Pleasure and Joy

[bennyboy]

The difference between an elaborate data-processing and actual experience is simple - experience is data-processing of that data-processing. For example, if you prick a person's toe he twitches - the data of the pin-prick is received by the pain receptors and processed to provide a response of twitching. If the person is conscious at the time, he'd be aware of this whole process taking place and this awareness is the sensation of pain. In other words experience. Another example - when a light is shined on your eyes, your pupils contract. This is an unconscious process that does not require any actual experience on your part. The light falls - the brain processes this - and sends out the signal for pupils to contract. But, your brain also becomes aware of the reception of this information and that is experience. And this experience can result in additional responses like blinking, squinting or shielding your eyes.

So, while one may not be directly able to observe the existence of someone else's experience, we can certainly infer - nay, prove - its existence by identifying the mechanisms required for that experience and establishing that they are functional.

Hmmm. . . and how will you go about making that association between experience? By asking people what they're experiencing, and monitoring their brain. So you've proven that all people who report that they are actually experiencing have certain kinds of brain function (or more generally, that they are doing certain kinds of data processing). But you're just proving that all dogs have tails. Now you have the task of proving that wherever there's a tail, there's necessarily a dog.

Actually, you're not quite proving that all dogs have tails, because we don't have to infer the existence of tails from any aspect of the dogs' behavior.

Its not begging the question if the hypothesis is both testable and falsifiable. If your dualist hypothesis was correct then any alteration in the experience itself by altering the brain chemistry would've been impossible. That was the first indicator that in all likelihood, even experience is a specific function of the brain.

Again, you are correlating behaviors with brain function, not the actual mental experience. So when you say, "All conscious people have brain function X," what you're really saying is, all people who (report their experiences/move their eyes/show emotion) have brain function X. At no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of their subjective experience.

[Harris]

We have senses of pain and pleasure yet we don’t know exactly what they are. We don’t like pain and we like pleasure that’s all we know. Science is so feeble that it can’t even give explanation to our different feelings like what is love and what is hate. Although every one of us experiencing in our daily lives the pleasure of love yet there is no tool that can prove scientifically what is love. If you say, “I love you” and your listener response “prove it” that makes you hang in the middle of air as you don’t know what to do next because you are a believer of science and science has no tools to help you out in this case.

I'm completely fed up with this childish kark that love is some mysterious, undefinable something.

Love is the subjective condition that exists when another person's happiness is essential to your own. This definition is not original with me (bonus points and an onion milkshake for the first person to source it correctly), but it seems unarguable. If you are indifferent to someone else's happiness, you can't claim to 'love' them, I think. Similarly, it seems perverse in the extreme to claim that you don't love someone when their happiness is a vital component of your own.

Boru

There is no person in the world who is living without some kind of faith. Every person believes in something. Faith is all about human understanding. Now this human understanding gets its shapes through influences of personal interests. It would not be an exaggeration if I say our point of interests moulds our understandings. It is specifically the case with phenomenal concepts, which are inside our minds and bodies, but we can’t explain them scientifically.

We know there is universe as we have physical sense of it but we don’t know what is the cause of this universe and why it is running so systematically like a Swiss wristwatch. It is an illogical idea that universe is controlling its own self. Do we think universe is controlling our lives on earth and it is the universe, which regulates the time of our lives?

As for your critique on blind faith, I can say that in Quran there is no commandment to scarify own children. Quran commands everything in compliance with nature whereas sacrificing own children is not a natural concept. So far, I have not seen any commandment in Quran to be un-natural.

[genkaus]

Hmmm. . . and how will you go about making that association between experience? By asking people what they're experiencing, and monitoring their brain. So you've proven that all people who report that they are actually experiencing have certain kinds of brain function (or more generally, that they are doing certain kinds of data processing).

That would just be the preliminary stage. Right now, there is so much activity going on in a brain that identifying a specific experiential mechanism from the lot is difficult. The verbal testimony of experience is required to narrow it down, but is not sufficient proof of it.

But you're just proving that all dogs have tails. Now you have the task of proving that wherever there's a tail, there's necessarily a dog.

Actually, I never claimed that wherever there is a tail there is a dog. Put in other words I never claimed that experience is only possible with human minds.

Actually, you're not quite proving that all dogs have tails, because we don't have to infer the existence of tails from any aspect of the dogs' behavior.

We do - as a matter of fact. A dog can't wag his tail if he does not have one.

Again, you are correlating behaviors with brain function, not the actual mental experience.

No, I'm saying experience is a brain function. Therefore, I'm correlating behavior to both brain function and experience at the same time.

So when you say, "All conscious people have brain function X," what you're really saying is, all people who (report their experiences/move their eyes/show emotion) have brain function X. At no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of their subjective experience.

When you say that dinosaurs existed, what you are actually saying is that existence of fossils suggest existence of dinosaurs - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of dinosaurs.

When you say that black-holes exist, what you are actually saying is that motion of certain astronomical bodies suggest its existence - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of their existence.

When you say that global warming occurs, what you are actually saying is that scientists have reported its occurrence - at no point do you have access to its existential reality.

When you say that the accused committed a crime what you are actually saying is that evidence and eye-witness testimony suggest that he committed the crime - at no point do you have access to the existential reality/unreality of the crime itself.

As I've said before - direct perceptual access to something is not required to establish its existence.

---

Obviously if you are focused over cause and effects without caring the origin of cause, you’ll have chances to get disappointments with the discourse about mysticism in love. Indeed love is a generalized concept. Many eminent intellectuals like Plato, Aristotle, J. Proust, Spinoza, Kant, etc. have already said much about love.

However, the locus of love shifts dramatically if it is studied under the hood of self-consciousness. In this perspective, it becomes phenomenal experience. Phenomenal experiences have been argued to be non-physical which science can’t dissect and in this sense love contains evidence of mysticism.

Since phenomenological experiences haven't been established as non-physical, nor has it been established that anything non-physical would be beyond scientific inquiry - I'd say that science can dissect and examine love. And by the way, "evidence of mysticism" is a contradiction in terms.

[Harris]

Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was.

Most biologists would disagree.

Most biologists also disagree that genes of apes can be developed through evolutionary route into human genes, whereas others striving to show similarities among genes of apes and human and through this trying to prove Darwin’s point of view on human evolution to be true.

Web is full of such controversies.

Biologists have known about evolution since before the BBC first broadcast, it wouldn't be big news and most television stations don't dare even show cartoons that might offend muslims, why would it be in their interest to suddenly start debunking the quran?
I can tell you now the politically correct BBC would be the LAST to "give a shout on that".

Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad were intended to humiliate Islam based on hatred and Jealousy. There was no literary contention behind that act. Certainly, BBC and CNN took correct step by not telecasting those cartoons. They are well aware about their audiences in Muslim world who are around 2 billion in numbers.

Let me clarify this idea through couple of examples:

Example one
If I say, “You are a pig”, does that statement transform you into a pig? Sure, it won’t. Would that act of mine provoke anger and depression in you? Sure it does. It hurts because I associated you with the lower grade dirty animal with the intention to degrade you.

Example two
If you are a record holder in 100-meter sprint and I challenge you for a contest and beat you then this would be worldwide news.

Now Quran claims it is a Divine Word. It built its case based on the claim that it has no discrepancies and holds this claim for last 1400 years. So far, no one was able to challenge this claim but if someday someone will really with an authentication regarding claim of Quran to be wrong then not only BBC but also all news channels around the world would be telecasting this news with delight.

The quran actually offers very little information that isn't incredibly vague, to actually prove a claim wrong you have to know what that claim is in the first place.

You are correct to some extent in saying, “Quran actually offers very little information”. It is because Quran is not a book of science, history, philosophy, etc. it is a book of signs and commandments. What information Quran has given to the believers is more than sufficient to expose the truth. It is simply a different matter if someone closes his eyes with the intention not to see. In such a case, no one can show path to a blind person.

The qurans claims are so vague muslims cannot agree on what it says, so it would be impossible to prove the quran wrong if people don't even know what it says to begin with.
For example the verse that says man was created from a drop emitted from between the backbone and ribs.
I've argued about this before with Muslims, I've had one muslim tell me the drop is seman, another muslim say that testicles are formed high up in the body in babies so the quran must be talking about that, another muslim told me that the quran is talking about the blood flow from another part of the body to the testicles.
Muslims will have to all agree on what the quran actually says and get their story straight before anyone can prove it wrong.
I've even seen muslims who believe in evolution and that adam was just a life form but not necessarily human, so how can I prove a book wrong that isn't actually giving out clear information?

I somewhat agree with your views and analysis. Many Muslim don’t have time to study Quran. They don’t know Quran yet they are Muslims. If you give a tricky question to such Muslims, who don’t have fundamental knowledge to answer then these are the people who normally fell into a trap. They try to hide their embarrassment and in this act, they commit more blunders.

If you have serious intentions for learning Quran then you should consult with some learned Muslim who knows his scripture well and who can satisfy you in your cross questioning.

Quran is written in such a way that an illiterate Bedouin can understand it according to his understanding and a scholar can understand according to his level of intellect.

You truly said there are many things in Quran, which seems to be ambiguous. Those things are ambiguous because we have not yet reached to the level of understanding based on our acquired knowledge.

1400 years ago, people did not have any idea about the evolution of a human baby in mother’s womb. But Quran revealed this information 1400 years ago in the middle of barbaric and ignorant Arabs.

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 14-

A group of Muslims had presented this verse along with other similar verses to Dr. Keith Moore. Dr. Keith Moore is an eminent embryologist in the University of Toronto and he is a highly regarded specialist in his field. His book on embryology got award and many of his books are used as textbooks in medical colleges throughout the west. He said this information was impossible to be developed by any man without the invention of microscope. We know microscope came after 1000 years after the revelation of Quran. Dr. Keith said he is amazed by the accuracy of Quran how it placed different stages of human evolution with such a precision. He acknowledged this can’t be the work of human hands. His interviews you can find on YouTube.

Therefore, things, which seem to be ambiguous, will not be ambiguous when the acquired knowledge of human will reach to a higher level.

I can't prove an intoxicated homeless man wrong in the streets if he shouts "RAOARRRR THE TIGERS GOT EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD ROUND HIS HEAD AT NIGHT WHEN THE MOON IS OUT" it doesn't mean he is right it just means he is talking jibberish that no one understands.

For sure, Quran is not an intoxicated homeless man talking about gibberish things. We have thrown a curtain over our own eyes perhaps due to our hatred and jealousy. We have simply closed our eyes over prominent facts that Quran is presenting for our understanding.

I’ll give another example:

Does man (a disbeliever) think that We shall not assemble his bones?
Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.
Al Qiyaamah (75)
-Verses 3 & 4-

Above verses are talking about disbelievers’ distrust in the resurrection. Sir Frances Gold in 1880 had discovered that prints on our fingertips are not identical with the prints of another person even in million people.

---

I've given you a whole list of them - refute them all. I don't need to pick and choose "just a few" - even if one of those contradictions and scientific discrepancies is is not show to be absolutely and undeniably
incorrect, then by your admission, quran is not superior or miraculous.

First, I am not willing to waste my time in refuting all those childish arguments. If you are interested then give me couple of them, which you think are the strongest ones.

Secondly, none of Christian or Atheist Apologists uses any of these allegations in their debates with Muslims. There are millions of Muslim-Christian and Muslim-Atheist debates available on YouTube and you can check yourself. Do you think Christian and Atheist scholars don’t know about these web sites and about these allegations against Quran?

Once Jay Smith tried to quote such allegation in a debate with Shabir Ally and after that, Jay had no place to hide his face when Shabir Ally rebutted.

Try to remember that it won't even qualify as news. Existence of authentic contradictions and discrepancies in quran is a well known and well established fact. We don't discuss it in polite company so as not to hurt the feewings of wee-muslim babies. The only reason you don't see it and desperately try to excuse, justify or otherwise rationalize them is because of your blind faith.

You have not studied Quran. You speak what others are saying and you have a blind faith in whatever you are hearing against Quran. I don’t need to give justifications. You can simply search the web for Muslim-Atheist or Muslim-Christian debates and check out yourself that non-Muslim scholars are not using any of the points, which these web sites are presenting against Quran.

These web sites are designed for naive people to keep them away from reading Quran.

[genkaus]

You changed your argument. No matter, I'll address the new one as well.

There is no person in the world who is living without some kind of faith. Every person believes in something. Faith is all about human understanding. Now this human understanding gets its shapes through influences of personal interests. It would not be an exaggeration if I say our point of interests moulds our understandings. It is specifically the case with phenomenal concepts, which are inside our minds and bodies, but we can’t explain them scientifically.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

Faith is a convenient excuse for intellectual laziness or incapacity. Believing in something is not the same as having faith - especially if that belief is justified. Your personal interests are molded according to your understanding of the world - so your simplistic statement interests molding the understanding is not only wrong, its foolish. This applies to phenomenological concepts as well - which are well within range of scientific inquiry. As a matter of fact, the science that studies them is referred to as psychology.

We know there is universe as we have physical sense of it but we don’t know what is the cause of this universe and why it is running so systematically like a Swiss wristwatch. It is an illogical idea that universe is controlling its own self. Do we think universe is controlling our lives on earth and it is the universe, which regulates the time of our lives?

More bullshit. We define what constitutes "running systematically" based on how the universe runs. Saying that the universe runs "systematically" is tautological. Further, the universe is not an agent - so the question of controlling anything and anyone is foolish. As to its cause - we do not even know if there can be a cause - so quranic speculations on its existence and nature are also bullshit.

As for your critique on blind faith, I can say that in Quran there is no commandment to scarify own children. Quran commands everything in compliance with nature whereas sacrificing own children is not a natural concept. So far, I have not seen any commandment in Quran to be un-natural.[/size]

So I'm guessing you must have proven each and every one of errors and contradictions presented to be wrong and the website hosting them must have realized the error of their ways and taken them down? No? Then you are simply blinding yourself to the unnatural parts of the quran - and therefore, blind faith.

[Harris]

Also I'd just like to add that it isn't the duty of every atheist to go disproving every crazy prophet in the world out there, to disprove every religion we would have to learn languages that don't exist, or languages that we don't know, plus there wouldn't be enough time in one life time to read every religious scripture in the world, or listen to every single claim.

I haven't read the quran in arabic, according to some muslims that's the only way to understand it.
I don't see it as my duty to learn a language just so I can be sure for 100 percent that a horse didn't fly and that a stick didn't turn into a snake, and that evolution didn't happen instead someone said "be" to some dust to create a man.

If you are an adamant person then even learning Arabic will not help you. Translation of Quran is sufficient to have the basic idea on what Quran is commanding. It’s only a matter of reading it with a neutral mind.

---

Brain function IS consciousness. The notion of consciousness surviving the wreck of the brain is analagous to 150 kph surviving the wreck of the car.
Boru

If you say brain function IS consciousness then why brain is functioning at all? In other words, what is keeping brain to function? You know better than I do that behind every effect there is a cause. Car needs a driver in order to perform its functions. Behind the functioning of car the cause is the driver’s intensions.

---

Prove that the Quran is making a true claim about the existence and properties of a god.

Note: the Quran could be scientifically, mathematically, and historically accurate down to the letter, but that does nothing to verify its most basic and fundamental claim; the only claim that really matters.

The claims of your religion are unfalsifiable and unproven and, therefore, worthless.

Today scientists and philosophers, whether they belong to theist or atheist schools of thoughts, agrees that within or outside the universe there is nothing so called “Nothingness”. Almost everyone now agrees that there is nothing in the universe, which comes out of “Nothingness” as “Nothingness” simply doesn’t exist. Now if there is “No Nothingness” then from where the roots of this universe grew? Why there is a balance in the universe, why not a chaos? Things like Chance has least value scientifically, logically, rationally, and empirically in all aspects of human understanding. CHANCE sparkles mostly in the vicinity of human desires.

Theist uses the word God and simplifies his task to explain this “No Nothingness”. However, atheist finds it hard to give explanation to this “No Nothingness” and come up with different theories and models. Like multiverse model, inflationary model, string theory, etc. but all these hypotheses are highly speculative scientifically. Before atheist argued that universe exists from eternity, will exist up to eternity but scientific facts force him to accept that universe was not eternal, and will not be eternal. Now atheist doesn’t argue against the origin of universe but in parallel he has no logical explanation on what caused this universe if there is no Super Intelligent Being, “God”.

Another thing, which astounds all scientists and philosophers, are the subjects of Grand Design and Supernatural Balance in the universe. Universe is a place of order, balance, and symmetry. Think of the earth if it moves only 1 cm towards or away from the sun, this short deviation from its path becomes a threat to life on earth. Look at the human body how accurate and perfectly balanced functions are happening within it without our own incentives. Simply look at the function of genes and that alone gives you surprises after surprises.

By words, one can deny the existence of God but no one can explain how this grand design and fine-tuning is running on its own. It is a laughable joke for us if someone says his wristwatch caused by some desert as a matter of chance and it is running precisely by its own without the need of an operator. However, we don’t laugh when we say this humongous and intricate universe caused by itself as a matter of chance and it is running super precisely by its own.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 164-
Al Quran


Try to tackle with the following arguments:

First Argument
(1) Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore the universe was caused to exist; and the cause of its existence is God.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid (1058-1111)


Second Argument
We recognize that we ourselves are not made by ourselves but by something else; however, we as rational beings are certainly superior to the world of non-rational things. This would not be so if that world were something that caused itself, because anything which relies only on itself for its subsistence is superior to anything that relies on something other than itself. Hence that world is brought into existence by something else, a maker or ruler, and this we call God.
Abelard, Peter (1079-1142)

[Fidel_Castronaut]

For example:
Why rape is common in the west why not in Saudi Arabia? Because Saudi Arabia has implemented Shariah Law for Rapist and that is a capital punishment. If you imply this law in the west then do you think rape cases would increase or decrease? I say they will totally disappear only after few people will get punishment.

Evidence to back up this assertion.

Also, talking nonsense in big, bold letters doesn't detract from the fact you are still talking nonsense in the majority of your posts. Desist, please, it's really annoying.

[Esquilax]

If you say brain function IS consciousness then why brain is functioning at all? In other words, what is keeping brain to function? You know better than I do that behind every effect there is a cause. Car needs a driver in order to perform its functions. Behind the functioning of car the cause is the driver’s intensions.

If consciousness is a product of a physical brain, then that brain existing in a stable state is what causes the consciousness. Your question is nonsensical; you might as well ask why a shoe remains a shoe. That's its physical state, absent some outside influence.

What you just asked only makes sense if we assume your conclusion that there's something more from the outset.

Theist uses the word God and simplifies his task to explain this “No Nothingness”.

You might have a simple answer, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

However, atheist finds it hard to give explanation to this “No Nothingness” and come up with different theories and models. Like multiverse model, inflationary model, string theory, etc. but all these hypotheses are highly speculative scientifically.

Nor does our not having a definite answer make yours the correct one.

Think of the earth if it moves only 1 cm towards or away from the sun, this short deviation from its path becomes a threat to life on earth.

Lie. The earth has an elliptical orbit, meaning that its distance from the sun varies by several hundred thousand kilometers. So much for the magnificent balance of the universe, huh?

Look at the human body how accurate and perfectly balanced functions are happening within it without our own incentives. Simply look at the function of genes and that alone gives you surprises after surprises.

All of which are explained scientifically and possess no indication of having a supernatural origin. Unless you'd like to provide such evidence, and not just another argument from ignorance?

By words, one can deny the existence of God but no one can explain how this grand design and fine-tuning is running on its own.

Fine tuning? Including the black holes that are swallowing whole stars out of the sky? The stars themselves, which are essentially giant radioactive fires blazing in space? Space, which is intensely hostile to life? Just beyond the atmospheric boundaries of our planet, which is itself beset by natural disasters, radiation from space, and the occasional meteor? Very "fine tuned," that.

It is a laughable joke for us if someone says his wristwatch caused by some desert as a matter of chance and it is running precisely by its own without the need of an operator. However, we don’t laugh when we say this humongous and intricate universe caused by itself as a matter of chance and it is running super precisely by its own.

Oh man, we're doing Watchmaker now? Okay: so, the reason that you know the watch is designed is through contrast and comparison. That's the same way we define everything; we compare it to things that are different from it. But if we take your analogy to its conclusion, there are no natural objects with which to compare and thus infer design. What you're really saying is that we find a wristwatch in a desert made of watches, on a planet of watches orbitting a sun made of watches, in a universe of watches, and also you yourself are a watch. And in the midst of all this clockwork, you reach down and pick up a single watch and say "this watch is so different from all the other watches, it must have been designed."

It's nonsensical.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 164-
Al Quran

Rather begging the question, there. And the whole thing is an argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how this works, and therefore my idea of a god must be the thing doing that."

Try to tackle with the following arguments:

Oh, you'd better believe it.

First Argument
(1) Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore the universe was caused to exist; and the cause of its existence is God.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid (1058-1111)

First of all, I reject the absolutist nature of the first premise, because I don't think you can demonstrate that everything that exists does have a cause, least of all in a universe before the big bang, where the laws of causality might not work the way they do here.

I also reject the second premise, because you don't know what happened before the big bang any more than I do, and therefore cannot make a statement about any purported origin.

And I reject the conclusion because nothing in the premises lead one to conclude that the cause was a god, even if they were correct, which they aren't. You're handwaving, and that's not acceptable.

Since I can't be shitted treading over old ground, when I and others have debunked this argument in another threat quite recently, I'll just post an old video with some more objections:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9MtIma5YU

Second Argument
We recognize that we ourselves are not made by ourselves but by something else; however, we as rational beings are certainly superior to the world of non-rational things. This would not be so if that world were something that caused itself, because anything which relies only on itself for its subsistence is superior to anything that relies on something other than itself. Hence that world is brought into existence by something else, a maker or ruler, and this we call God.
Abelard, Peter (1079-1142)

Arguments are based on demonstrated premises, not assertions. All this is is an assertion, made baselessly and given no reason beyond some vaguely philosophical handwaving. Since you haven't bothered to actually provide any reason why a person should accept the reasoning here, I can reject it out of hand.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[StuW]

First Argument
(1) Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore the universe was caused to exist; and the cause of its existence is God.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid (1058-1111)

Kalām has been proven again and again to be a false argument, watch..

1) All men have mothers
2) All men are part of the human race
3) Therefore the human race has a mother

You can't lump things that happen within the universe with the universe itself.

[genkaus]

Do you really think that a large font can hide the idiocy of your arguments? It doesn't.

Most biologists also disagree that genes of apes can be developed through evolutionary route into human genes, whereas others striving to show similarities among genes of apes and human and through this trying to prove Darwin’s point of view on human evolution to be true.

Web is full of such controversies.

Not this one. Biologists have all pretty much agreed on that.

Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad were intended to humiliate Islam based on hatred and Jealousy. There was no literary contention behind that act.

Ofcourse there was - its called freedom of speech.

Certainly, BBC and CNN took correct step by not telecasting those cartoons. They are well aware about their audiences in Muslim world who are around 2 billion in numbers.

They took the cowardly route by trying to appease the crybaby Muslims. Not the correct step.

Let me clarify this idea through couple of examples:

Example one
If I say, “You are a pig”, does that statement transform you into a pig? Sure, it won’t. Would that act of mine provoke anger and depression in you? Sure it does. It hurts because I associated you with the lower grade dirty animal with the intention to degrade you.

Actually, it won't. Sticks and stones, dude, sticks and stones.

And even if it did, it'd still be wrong of me to threaten or commit violence in retaliation - something you muslims are so fond of.

Example two
If you are a record holder in 100-meter sprint and I challenge you for a contest and beat you then this would be worldwide news.

Now Quran claims it is a Divine Word. It built its case based on the claim that it has no discrepancies and holds this claim for last 1400 years. So far, no one was able to challenge this claim but if someday someone will really with an authentication regarding claim of Quran to be wrong then not only BBC but also all news channels around the world would be telecasting this news with delight.

If you beat me in a 100m sprint and it turns out that I never held a record in the first place, it wouldn't be a news at all.

Quran claims that it is a divine word. But it has had discrepancies and scientific errors within it since its conception. So it never actually established its claim. Not for last 1400 years, not even for 1 year. And since it was never established, someone challenging it and proving it wrong doesn't amount to news and therefore won't be broadcasted at all.

You are correct to some extent in saying, “Quran actually offers very little information”. It is because Quran is not a book of science, history, philosophy, etc. it is a book of signs and commandments. What information Quran has given to the believers is more than sufficient to expose the truth. It is simply a different matter if someone closes his eyes with the intention not to see. In such a case, no one can show path to a blind person.

I agree- what information is given in it is sufficient to establish the truth. And the truth is that the Quran, like every other 'holy text' out there, is a pile of bullshit that's not even worth a reading.

1400 years ago, people did not have any idea about the evolution of a human baby in mother’s womb. But Quran revealed this information 1400 years ago in the middle of barbaric and ignorant Arabs.

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 14-

A group of Muslims had presented this verse along with other similar verses to Dr. Keith Moore. Dr. Keith Moore is an eminent embryologist in the University of Toronto and he is a highly regarded specialist in his field. His book on embryology got award and many of his books are used as textbooks in medical colleges throughout the west. He said this information was impossible to be developed by any man without the invention of microscope. We know microscope came after 1000 years after the revelation of Quran. Dr. Keith said he is amazed by the accuracy of Quran how it placed different stages of human evolution with such a precision. He acknowledged this can’t be the work of human hands. His interviews you can find on YouTube.

Therefore, things, which seem to be ambiguous, will not be ambiguous when the acquired knowledge of human will reach to a higher level.

Too easy, simply too easy. Atleast gimme a challenge.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dr._Keith_Moor..._Additions

The result of Moore's and Zindani's collaboration is not an academic book and subsequent editions omit and contradict the "Islamic additions". Reverting back to his previous description, they basically admit that the embryology in the Qur'an is a repetition of Greek and Indian medicine

For example, in 1986 he wrote that "The drop or nutfa [in Surah 23:13] has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest")," but in the 8th edition of The Developing Human (published 2007), he writes that "Growth of science was slow during the medieval period... human beings [according to the Qur'an] are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning."

This shows that Moore's previous statements on embryology in the Qur'an were not based on science, but merely the result of patronage by the Saudi royal family.

J. Needham, a well known authority on the history of embryology and a reference cited in Keith Moore's books, has also dismissed embryology in the Qur'an as merely "a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda."

For sure, Quran is not an intoxicated homeless man talking about gibberish things. We have thrown a curtain over our own eyes perhaps due to our hatred and jealousy. We have simply closed our eyes over prominent facts that Quran is presenting for our understanding.

You could've fooled me - it sounds exactly like the ramblings of a drunk bum.

Its the muslims who've thrown a curtain over their own eyes (that's a clever reference to burqa, in case you missed it). They are the ones who've closed their eyes to all the errors and contradictions in it.

I’ll give another example:

Does man (a disbeliever) think that We shall not assemble his bones?
Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.
Al Qiyaamah (75)
-Verses 3 & 4-

Above verses are talking about disbelievers’ distrust in the resurrection. Sir Frances Gold in 1880 had discovered that prints on our fingertips are not identical with the prints of another person even in million people.

Yes, Sir Francis Gold did discover that - but I don't see this being mentioned in your quran.

First, I am not willing to waste my time in refuting all those childish arguments. If you are interested then give me couple of them, which you think are the strongest ones.

If you want to establish your "claim" that there are no contradictions or scientific discrepancies in Quran, then yes, you'll have to "waste" your time refuting all those childish arguments. And then you'll have to refute the other thousand "childish" contradictions I come up with. Then we move on to the adult contradictions. And only when you have refuted each and every one of them then you can say that there are no contradictions or discrepancies in Quran - but not before.

As things stand now, Quran doesn't even stand up to childish scrutiny.

Secondly, none of Christian or Atheist Apologists uses any of these allegations in their debates with Muslims. There are millions of Muslim-Christian and Muslim-Atheist debates available on YouTube and you can check yourself. Do you think Christian and Atheist scholars don’t know about these web sites and about these allegations against Quran?

There not using it doesn't make these arguments untrue. So either put up or shut up.

Once Jay Smith tried to quote such allegation in a debate with Shabir Ally and after that, Jay had no place to hide his face when Shabir Ally rebutted.

Never heard of either of them. But if you are so confident in your rebuttal - go ahead, present it.

You have not studied Quran.

I haven't studied Illiad either. I don't need to in order to know its wrong.

You speak what others are saying and you have a blind faith in whatever you are hearing against Quran.

Are you saying that the quotes given in the website, supposedly from the Quran, are actually not in Quran at all? That should be easy to prove. Otherwise, the only thing I'm hearing against Quran is Quran itself.

I don’t need to give justifications.

If you want to establish it as without errors and without contradictions, then you do need to give justifications.

You can simply search the web for Muslim-Atheist or Muslim-Christian debates and check out yourself that non-Muslim scholars are not using any of the points, which these web sites are presenting against Quran.

All this proves is that there is a multitude of arguments against Quran and that people can pick and choose different ones.

These web sites are designed for naive people to keep them away from reading Quran.

Agreed. Naive people can be easily fooled and deceived by Muslim conmen trying to spread their bullshit dogma. Websites like these do a public service by preventing its reader from being taken in by quranic lies.