In addition to the fact that 1400 years later, people haven't been able to produce a similar work of Arab literature.
I have run across this claim a few times now. Its a bit vague. What would qualify as "a similar work of arab literature?" and who would decide if something somebody wrote was one? It seems to me that no matter what we write the muslims are going to declare it not "a similar work of arab literature", simply to maintain this claim (and thus making it pretty self fulfilling and empty).
Peace.
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite
I believe in rights based in property.The right to worship, or not worship as one chooses is a basic human right. No one should be hated or ridiculed for their beliefs.
Many people claim the same thing of the Bible.No other book can achieve what the Qur'an can, and has achieved.
I believe in rights based in property.
We own ourselves and we own our minds.
I think the right to belief is part of our right to our minds...
and that any violation of human rights is evil.
I personally lean towards Wicca in this respect:
"An it harm none, do as you will"
They ruin the whole thing by making claims of "magic" and the "law of threes", however.
As a skeptic, I do need proof in order to believe; in the stronghold of Pascal's wager I would only be lying to myself.
Many people claim the same thing of the Bible.
Again, I lean towards pantheism/wicca:
from what I see, Nature has accomplished far more than any Holy Book.
To celebrate the cycle/circle of life is a wonderful thing. The ancient tribes of Great Britain and Northern Europe had some wonderful rites and rituals. I myself like to mark the winter and summer soltice every year. I believe that Wicca is a modern attempt at recovering some those rituals.
It is a shame and a crime that when Christianity gained a foothold, it destroyed most or even all of the texts describing these rites.
I have to go with Einstein on this one:To celebrate the cycle/circle of life is a wonderful thing. The ancient tribes of Great Britain and Northern Europe had some wonderful rites and rituals. I myself like to mark the winter and summer soltice every year. I believe that Wicca is a modern attempt at recovering some those rituals.
yeah...It is a shame and a crime that when Christianity gained a foothold, it destroyed most or even all of the texts describing these rites.
Not realy - the Druids had a oral tradition and didnt actually write there religous works down - atleast thats what I heard in a university lecture.
some of these cults still exist - they sometimes turn up at stonehenge when there is an excavation going on.
...Why is it most religions take about the oneness of all things, this is the core of religion,a belief that we are part of something beyond our imagaination.
Even Taoism talk about this concept, all aspect of of duality that exist in one concept.
We are manifestations of our creator in various forms.
Some call this the divine spark, other call it the inner light. all are practices that bring us closer to our creator.
Some may call this the higher consciousness.
there is a common theme, the more people accept this the easier it will be to deal with each other, so im lead to believe.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.