Bayezid continues

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Jan 1, 2009 at 00:24

Mr. Bayezid, unable to admit to his previous poor logic, continues:

"GI wrote:

Your point is not clear. Do you mean that 'infidels' use logic and reason against fantasy and Muslim requests for suspension of disbelief ? (or more accurately, suspension of belief in rationality?)
Fantasy and imagination have their place - but are not good substitutes for calm rationality when we make sense of our world."

"...infidels dont see the thin line betwen so called fantasy, and reality. '

Why do you find it a thin line? 'Infidels' certainly don't.

".....because the infidel arrogantly asumes that the REALITY has nothing to offer save for what seems possible to the infidels infinitesmally small mind. "

There you go again in your arrogance - insulting the generic 'infidels' of your imagination. Who only exist in your imagination. You are dirtying your own nest. Is this what you get taught in the madrassas? The proof is in the pudding - the results from the 'Infidel's infinitesmally small mind ' (made by 'Allah' ) has outstripped the results of Muslim thinking by several factors of ten.

"...the muslims know it is unwise to declare things in infinity with finite minds."

The fact is we live in infinity! And you have a symbolic representation of everything you think you know and are aware of. You comunicate your thoughts in your interior world with other people.

"......muslims do much better. thank you."

Muslims throw their arms up in the air and say it is all 'Allahs;' will and go on in their fatalistic dreaming. Leaving it to everyone else to make real and significant discoveries in all fields of endeavour, especially but not limted to technology. Tell me, look around your house , along your street - and name anything you see that was invented by Muslims - other than of course burkahs, hejabs and Korans.

'Infidels' KNOW 'reality' has everything to offer - that's why you are right now using 'infidel' invented computers and 'infidel' communication networks and for that matter the language of 'infidels' , to vainly try to prove fantasies to other people which you've accepted as reality because of the cultural milieu you've been born into.

Perhaps you could ask 'Allah' to give you an insight into your arrogancefor this new year. Start with a clean slate . The intelligent thing to do would be to admit you don't know everything. Entertain the idea 'what if I'm wrong'? Just silently, quietly to yourself. No one need know, nothing to get embarrassed about. Don't be so prejudiced towards new ideas just because they come from cultures and races you don't approve of.

>>

GI wrote:

That is not at all what I said . I explained that the builders of Stonehenge used it as both a lunar calendar and to determine the orbit of the year when the sun is at its winter solstice - which was an important point for people living in harsh European winters as it signiifed the return of warmth and light - and therefore food. At no time did I indicate that Stonehenge was designed to indicate the extremely slow orbit of the Sun around the galactic centre in the Sagittarius constellation. You have misrepresented what I said - and are creating arguments against that. A 'red herring' again."

"....oh so maybe if you did not use the stonehenge as a prehistoric equal to modern sceintific tools, we would understand you much better. wouldnt we ?"

Who is 'we'? Everyone reading this? . I never did use the Stonehenge as a prehistoric equal to modern scientific tools. Regardless of that fact, what I am saying should be clear to a reasonable minded person.

"....hahah you and your red herrings."

I've mentioned several times the fact that you use 'red herrings' as a rhetorical method in what you write.

GI wrote:

>> But surprisingly, given the great clues in the Koran, and the wonderfully clear desert skies the arab scientists never discovered the Sun's slow rotation around the galactic centre in the 1400 years before the discovery by Infidels of fact that the sun is in orbit around the rim of the Milky Way.
Why is that?
why didn't they discover it and announce it to the world? They had 1400 years to do so - and 400 of those years they had access to telescopes invented by Infidels living around the Mediterranean and in Europe. The reason is perfectly clear - because the totally ambiguous and vague 'proof' offered by Mr. Bayezid - was ONLY offered as 'proof' - AFTER THE FACT of the discovery.

"regardless of how clear the sky may be, it is impossible to detect the suns slow orbit with the rest of the solr system around it. with clear skies you get to see the sun and moon and distant stars. one is not able to determine the current displacemnt of the solar system ................... so i see how you deserve your namesake."

Can't help being petty can you?

".......you have suggested that a clear sky would be able to indicate signs of the solar apex if i am correct. such a feat was only possible with highly magnifiable telescopes viewing different planets of the solar system in relation to the nearness of stars and galactic alignments."

Over 1000 years - they would have been able to detect a slight shift in the position of the star matrix WITHOUT TELESCOPES as seen from earth - had they been able to create and keep accurate records. But they did not. Nobodies fault. Why would you unless you were the keenest of amatuer astronomers?

"......the arabs did declare this when europe was in the dredges of history. its just that many did not agree. many lke you, were skeptics. they stated this fact that the sun also moved like other planets and the chief source for their claim is the quran."

They meant that the sun and planets - when seen from earth trace a roughly circular arc. That is ALL they meant. To claim anything else is to beggar belief. The Arabs NEVER claimed the Sun was travelling on a 220 million year trip around an imaginary point in the centre of the galaxy.

GI wrote:

>> Google's great isn't it?"

"......indeed. no reason to be resentful."

Why do you assume I feel resentful about the fact that Google exists? Your thought processes are quite strange to me.

>>GI wrote

The real foolhardy claim was for you to suggest that I even thought the Druids were measuring the procession of the Sun around the galactic centre."

"......well, seeing the way you reason, i could not help but at least entertain the thought."

You find common sense threatening?

>> --sura 14, verse 33:
"For you (God) subjected the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses. And for you He subjected the night and the day."

"It is He Who created night and day and the sun and moon, each one swimming in a sphere. (Qur'an, 21:33)"

"And the sun runs to its resting place. That is the decree of the Almighty, the All-Knowing. (Qur'an, 36:38)"

"these ayahs clearly show the movement of the sun. the originl arabic language further elucidates this matter as one reads these verses from the noble quran."

GI wrote:

Remember my prediction above - "I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the unknown passage is probably ambiguous and may be open to several interpretations."
These 'ayahs' do not clearly make the points you say they make. They are totally ambiguous and open to interpretation.
As expected - you have provided no proof. The first passage you present simply means the Sun's apparent course as seen from the earth.
If it does not mean that obvious fact - why would it in one sentence be vaguely referring to a concept the arabs did not have at all?
Is it in the very same sentence referring to the Moon's motion around the galactic centre as well?
Or is it expecting the arabs to know that by referring to the Sun it was referring to the Sun's path around the galactic centre - but two words later, when referring to the Moon - it was only referring to the Moon's movement around the earth?"

"it is really easy to understand. even if you dont have a name for the path of the sun, it is clearly suggested that the sun, like the moon, pursues a course."

Again, there is no need to state the obvious. That's almost like saying 'the sun comes up every day' and using that as a point in your 'argument'.

"It is He Who created night and day and the sun and moon, each one swimming in a sphere. (Qur'an, 21:33)"

sura 14, verse 33:
"For you (God) subjected the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses. And for you He subjected the night and the day."

"the word used for movement is 'sabaha'. sabaha means moving in a pattern in an orderly way. it means the sun is moving on its own accord along a set path. and the word sphere is clearly mentioned. meaning that th sun move in a circular way. with all due respect, the ancient people did not know that the sun moved in a circle."

Of course they did - when viewed from the earth - it traces a roughly circular arc - the circle becoming larger the closer you are to the poles. They were extremely aware of this phenomenom in high latitudes - Russia's arctic coast, siberia, Sacndinavia, the UK. in fact that's how they were able to accurately predict that these bodies rose and set at different locations at different times of the year. If you've ever spent a night out under the stars - yo should have noticed that the whole sky seems to revolve around and imaginary point - north of you are in the northern hemisphere and south if you are in the southern hemisphere of course. This apparent passage of the stars is circular. The ancients knew that the planets travelled faster than the stars - and thought they had circular orbits.

" so translating the whole ayah to english hides many of these deeper facts. to appreciate these ayahs fully, one must understand arabic as a language. the only thing that seems ambiguous here is therefore the english language in translating the arbic ayahs."

That's not even a clever explanation. You're trying to make something fit your prejudices.

>> Why would the Koran be talking about the sun going around the galactic centre - and then mention that we have night and day in the VERY NEXT sentence? "
It is perfectly obvious it is talking about the apparent course of the sun and moon as seen from Earth and that because of this motion the earth is subjected to light and dark periods.
You do not have the ability to make a plausible case about why it is talking about the travel of the sun around the galactic centre ( a concept the arabs did not have) - and then speaks of night and day.

"not really. as i have said earlier, english undermines the vocabulary of arabic. when ALLAH mentions each one moving in spheres it can also mean each one moving in orbits. "

It was common knowledge in the ancient world - especially in northern latitudes that stars described a circular arc around the night sky. The only start that did not was Polaris - which navigators used to indicate north - for thousands of years. Of course people knew astronomcal bodies were in orbits. Allah didn't tell anyone anything they didn't know already in this regard.

"that line alone is revealing the fact that the sun too has an orbit. it is not this that ALLAH is saying the sun and moon moves. ALLAH says they moved in orbits. so it is not dependant on HIS mentioning day and night. by day and night ALLAH referred to the earths rotation, and not the suns."

It said they moved in orbits then it says there is day and night. It states the obvious. It does not state the fact that the Sun revolves around a galactic centre which to us appears now in the constellation of Saggitarius.

>> Which resting place is that - where it appears to set on the western horizon - which would be an understandable poetic metaphor and not a scientific truth? Or the resting place it DOES NOT have - as it is in continuous orbit around the galactic centre?
BTW In other parts of the Koran the sun's resting place was a muddy marsh."

".... sorry to see your apparent victory so short lived."

You mean you'll come up with something that makes it clear and unambiguous and not open to interpretation ??

"....by resting place ALLAH means the return of the sun to its original axis after completing a cycle."

Two things here - the 'axis' is the imaginary point in the centre of the galaxy around which the Sun revolves.

Second point is - there is NO 'resting place'. It doesn't return to some starting point - no arbitrary starting (or return) point has ever been defined .

Unless this is in the Koran too? So what are you talking about?

".......the other planets and moons are connected to the sun via gravity. this connection is responsible for the rotation and revolution of the planets. but the sun moves on its own. meaning its motion is hardly dependant on any other body. so by resting place it means a return to that critical position which is necessary for the proper functioning of the solar system."

YOu are confusing yourself - it doesn't return to a "critical position which is necessary for the proper functioning of the solar system."

The Sun sits in the centre of the solar system and it's mass generates a gravitational field which it exerts on all the planets, asteroids, comets and bodies in the ooort cloud - extending well beyond the orbit of the planets. The mass of all the planets exert an extremely small gravitational effect on the Sun. But the Sun does not move around in a circle inside the solar sphere if that is what you are trying to say. i.e. does not reposition itself occasionally a few hundred thousand kilometres from its position at the centre of the solar system. Of course the sun does spin on its own axis at a phenomenal speed - at about 800,000kph from memory

".......umm it isnt mentioned anywhere else in the quran about a muddy marsh being the suns resing place. you probably muddled up your info with some ancient european literature."

OK - no, nothing to do with European literature but if not the Koran then one of the other tracts you take as being meaningful. Some other reader more versed in these things can clarify this point for us if you have no idea what I am getting at.

>>GI wrote

>> You have EAs I pointed out - using your logic - by keeping this 'common knowledge ' for the Infidels to discover 1400 years later, 'Allah' once again subjects the arabs to embarrassment - as they had (in your mind) the 'facts' staring at them in the Koran and totally failed to see it!

"......ALLAH exalts the arabs here with knowledge never before known. "

but they don't understand it till the so called 'Infidels' discover it? Not really much of an exaltation is it?

>>You have European ancestors? Lucky you. They only became ungrateful when they realised what a crock Islam was."

"temper, temper."

No, thanks for your concern but don't worry about that, no temper here. I had a great New Year's Eve, had a wonderful time, thanks. And I'm not an emotional person .

"i wish i had european ancestors, that way i wouldve inquired on the nature of their ngratefulness: was it a genetic trait or merely a stupid mistake ?"

I don't think you'r in any position to start portraying yourself as a racist

>> GI wrote:

See the points I've made previously. The Koran definitely does not refer to the sun's slow trip around the galactic center. You have become boggled by the Koran.

"....lol you have not made any points at all. "

Why are you tying to deny the obvious?

"the quran states clealry about the sun moving in a spherical path. no one knew about the movement of the sun in a spherical path. the spherical path of the sun can only mean the solar apex discovered recently. "

Putting aside the point you refuse to see about the solar apex into the Koran - the Sun's orbit around the galaxy is not 'spherical'. That is a ridiculous concept.

And if you look at the reality - which you are sure is being described in the Koran - it is not circular or elliptical either . The galaxies are always receding away from each other at 200,000kph and at an increasing rate. So therefore the true path of the Sun in space is a lopsided spiral. Why was not this mentioned in the Koran. It is as obvious as the solar year isn't it????

Any reasonable person would not reach the conclusion that whoever wrote the Koran was talking about solar apex. The 'ayahs' you present are still ambiguous for the reasons pointed out previous; No matter how you put it - it is not proof of anything. Apart from the fact that it does not mention it - what reason would there be for mentioning it?

"so yes the quran was definitely talking aboout the apex. again, a lack of common sense on your part.ALLAH keeps on saying that the quran is for those who contemplate, who understand. i guess HE wasnt talking abiout you."

Yes, all those people with common sense have been excluded and allowed to find the ACTUAL truth elsewhere.

alho HE knows best.............................i hardly do. ALLAH relates complex things in simple sentences. what is 'jestworthy'here is our inability to say so much in so little. if you are laughing at your own condition, i must say i truly understand."

Really , when make unjustified, snide remarks about people you have never met when they present logical arguments to you - all you really do is show your intolerance to even entertaining the idea of looking at things another way.

Do you have a similar phrase in BanglaDeshi folk wisdom as

'None so blind as those who will not see' ?

>> Well, the word 'apex' as you might know, is a Greek word. The Greeks invented trigonometry and would indeed have understood the simple concept of 'solar apex' even 2500 years ago.."

"...a rather hopeful situation presented by our most amusing infidel."

have you asked 'Allah' yet to show you how your arrogance blights who you are?

the apex the greeks knew had nothing to do with th shape of a sphere. apex means the highest point of something."

Is an apex related directly to a sphere? Of course not. Yes, of course they knew an apex has nothing to do with the shape of a sphere. The Egyptians had a term for the concept - like the apex of a pyramid. Of course it means the highest point. Why explain the obvious?

"the solar apex is not really an apex in geometric terms. in the suns case it rougly refers to the greatet length of distance a sun covers."

"greatest length of distance"?? What are you talkng about - the diameter of its radius of circumference of its orbital path?

"..... so no. wrong again. the greeks really wouldnt know about it."

So, no, not wrong again -Is it too hard for you to read was written ?

I wrote:

"The Greeks invented trigonometry and would indeed have understood the simple concept of 'solar apex' even 2500 years ago. if you really had presented some intelligent arguments - then he Grand Infidel would consider them. All you've really done is embarass yourself."

"......an infidel means a veiler of truth. an irrational person. and in your case, a grand one. so an irrational person thinks im embarassing. yeah i got plenty to worry about ."

The pseudonym was ironic and chosen purely to indicate the ridiculousness of even the concept of 'Infidels'. It gives no indication of my thoughts, educational background, religion or lack thereof, sex , IQ, race , income level etc etc. If you like to portray rational arguments as irrational - that's your problem.

>> Garbage. How little you know of European history. Cordoba university was prominent in its region around the year 1200. There were many centres of learning in both western and eastern Europe
during the Middle Ages. Italy, France, Croatia, Poland, Bohemia, Germany, European Russia."

Bayezid wrote:

"knowledge of the europeans themselves were transmittd from mslim hands.

I think the infidel funded UN should be dishing out more money to BanglaDeshi educational institutions. Whatever they teach you in BanglaDesh - it is not history. Greece and Rome and Carthage predate islam by ages.

"you would not know about ptolemy and hippocrates and imhotep and god knows who else if knowledge was not preserved. who preserved them? the muslims did."

In your desperation to prove you are right you are now making false statements. Knowledge from ancient Greece and Rome was preserved in many locations throughout Europe and Russia in the Middle Ages.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".