426 posts / 0 new
Last post
SUPERNOVA's picture
My apology but im only

My apology but im only correcting my grammatic" LOL. I type pretty fast just so you know!

Sky Pilot's picture


I wasn't asking about when the Koran was written. I was asking when it was formatted into numbered chapters and verses like the Bible is. https://www.gotquestions.org/divided-Bible-chapters-verses.html

2:2 This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).
2:3 Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;
2:4 And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.

I know that the original Koran wasn't written in that format. When was it done?

SUPERNOVA's picture
@Diotrephes Oh my bad! Sorry.

@Diotrephes Oh my bad! Sorry. According to Sunnah it was formatted 2 time differently. In the era of Abu Bakr and Othman.

The Quran was completed and formatted in 25 of Muhammad's migration by Othman Bin Affan.

Sky Pilot's picture


None of those characters formatted the Koran into numbered chapters and verses. It would be really interesting to see a complete original 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Century Koran.

SUPERNOVA's picture
@Diotrephes Like i said

@Diotrephes Like i said ACCORDING to Sunnah it was formatted by those two and nothing is sure!! As well as there's multiple versions of the Quran but they are alot like.

Some says it was formatted by Husayn the son of Ali before he was killed.

SUPERNOVA's picture
@Tin-man I was following her

@Tin-man I was following his first comment on this thread! No you didn't miss anything buddy :-) Have a lovely weekend my friend.

@Algebe my apology as I didn't mean to fire against you personally! as i was using a metaphor for those who asked these questions.

LogicFTW's picture
Heh Algebe is a male, and

Heh Algebe is a male, and very much an atheist. (Check his profile link.)

However one of my first postings on this board way back in 2016 I got confused and sort of "attacked" CyberLN thinking she was a he and a theist. Mistakes happen :) Fortunately CyberLN accepted my apologies.

algebe's picture
@Supernova: @Algebe my

@Supernova: @Algebe my apology

LOL. No offense taken. Sometimes it's hard to tell who said what in these threads. I always indicate whom I'm responding to by putting @ followed by the name, together with a quote from their post.

For the record, I'm a male atheist/anti-theist. However, I do believe in Moses splitting the Red Sea. I saw it with my own eyes at Universal Studios.

SUPERNOVA's picture
@LogicForTW I just did i

@LogicForTW I just did! I thought SHE not HE. Well mistakes happen. Thanks :-)

Peripatetic's picture
But to discuss God's

But to discuss God's existence you'd need the minimum knowledge on Metaphysics/Theology/Logic about which atheists don't have the slightest idea. So there's no anyone on the other side to communicate intellectually with, just bunch of inanimate pseudo intellectual objects.

Sheldon's picture
Are you really implying one

Are you really implying one has to be an "expert" on unicorns before it is valid to observe no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for them?

Your post is the very definition of a fallacious appeal to authority. Since if this esoteric expertise were indeed real, any rational person would be minded to ponder out loud why there are so many deities and so many different religions.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture


Peripatetic's picture
I wrote a long comment to

I wrote a long comment to respond to that nonsense then I realize I can't fix cognitive impairment problems so I deleted it, being debunked is an honor atheists should not ever have, you don't even deserve to be corrected, if you correct all what the idiots say whom are you gonna laugh at and mock?. It's no use treating atheists like rational beings, really bunch of inanimate objects.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Peripatetic

Re: Peripatetic

Who the hell is this bozo?

I try to click on his profile and it tells me "unauthorized to view this page".

CyberLN's picture
That is because his user acct

That is because his user acct has been cancelled

Tin-Man's picture


Awwww.... And I was just getting all geared up to have some fun with him. Party pooper! *pouting* -wink-

Sheldon's picture
Damn it, I'm late to the

Damn it, I'm late to the party again. Ah well, back to mocking Billy.

Sheldon's picture
"being debunked is an honor

"being debunked is an honor atheists should not ever have, "

Atheism, not atheists, and you can rest easy there champ, as you can't debunk not having a belief. That's like trying to rate not collecting stamps out of ten as a hobby.

"you don't even deserve to be corrected, "

Atheism can't be corrected, as it isn't a claim, it's the lack of one single belief, christ you're dumb, even by angry trolling theist standards.
"if you correct all what the idiots say whom are you gonna laugh at and mock?. "

Well we could spend a fair amount of time guffawing at, and mocking your grasp of English grammar.

"It's no use treating atheists like rational beings, really bunch of inanimate objects."

Well thank you for sharing that incoherent, disjointed rant. I know I'll never be the same, now do have a nice day won't you.

Sheldon's picture
Funniest post ever, only

Funniest post ever, only 'experts' in religious mumbo jumbo are qualified to comment on it, hilarious. So do people have a minimum of knowledge on mermaids before they can disbelieve they're real? Hilarious fair play.

Randomhero1982's picture
Aw he was fun, missed seeing

Aw he was fun, missed seeing Nyar absolutely rinse him out on every single thread they engaged in...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jesus Follower - Some people

Jesus Follower - Some people say Lev 18:22 calls a gay person an abomination, but that's misreading the text. "A man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman. It is an abomination." "It is" What is "it"? The Bible never calls a person an it. The "it" is the act of a man having sex with a man. Now, I know that this is little consolation to gay people. "You're still calling my act of love an abomination, right, God?"

I notice you left out the fact that god (at least according to the book you are citing) demands that men who have sex with men should be put to death for committing an abomination.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Nyar

@ Nyar

" men who have sex with men should be put to death for committing an abomination" Oh pshaw Nyar, a minor detail, after a good roasting in eternal hellfire ( much worse than being stoned to death) they will be welcomed in to the everloving arms of, wait...eternal hell and torture.

Just as well I don't eat prawns,

God is love alrighty!

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
He's so warm and cuddly!

He's so warm and cuddly!

Do you think he goes for 'bro' hugs? or what jocks do, a little slap on the bum?

"Well played out there God" *SLAPS ASS*


Tin-Man's picture
@TBW Re: "Well played out

@TBW Re: "Well played out there God" *SLAPS ASS*

A minor technicality correction, if I may.

"In order for a jock to properly execute the ass slap without fear of negative repercussions, he must say, "Good game," at the moment of said slapping of a teammate's and/or opponent's ass."

"The Unofficial Unauthorized Officials' Guide to Vague and Unwritten Sports Rulings" (Unpublished in some month of 19-something-or-other)

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Ah yes, I did not have the

Ah yes, I did not have the King James edition of 'The Unofficial Unauthorized Officials' Guide to Vague and Unwritten Sports Ruling'

There is also a side note that, "Great hustle!!!" is acceptable, providing it is by a coach who has avoided background safety checks, and has quite the moustache.

Tin-Man's picture
@TBW Re: "....and has quite

@TBW Re: "....and has quite the moustache."

If I'm not mistaken, any editions printed after 1984 (or was it 1985?) allow the mustache to be optional, yet still highly recommended.

Sheldon's picture
Since Billy is still

Since Billy is still insisting he has [resented objective evidence then here is the thread I started to present theists with the opportunity.

His first post in this thread http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence?page=2 (since he asked me to be thorough) doesn't cite objective evidence, it cites the debunked and logically fallacious teleological argument, here's a quote: Billy said: "The teleological argument this shows that there appears to be a universe that is designed. So I attribute that to there being A GOD;"

If anyone wants a thorough refutation then here's a ten minute video https://youtu.be/PHmjHMbkOUM. However the argument basically uses a false analogy that equates complexity with design, complexity is not how we infer design, also if the entire universe is designed then simple things like grains of sand are designed, so what has complexity to do with design? It's basically begging the question in all it's forms, from Paley's watchmaker fallacy to Hoyle's junkyard fallacy.

Billy's next line: "Further the addition of the 1st century sage Jesus Christ. Who through his miracles and life death and resurrection, prove to me that he was God. "

No objective evidence again, indeed no evidence at all, yet more begging the question, petitio principii that's a logical fallacy Billy.

Billy's next line: " when you look around you see in art and music and scenery the oceans and then man and women. I don`t think this came from non-design or by naturalistic means."

Again no evidence of any kind, just bald assertion, please note Billy those things exist the natural world exists, you're assertion that something extra is required without any evidence. Occam's razor applies here.

More to follow after I've had my dinner....

Sheldon's picture
Bumping this thread as it

Bumping this thread as it seems silly to start another one, when after 11 pages not one poster could demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.

So quibbling with muslims or christians over their semantics, and subjective interpretations of their religious tomes rather misses the point.

calhais's picture
This thread is a bad idea.

It was a bad idea to post this thread; go talk to people face-to-face, calmly, and in good faith.

Sheldon's picture
It was an imperative idea to

It was an imperative idea to start this thread, in order to properly scrutinize the endless but false claims theists make for evidence they never seem to produce. Talking to people face to face is less productive for a variety of reasons. I'm perfectly calm thanks, I am in fact reclining on my couch with a small libation. Faith is an utterly facile method for validating anything, and I always try to be candid. Which is more then Breezy can claim.

Now do you have anything substantive to offer in line with the OP, other than your rather trite rejoinder to turn off my computer, and go talk to theists face (in church one assumes?)?

This format suits me fine as I can think at length on any issue I choose, without being harangued by the tambourine banging happy clappy brigade, yet read what they have to say in quiet contemplation, and best of all I can ignore them when they inevitably start their sententious preaching. It's also a lot more difficult for theists to try and bully or intimidate you in an internet forum, and shouting fire and brimstone at me is pretty funny on the internet .


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.