic views.

I would appreciate that people don't unecessarily lash out on Atheists or Atheism.

Atheists are very good allies of Hindus. By God on our side, thankfully they do most of the criticism against Abrahamism, saving us of the trouble

And many of them can respect Hinduism for our robust philosophy.

As scriptures prophecized, this is the age of quarrel. We'll just maintain our standards by avoiding any disputes.

Also Atheism is not a religion. We can argue that some Atheists cling on to being an Atheist as an identity to that of their former religion's one and Atheistic literature/philosophies as some type of replacement for religion. But let's not stoop to the level of Christians and Muslims, shall we? Atheism is the lack of religion. Just like not doing anything is NOT a hobby.

RVR
21 December 2010, 04:16 AM
Mr.Eastern Mind said

"The very fact an atheist comes onto a forum to argue with Hindus, to me, is by definition derogatory by nature"


Exactly. Those who doesn't believe Hinduism need not come here and criticize our practices.

As a true Hindu we are not suppose to criticize other practices including Atheism.

Hinduism is basically formed on the principle of Sanathana Dharma where all practices are accepted.

I wish everybody reads the lectures of Swamy Vivekananda on Sanathana Dharma

http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=5559.0

All the best

yajvan
21 December 2010, 10:20 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

When one's śraddhā श्रद्धा faith, trust , confidence , faithfulness is strong, one is unwavering. No one can come to this site and disrupt ones kratu, or firm resolve.

My teacher would say , any house can stand in good weather. What happens to the house when there is a storm? Is it on good footing ? Is the foundation strong?

No one can come to this site and bring grief or irritability to you unless you allow them to do so to you.

praṇām

words
kratu - resolution; intelligence , understanding e.g. bhadrá krátu , right judgement , good understanding ; kratu as intelligence personified
as a son of brahmā and one of the prajāpati-s or the seven or ten principal ṛṣi-s.

Ganeshprasad
21 December 2010, 10:38 AM
Pranam Yajvan

in this connection a quote from Gandhi ji comes to mind

Let wind blow from all direction but i refuse to be blown by it.

A good foundation that is the requirement but what about foundation which not set yet?

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
21 December 2010, 11:30 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Pranam Yajvan

A good foundation that is the requirement but what about foundation which not set yet? Jai Shree Krishna

An excellent question no doubt... If one is not strong as yet it is my opinion they look to the elders for guidence.

Just as a fence that surrounds a small-small tree, it protects the tree. Then the tree becomes the mighty oak and it then hovers over and protects the fence.

praṇām

maxpsycho
27 May 2011, 07:13 AM
maxpsycho, nice username.:rolleyes:

from the start he has no reason to post on my thread. probably just another sullah itching to respond to my owning of his shi**y "scripture".

I'll tell what he wanted to achieve with that post. Trying to highlight some absurdity of some sort within Hindu scriptures to show that we too have flaws.

Very much like the guy who has faeces sticking to his buttocks and stinks because of that, is laughed at by others, and he as a result of this trying to scratch and point at others that they too are like him therefore both share in filthyness and him looking less stinky in comparison. Such lowliness is only characteristic of Abrahamics.

I'm not perfectly sure whether this insult was intended for me or someone else. If someone else, please disregard the rest of this post.

If it was me, then Kumar Das it seems you are not aware of how much more insulting you have been than you probably intended.

To be called a Muslim, or in my case "religious" in any way, is akin to being called anything else which I'm not, i.e. a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Mormon, a Scientologist etc.

However I take these titles to be just a little bit more offensive than for example, "a careless idiot" - because at least a careless idiot may have one or two intelligent thoughts in his lifetime as opposed to be being, dogmatically, a fool. I'm an atheist - simply put, someone who has heard your and countless others' religious claims, looked at the facts and the evidence, and found the claims to be ridiculous.

Now if you're saying I have no reason to post on your thread - I think you need to familiarise yourself with the purpose of "forums" - they are for discussions and threads are called "threads" because they refer to threads of conversation - if you're more interested in writing your thoughts or praises about something you like without non-agreeable comments from others, go and write a blog or a diary instead.

My reasons for commenting on these posts, and basically these forums is two-fold - one, to learn more about Hinduism, the religion of my parents and one that I was brought up in, and two, to raise awareness amongst others about the perils of absolute certainty in relation to religious dogma. I joined this forum, because I did truly believe that there may be individuals here that would welcome a chance to discuss and critique their moral philosophy and religious ideas with someone who doesn't share their view of it.

Yes, my approach may seem a little forward and, to a certain extent, sarcastic and confrontational, but the reality is that I am merely trying to get a dialogue going about the epistemology of Hinduism, i.e. how do we know what we know about the natural world, and to what extent does Hinduism influence and affect not only this knowledge, but the lives of its adherents. (I attribute the sarcasm to the years spent reading P.G. Wodehouse and Mark Twain).

I am not one to dabble in human faeces however and am at a slight disadvantage in understanding your parable of swapping excrement, something that you clearly have had the misfortune of experiencing for which you have my condolences. (Now THAT is meant purely for humour purposes).