Atheism vs. the Quran

[Rayaan]

To be generous, here are the sum total of historical "facts" we know about Jesus, although it's controversial among skeptics:

Annals of Tacitus, written in the second century, briefly mentions the founder of Christianity as "the anointed one" (not even naming Jesus) and provides no details except a second hand story of how he was crucified (which Muslims claim isn't even true).

I agree with you, but your comment still doesn't negate what I said earlier, which is:

"There are a lot more authentic historical facts about Muhammad than about Jesus (peace be upon them)."

So artists can't be crazy then?

Artists can be crazy indeed, but we're not talking about artists here. We're talking about Muhammad (pbuh). Is he crazy or not? And how do you justify this?

Also, you snipped out the comments where I said, "The verses came to him in many different places and times, not only in the cave. He heard these messages when he was at home, when he was praying, when he was fasting, when he woke up from sleep, when he was speaking to a crowd, when he was eating, walking, standing, etc." And he was hearing these verses for a span of 23 years. And the verses are not just a meaningless string of words. If that was the case, only then you could call him "crazy" (as in having a mental disease).

All the verses in the Quran make perfect sense and they are presented in a highly poetic style which not even a sane person could produce with a conscious effort.

If you'd read my post, you'd know I've already said there are different levels of sanity. There are some people who are crazy in specific areas and yet lead normal lives otherwise. Ever seen the story about Harvey, the invisible bunny rabbit?

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that it's not possible for someone to be mentally crazy and yet hear words in Arabic in such a rhymed fashion as the verses in the Quran (for 23 years).

So how about my musings on whether or not he lied?

Now you're trying to tell me that maybe he was a liar, whereas before, you were saying that maybe he was going through an "episode" (and thereby fooling himself that he was a prophet). But firstly, you should make up your own mind on which is a more rational theory of the two and then tell me why you think so. There are only two options: a) Muhammad was a liar, or b) He was self-deceived. But he can't be both at the same time. Why? Because if he was self-deceived, then he wouldn't lie since he would believe that the answers will be given to him by revelation.

And here's an article on "Exhausting the Alternatives," by Dr. Gary Miller.

Saying we are made out of "dust" is a major oversimplification. If you're going to run with this, you could also say we are made out of water. Or air. Or earth (our bodies contain minerals).

The Quran says that all creatures are made out of water, too. Oversimplification? Yes, but not incorrect.

And what is a drop of semen?

The arabic word for semen is "mani" whereas the word "nutfah" is a fluid-drop.

Then it's STILL in error. People are not created from a "fluid drop". People are created when the sperm cell joins with the ovum. This is NOT a "fluid drop". Care to try again?

The underlined words in the following verse indicate the joining of the two:

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight” (Surah 76:02).

Oh, please! Talk about a stretch! You go from a "mingled fluid" to "the zygote being a mixture of male and female chromosomes"?

Yeah, that's what the verse infers based on current scientific knowledge. It might be somewhat of a stretch, as you said, but it's not a contradiction.

I'll tell you what, find the word "chromosome" in the Koran. THAT would be scientific knowledge they couldn't have possessed!

The Quran doesn't have the word "chromosome" since such a word didn't even exist during that time. That's why the words "mingled fluid" are used in the Quran (instead of "mixed chromosomes").

This is a "leech-like clot" to you?
http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/u...mg0230.jpg

No, but this is more like a leech-like clot:
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7654/ch11aimg1.jpg *

* Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73 (Source).

And this: http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2189/leech.jpg, which is a 24 days old human embryo.

That's not what it says, is it? Where does this passage say anything about "beginning to grow"? You're trying to read something into the passage that isn't there.

The growth of the embryo is illustrated in the Quran by using the word "then" which indicate the sequence of the embryonic stages:

"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of a fluid-drop (Arabic, nutfah), then out of a leech-like clot (Arabic, alaqah), then out of a morsel of flesh (Arabic, mugdah), partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you."

You want to insist the Koran contains "scientific knowledge" the people of the time couldn't possibly have possessed, and the best you can do is trot out some crap about "leech-like clots" and "mingling fluids"? Show us anything in the Koran that talks about microbiology, nuclear energy, radio waves, aerodynamics, plate tectonics, or the Earth revolving around the sun. Good luck with that.

There is more than embryology in the Quran:
http://www.thisistruth.org/truth.php?f=ModernScience

Grasping at straws much? You're beginning to adopt the techniques of astrologists. If a passage is made vague enough, accurate interpretations become an impossibility because they don't exist.

1. The Quran is actually more precise in the Arabic language.

2. Even though some of the verses may be vague, no one has yet correctly pointed out a single scientific mistake in the Quran according to my knowledge.

http://pregnancyloss.info/statistics/
And that's in the westernized 21st century.

And what are the chances that Muhammad would see a miscarried fetus from one of his wives just to write it down in the Quran? And if he did that, what will his wife think about him?

Different writers, same concepts, same misguided information.

Maybe similar, but not the same. And the Quran doesn't have any scientific errors unlike the works of Aristotle, Gallen, Hippocrates, and others. Also, there is a lot of historical proof that Muhammad was illiterate and therefore he wouldn't be able to plagiarize anything from the Greeks.

"He was not able to recite any book before this, nor was he able to transcribe with his right hand. If it were so, the talkers of vanity would have surely doubted." (Surah 29:48).

You just asked if his followers would obey his commands if he had been revealed as a liar.

Yes, he would've been exposed as a liar by his own people if his whole life was merely a facade. If he had plagiarized the Quran from any other sources, then he would've been exposed as liar because he was surrounded by pagans, the Christians, the Romans, and disbelievers, and many other enemies who were always trying to to discredit him. Yet, there is not a single report from anyone that he told a lie or that he was untruthful.

The theory that Muhammad authored the Quran or copied from other sources is also disproved by the fact that he was illiterate. If he was not illiterate, as stated in the Quran itself, then it would've been easy to prove this because the life of Muhammad is a well-documented life unlike that of Jesus and the other prophets (peace be upon them).

Rayan how can you claim the Qu'ran is infallible if it has as many mistakes as the bible?

There are no mistakes in the Quran unlike the Bible.
If you think otherwise, then feel free to point out any of the (alleged) mistakes in the Quran.

______________________________________________________________________________________

And theVoid, I'll reply to some of the things that you wrote in your post after I gather my thoughts together, but not right now since there is a lot of things that I have to explain which you don't know about the the Quran. I'll post my reply at a later time (within the next few days).

It's going to be mainly on two of the claims that you made in your post, which are:

(1) The Quran that we have today never existed during the time of Muhammad (pbuh) and (2) that a "huge portion" of the Quran was taken from the Torah and the New Testament.


While you're waiting for my response, please check out the links below:

Collection and Transmission of the Quran, Quran's Compilation, Q&A, Quran's Preservation and Compilation, The Holy Quran: It's Historical Authenticity