Does anyone here believe in an Arch spirit of Evil?

[Rahvin]

Your alternative is untenable because Muhammad (S) would not be capable of fabricating the Qur'an. It would require poetic excellence beyond his ability and the best of his contemporaries' abilities. Thought it would not absolutely require it, the choice of words like 'Alaq' which can simultaneously mean blood clot, hanging thing, sucking thing, and leech-like hanging thing, rather than any other number of words to describe an embryological stage would have required a knowledge of both poetry and science that was well beyond his level.

So exactly how do you explain all of the utter bullshit in the Quran? It's no more scientifically accurate than the Bible. It still contains all manner of utter absurdities, like:

7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? 7:81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

Many animals engage in homosexual sex. This quote is flatly wrong.

18:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.

The Sun sets in an earthly location? Really? And you still make the absurd claim that your silly book requires a "knowledge of...science beyond his level?" So far it sure looks like the average stoneage mythological nonsense to me.

36:40 It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.

The Sun orbits the Earth along with the Moon? yeah, this Quran thing is sounding so unique compared to all of the other "holy" fairytales.

71:16 And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp ?

The Moon produces its own light? Yet another claim unique to the Quran, and it's 100% correct!

Come on. Are you really that stupid? A simple cursory examination of the Quran shows that it has the scientific accuracy of every other mythological storybook fabricated by primitives trying to explain the world around them with the supernatural. It's no different from the Bible, or the ancient Greek cosmology where the Sun is actually a golden chariot wheel.

Writing the Quran wouldn't require any "knowledge of...science" above the level of Muhammad, or anyone else. The fact that you compeltely ignore these absurdities while focusing on whacky interpretations you believe are close enough simply shows that you're incapable of any sort of objective thought regarding your personal favorite sky pixie.

[Surlethe]

SAx, here are the problems with your "appeal to aesthetics":

1. You are relying on a standard of poetic excellence which is present today to judge the book's authorship as excellent; you must show that it was in place back then, and has not been influenced by wide religious regard for the Koran in the last 1400 years. In other words, how do you know that the Koran doesn't set the standard now because it has been hailed for 1400 years as brilliant?
2. You are moreover operating on the presumption that Mohammed's (supposed) illiteracy precluded him from poetic excellence. Why must this be the case? Unlike our world today, in a society where most people are illiterate, stories are created and passed orally; one can be illiterate and still have some mastery over the language. IIRC, Homer was illiterate, e.g.
3. Further, you are operating on the notion that we can know with certainty details of Mohammed's life. You rely on historical information that has been passed down by the rulers of the Islamic world and the shepherds of the religion; there is thus no guarantee that the information has passed through the ages unmolested, so to speak. It is not a representative sample of all of the writings about Mohammed. This is the same problem facing people who want to appeal to Biblical stories as accurate history: the Bible is not a comprehensive compendium of historical works, but was instead screened by the Church for doctrinal correctness before it was put together.

[Rye]

It should be noted that the "Quran has miracles beyond its time" is a really popular thing I've read from islamic apologetics. It's utter nonsense, though, nothing Mo said was beyond the jews and christians and greeks that had come before, all of which he would've had some access to. The assertion that he was illiterate is also highly dubious given the high literacy rate in Mecca amongst the wealthy. Sure, he didn't write the quran, it was collected from fragments of hides and such a couple of decades after he died, but that doesn't exactly stand in its favour..

[Stark]

Shit, yeah, I've been handed hilarious flyers including this kind of ZOMG MO-HAMEED MUST HAVE HAD THE INSIDE SCOOP ON SCIENCE based entirely on incredibly vague shit that achieved nothing. I mean, anyone who can say 'the Qu'ran cannot be 'fabricated' because it includes super-knowledge from space aliens' is a fucking moron - it's even worse when it's based on 'poetic excellence' and not just hilariously broken claims to scientific accuracy.

Frankly, anyone who talks about 'perfection' is stupid and wrong, particularly when they think saying 'my holy book upon which I base my entire life, worldview and concepts from a to z is perfect and so good no human could have written it and I am not biased no sir' proves anything. It's just a typical religiuos credulity and lack of imagination. After all, if *I* can't imagine how it could be done, clearly it's GOD.

[SisterMiriamGodwinson]

Darth Wong is perfect.

kidding of course

[Ghost Rider]

Darth Wong is perfect.

kidding of course

I'm glad you found the submit button. Don't fucking spam.

[Samuel]

It is the natural state of the universe for people to be at war with Sister Miriam Godwinson. Crazy coot keeps on trying to steal Morgan Gravitonics.

Anyway, my answer is no. There are no evil spirits. Because I am a naturalist.

Of course, if an evil spirit existed it would be (dramatic voice) the dark side of the force!

[Knife]

A belief in Christianity or Allah does not make you polytheistic by default.

Agreed for Islam but not for Christianity. Making three into one doesn't 'cure' the problem.

In both faiths, there is only one All-Powerful Being (tm). Christians also believe in angels and demons, but they do not worship them; they are clearly stated as beings that are subordinate to The One. The Holy Trinity is explained as all being facets of The One.

I find that thin, considering the amount of worship Mary gets, let alone all (how many Catholic Saints are there?) all the Saint this and Saint that that goes on in that religion. There is considerable worship of various secondary tier characters in Christianity. And again, making three one but then repeatedly stating the names of the three (Jesus in particular) as separate doesn't make sense nor does it make them one for a monotheistic religion.

On top of all that, as far as Satan goes, Christians go to extraordinary lengths to keep him at bay. May not be direct worship but it sure as hell is meant to induce a result against the deity.

The worship of a single deity in modern Christianity and the Muslim faith seems to be the key point of departure from the Sumerian, Greek, Roman and other polytheistic pantheons upon which the modern faiths built. Speaking again of Christianity, God plays the role of Zeus (patriarch, ruler of all), but unlike the ancient mythologies, no other deities are worshipped. You can pray to the Virgin Mary for help, for example, but all you're doing is asking her to whisper in God's ear on your behalf.

Same could be said of all those polytheistic pantheons. Take the Greeks, you better make Zeus happy or all those gifts you gave Poseidon won't mean jack shit. With all the hierarchies in Christianity, you can make, really, a direct comparison with a Pantheon from the pagan religions.

[Teleros]

Same could be said of all those polytheistic pantheons. Take the Greeks, you better make Zeus happy or all those gifts you gave Poseidon won't mean jack shit. With all the hierarchies in Christianity, you can make, really, a direct comparison with a Pantheon from the pagan religions.

Not really: the Greek gods for example tended to have very specific "domains", and had the free will to help - or not help - if another god asked for it. Just look at the Odyssey. The impression I get with Christianity meanwhile is that there is no such separation of powers, different domains, or anything like it.

[General Zod]

Not really: the Greek gods for example tended to have very specific "domains", and had the free will to help - or not help - if another god asked for it. Just look at the Odyssey. The impression I get with Christianity meanwhile is that there is no such separation of powers, different domains, or anything like it.

Have you seen the Catholic Church's list of Saints anytime in the last couple decades? All their Saints tend to have providence over certain areas, albeit perhaps not as blatantly as the Greek or Roman gods did. They might not have as much power, but the common line of thought is you pray to Saint <x>, and he pleads to God on your behalf over whatever it is he's in charge of. Pretending it's not similar isn't much more than nitpicking over minor details.

[Shroom Man 777]

The Bible wasn't written by Jesus, but the substance in it was written over a period of thousands of years and the books chosen to be in the Bible was decided by a council of moldy old men in some nice place after Jesus became wormfood. Nicea?

Could that not be how the Koran was also made, compiled by other moldy old men after that illiterate Mohammad guy was dead? Those moldy old men could've been not illiterate and they could've bemoaned how much typos and horrible grammer Mohammad had.

[Chris Parr]

"It is in this creative state of mind that we are able to perceive the Spirit Realm."

Isn't "creative state of mind" another way of saying "imagination"? So—does this mean the "Spirit Realm" and the demons they were talking about are imaginary?

[Rye]

The Bible wasn't written by Jesus, but the substance in it was written over a period of thousands of years and the books chosen to be in the Bible was decided by a council of moldy old men in some nice place after Jesus became wormfood. Nicea?

Nah, the canon had been decided before that. Councils and mouldy old men were involved at various important points, though. In fact, much of the compilation of the Bible, including the OT was composed from multiple sources presumably agreed upon by priestly councils.

Could that not be how the Koran was also made, compiled by other moldy old men after that illiterate Mohammad guy was dead? Those moldy old men could've been not illiterate and they could've bemoaned how much typos and horrible grammer Mohammad had.

Yeah. It was apparently made from bits of Mohammed's speeches written on cowhide and the like when he visited areas. The Hadiths were even worse. Also, it's spelled "grammar" and since "typos" is plural, your sentence should read, "they could've bemoaned how many typos" not much.

[BountyHunterSAx]

As has been said earlier in this thread, the Qur'an was firstly and primarily an oral tradition. Though Zaid ibn Thabit (R) is credited with putting together the first written compilation of the Qur'an, the project was overseen by several people who had the entire Qur'an memorized at that time other than just himself. In other words, if something was going to be edited or modified, *all* of them would have to be complicit in it.

Of course, that's hagiographical, recorded history was not so great back then.

-AHMAD

[TithonusSyndrome]

As has been said earlier in this thread, the Qur'an was firstly and primarily an oral tradition. Though Zaid ibn Thabit (R) is credited with putting together the first written compilation of the Qur'an, the project was overseen by several people who had the entire Qur'an memorized at that time other than just himself. In other words, if something was going to be edited or modified, *all* of them would have to be complicit in it.

So the standards of the oral tradition were kept in strict check by means of a method that we are made aware of because... it is mentioned in the oral tradition? Do you not see how this simply just passes the buck?

[Samuel]

Not to mention that people can unconsciously have their memories modified. Leading questions are a great example- you can get people to remember things that never actually happened.

Not to mention all these people invested a large amount of their life into Islam and had a vested interest in it succeeding.

[Rye]

As has been said earlier in this thread, the Qur'an was firstly and primarily an oral tradition. Though Zaid ibn Thabit (R) is credited with putting together the first written compilation of the Qur'an, the project was overseen by several people who had the entire Qur'an memorized at that time other than just himself. In other words, if something was going to be edited or modified, *all* of them would have to be complicit in it.

Of course, that's hagiographical, recorded history was not so great back then.

-AHMAD

It's also important to note that there is more than one version of the quran out there. The Sanaa manuscripts discovered in the renovation of a Yemen mosque showed variation from the modern Quran, sort of deflating many of the muslim claims to its unchanging nature.

[Surlethe]

As has been said earlier in this thread, the Qur'an was firstly and primarily an oral tradition. Though Zaid ibn Thabit (R) is credited with putting together the first written compilation of the Qur'an, the project was overseen by several people who had the entire Qur'an memorized at that time other than just himself. In other words, if something was going to be edited or modified, *all* of them would have to be complicit in it.

How many years had passed between Mohammed's time and the written compilation of the Koran? How much could the Koran, as passed down orally, have changed until then? Do note that your description of the compilation of the Koran is still subject to the argument of selection bias: only like-minded people would get together to write down their version of the Koran.

[Patrick Degan]

As has been said earlier in this thread, the Qur'an was firstly and primarily an oral tradition. Though Zaid ibn Thabit (R) is credited with putting together the first written compilation of the Qur'an, the project was overseen by several people who had the entire Qur'an memorized at that time other than just himself. In other words, if something was going to be edited or modified, *all* of them would have to be complicit in it.

Memory changes over time. Things are forgotten or altered, and the brain works to fill in gaps, and we're talking about something that was passed down orally —which means any number of alterations could have occurred in the same manner as a game of telephone. That puts the authorship of the Qur'an deeply into doubt, which means arguments about its authenticity are meaningless.