Atheism vs. the Quran

[Rayaan]

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.

It's not rudimentary knowledge for people who lived 14 centuries ago ...

"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babies, then (foster you) that you may reach your age of full strength." (Surah 22:05)

If the Quran was invented by men who lived in such a primitive age, then, shouldn't there be at least a single scientific error in the verse above?

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.

1. It's more time-saving to post quotes and links instead of elaborating it myself.
2. Why is it a bad thing to quote from people who are intelligent in a certain field (or "authorities" as you say) if it is coming from a credible source?
3. It's always better if we can support our views with the opinions of more knowledgeable people than ourselves. Isn't that what we are taught to do in research papers?

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.

Dunking flies into your drink? ... yeah, actually it doesn't make any sense.

Thirdly, Mohammed DID NOT WRITE A SINGLE WORD. You can't call him an author, not even by dictation.

Yes, Muhammad didn't write a single word because he was illiterate. He recited the verses that were revealed to him, and a lot of the people who heard him began to memorize the verses while his appointed scribes were busy with putting them into a book form.

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.

1. How do you know that Muhammad had a series of revelations?
2. How do you know that his wives had noticed any such revelations? And where did you learn this from?
3. What are these "interests at the time" that he had which you are speaking of?
4. If we assume that he managed to convince a bunch of illiterate Arabs that God spoke to him, then it contradicts your statement that all the verses in the Quran are only being "attritubted" to Mohammad, because you just said that he convinced people to believe that he was talking to God.
5. And who could be these mysterious authors of the Quran if the book was neither transmitted from God nor Muhammad?

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

What about the embryo? Isn't the shape of the embryo too small to be seen by the naked eyes? Also, why was this confirmed only in the last century?

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.

There's no training involved, I just got good at it by myself.
But you make it sound as if retreating to authorities is a bad thing. What's the reason for that?

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.

I did present the arguments as well as backing them up with credible and trustable sources. What else are you looking for?

You are truly the fallacy king.

I disagree, but think whatever you want about me. I know myself better than you do.

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.

It's not actually purely subjective. There's an objective way to test if one's work is better than the Quran.

See this:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/M.../ijaz.html

The challenge is to produce, in Arabic, "three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook."

ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ.....

That means you couldn't think of something more intelligent to say ...

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

The smallest chapter in the Quran is only 3 lines, and no one has yet been able to write something better than that chapter given the style of the Quran.

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

Or maybe they do exist, but you can't see them. The Jinns are a part of the unseen world.

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?

This is not a good comparison to the Quran's challenge, because there is an objective reason on why it is not possible to imitate the Quran.

"The inability of any person to produce anything like the Qur’an, due to the uniqueness of its language, is the essence of the Qur’anic miracle. A miracle is defined as 'events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature'. The argument posed by Muslim Theologians and Philosophers is that if, with the finite set of Arabic linguistic tools at humanity’s disposal, there has been no effective challenge to try and imitate the Qur'an, then providing a naturalistic explanation for the Qur’an’s uniqueness is not sufficient. This is because the natural capacity of any author is able to produce the varying expressions known in the Arabic language. The development of an entirely unique expression is beyond the scope of the productive nature of any author, hence a supernatural entity, God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation" (Source).

The Literary Form of the Quran:
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/QuranicStyle.html

You've still not supported the idea that the Qur'an is that good. Simply quoting people and making assertions is not sufficient.

The Quran is awesome whether you believe it or not. Here's another quote for you:

“....the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Muhammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evidential miracle” (Hamilton Gibb, a well-known Arabist from University of Oxford).

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.

You can't read my mind and I can safely say that you're wrong if you think that I'm being biased. You may still disagree, though.

1. All religious scriptures have some level of historical accuracy.
2. A book can be a forgery and still be historically accurate.

1. Yes, but the historical accuracy of the Quran's preservation is much greater than any other holy books.
2. You still didn't give any good arguments on why the Quran is a counterfeit (but only making some conjectures without citing from anything).

More arguments from authority.
Should we keep a fallacy tally for you Rayaan?

No thanks, I prefer that you keep the tally in your head.

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

Can you show me any references or citations to verify that claim? If not, then why should I believe you?

Personal credulity.

+1 to fallacy tally.

So, when I make a statement of my own, it's the "personal credulity" fallacy. And when I back up my statements by using other sources, it's the "argument from authority" fallacy. How clever.

Bare assertion.

+1 to fallacy tally.

You should at least give a reason on why it's a bare assertion.

I said that the people who have ill notions about Muhammad (pbuh) are not knowledgeable about the history of his life. But instead of proving that sentence wrong, you just simply threw out the words "bare assertion" even though I've already said that there are many authentic biographical information about him which negate the idea that he was an evil person.

He fucked children.

Base Assertion Fallacy. <- (See, I can play that stupid game also).

Argument from authority.

+1 to fallacy tally.

Argument from authority does not equal to a bad argument. Why don't you examine the argument itself?

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

If you truly think that, then you don't know anything about the history of the Quran. You are very incognizant of the scholarly works on the Quran.

Argument from authority.

+1 to fallacy tally.

Again, argument from authority doesn't mean that it's a bad argument. The same thing can be said by me, a scientist, a philosophy teacher, or even by a 5th grader.

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

I disagree because your counter-arguments are not strong enough to show that mines are shockingly bad.

The same as any other religious texts.

By that, if you mean to say that the Quran was invented by men, then, I think you have certainly failed to support that view (unlike I did with links).

A religious text...

Of course it's a religious text. But the question is, who's the author? I've already made my case.

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

Actually, you didn't dismantle the points very well. Each of the 5 points that I discussed in the original post are well-supported by scholarly research. You weren't able to show me otherwise.

You've made next to no case at all.

That's not true, because I proved with enough sources that the Quran cannot be anything else but the word of God based on the scientific, literary, and historical aspects of the Quran.

Anyways, be happy for all the kudoses that you got.
You deserve it for the effort, at least. But that doesn't mean that you're right. You're smart enough not to fall into the kudos fallacy.