Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-48285-20150915044407/@comment-25814498-20160422160011

Marceline Saga wrote:

Pigzillion wrote:

Sorry, but a 2000 year old book is completely useless in proving the existence of Allah or any miracles there in. Just because something has been around for a while doesn't make it accurate; in fact it's normally the exact opposite, like how we thought that objects in motion get tired or that the earth is flat. Do you agree with this statement? If not, why? No. Because my heart and mind accept this old book pleasantly...And the more I read/watch unbelievers' attacks, the more I know I'm on the right side, because the examples you mentioned before (and are mentioning now) are resulted from (usually lingual) misunderstanding or from taking those informations from suspect source. Alright, but misinterpretations be damned, why do you believe it. After all, you're not just someone who thinks the Quran is a decent book to read; that's not what we're arguing about. If it were than what you just said would be a perfectly acceptable; however, you're someone who believes that everything in the Quran is true. Why is this? Why when there is no evidence in support of it, and why when there is evidence to actively disprove it? Why do you're "heart and mind accept this old book pleasantly"? Why  is a 2000 year old book enough to prove the existence of god, and if that's all you really need, why is your old book the right one? Why not the Bible or the Torah? I've got an idea, that being you were raised to believe it as the truth for your entire childhood and haven't even considered other explanations, but I'm curious to find out why you think that is the case.