Atheism vs. the Quran

[theVOID]

1. Science in the Quran

Since you guys believe that the Quran is just one of the many fairy tales of the ancient, I would like to bring to attention a few of the scientific facts that are mentioned in the Quran which could not have been known by human beings living in the 7th century (except if the knowledge came to them from a divine source, i.e. God). For example, there are several verses in the Quran that speak about the structure and formation of the human embryo inside the uterus in no uncertain terms.

Check it out:
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

Are you kidding me? Do you know how many miscarried foetuses there would have been for people to look at? The Maori (my countries native population) used to have ritual burials for them over a thousand years ago, they've found graves of dozens of them in various stages of development... Knowing rudimentary things about foetal development IS NOT the domain of revelation.

A French medical doctor named Maurice Bucaille was told by his church to find scientific mistakes in the Quran. Then, after studying the Quran, he ended up writing a book entitled "The Bible, the Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge," in which he intelligently points out the correlations between the Quran and science. In the book, he questions the reader by saying:

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?" (Bucaille, 132).

Firstly, we've been over this TIME AND TIME AGAIN. Stop making arguments from authority. Either provide specific examples or don't bother at all. I don't give a flying fuck what an MD in France thinks and I don't give a fuck that you've quoted him, if you think he's got a good argument then provide it, otherwise don't bother.

Secondly, you don't think the shit about dunking flies into your drink to protect yourself from their filth was an error in pronouncement? How about it's just plain stupid.

Thirdly, Mohammed DID NOT WRITE A SINGLE WORD. You can't call him an author, not even by dictation. The Qur'an was cobbled together from collections of sayings from the New and Old testament and phrases that people had attributed to Mohammed. He had a series of 'revelations' that even his wives noted seemed to fit very well with his interests at the time, and he managed to convince a bunch of illiterate and uneducated Arabs that he was really talking to a God.

Bigfuckingdeal.

Once again, how can a man in the 7th century know all these information about the human embryo before the invention of the first electron microscope?

WOW... You don't need a fucking Electron Microscope to look at a foetus, you need a pair of eyes.

Scientists on the Quran:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/S...tists.html

There are also videos on each of the scientists who are quoted in the link above at youtube. Search for "Al-Quran: A Miracle of Miracles (1/6)," and you will hear them talking about the Quran as they explain the scientific truths that are found in many of the verses. There are also videos of Dr. Maurice Bucaille and Dr. Keith Moore at youtube. So, you can hear their comments for yourself if you don't believe me.

They have trained you well have they not? Because you're really fucking good at retreating to authority whenever you want to support your beliefs.

Again, if you think there is an argument that supports your conclusions then PRESENT THE ARGUMENT IT'S SELF and not just a quote from someone saying that they agree with the argument.

2. The inimitable language of the Quran

One of the interesting things about the Quran is that it has a challenge for all of us who thinks that the Quran is a work of a poet. The challenge is to simply imitate the linguistic style of the Quran, or to produce something that is better than the Quran.

You are truly the fallacy king.

1. Pure subjectivism. What is "better" and by who's standard? "One who flew over the cuckoo's nest" Is better than the Quran in my opinion, does than mean MacMurphy is real? Fuck no.

2. I don't write Arabic, so "imitating the linguistic style" is going to be just as difficult as any work in Arabic. The fact that it's the Quran is arbitrary. Case and point a parallel argument: If you can't imitate the traditional iterations of the Chinese Confucian poems then the Confucian poems are true. It's clearly a fallacious line of reasoning, as you should now be able to see.

And many non-Muslims in the past have tried to do this. They were among the ones who knew the Arabic langauge fluently and some of them were even experts in the language. Even Arab Christians and Arab atheists took up the challenge. So, they were all trying to imitate a single chapter of the Quran, any chapter, in terms of it's linguistic eloquence. Why? Because they wanted to prove that the Quran is wrong in saying that it cannot be reproduced by human beings. But ultimately, nobody could do this for the past 1,400 years.

ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ.....

Many of the pagan Arabs were thinking that Muhammad was the author of the Quran, that he somehow forged it. That's when God revealed the following verse to the Prophet (pbuh): "Say: If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof even if they backed up each other with help and support" (Surah 17:88).

Why don't you pick out the very best verse in the Quran and we'll beat that k?

Oh, and Jinns don't exist. I guess ol Mo fucked up on that one right?

Then, many of the Arabs and poets were trying to produce a book that is similar to the rhythms of the Quran. But not surprisingly, they couldn't do it even though they were helping each other. So God made the challenge easier for them, and said to Muhammad: "Or do they say: 'He forged it.' Say (to them): 'Then bring ten chapters, the like thereof, and call on whomever you can besides God, if you are truthful'" (Surah 11:13). They couldn't do that either. So then, God made it even easier for them and said: "And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then bring a single chapter like it, and call your witnesses besides God if you are truthful" (Surah 2:23). But again, they couldn't even produce a single chapter that is similar to nor better than the Quran.

And who was the judge of this little write-off? And why the fuck should that matter. It would be like Picasso saying "if you can't out-paint me the moon is made of cheese".

Can you out-paint Picasso? No, therefore mooncheese?

The Challenge of the Quran: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/648/

So, how is it rational to believe that Muhammad was the author of the Quran if no one else was able to write something that is better than the Quran, let alone the fact that he was illiterate?

You've still not supported the idea that the Qur'an is that good. Simply quoting people and making assertions is not sufficient. Not only that, but you've provided no criteria for which the works should be judged, and let's face it, you're not exactly unbiased

3. The historical information on the Quran

Unlike the other religious scriptures, there are authentic historical information about the compilation of the Quran that the majority of scholars agree with (both Muslims and non-Muslims). To say that such a book is a plagiarism of other sources, you will have to show that this is true by falsifying all the historical facts about the Quran by using other, opposing historical facts (i.e. those which would support the idea that the Quran is work of plagiarism).

1. All religious scriptures have some level of historical accuracy.

2. A book can be a forgery and still be historically accurate.

Recently, I was reading a book entitled "The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments," by Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami. It is a comprehensive and well-researched analysis in which the author responds to many different attacks on the possibility of the Quran being fabricated. He looks at each claim separately and clearly shows how everyone has failed in proving that the Quran is a fabrication.

More arguments from authority.

Should we keep a fallacy tally for you Rayaan?

4. The beautiful character of Muhammad (pbuh)

He fucks 8 year old girls. Really beautiful... Oh, no, just paedophilia.

After learning about the life of Muhammad, I have no doubts that he was not a liar or an imposter,

Personal credulity.

+1 to fallacy tally.

All the ill notions about Muhammad are presented only by those who are not knowledgeable about the history of Islam and the life of the prophet (pbuh).

Bare assertion.

+1 to fallacy tally.

There are many biographies written about Muhammad that were written by both Muslims and non-Muslims which show how much of a good character and compassion he had. After we look at these biographical facts with an unbiased approach, it's not reasonable for anyone to believe that Muhammad was a crazy man, or a trickster, or a psychopath, or a man with an evil agenda.

He fucked children.

A quote from from a non-Muslim scholar, who said:

Argument from authority.

+1 to fallacy tally.

More comments from non-Muslim scholars: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html

Argument from authority.

+1 to fallacy tally.

5. No rational arguments which support that Muhammad is the author of the Quran

I agree, because it was cobbled together after his death.

Having said that, now the burden of proof is on the atheists to prove that the Quran is not the word of God, because I have explained five different reasons on why there has to be a divine source behind the Quran. Additionally, even the Quran itself is telling us why the book is a miracle (such as the verses on scientific facts that could not have been known by Muhammad nor anyone else living during that time).

No numbnuts, you haven't satisfied your burden of proof, you've made some shockingly bad arguments.

"This Quran is not such as can be produced by anyone other than Allah." (10:37)

So, what other theories can you come up with in regards to the Quran?

The same as any other religious texts.

If the Quran is not a revelation, then what is it? And secondly, how would you get around all the points that I mentioned above to support your own theory of the Quran? Can you justify it?

A religious text...

And i've dismantled your "points" one by one already.

You've made next to no case at all.