Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The content of the Qur'an is too sophisticated to be the work of the person you're talking about. It's now a question about whether you're honest in stating your real thoughts about our holy book, or reluctant to even read it because of the countless stereotypes regarding our religion.

Agreed, it's the work of all of the people Mighty Mo cribbed his stories from, his ghostwriters, and from later generations of compilers.  Frankly, the quran being too sophistiated to have been the work of mo is a problem for you...not anyone else.  

I think that your holy book is garbage, and questions as to my character are yet another fallacious argument to heap on the muslim pile of base irrationality.

"Crazy can't write a book" - says who?

"Crazy can't found a religion" - says who?

"Crazy can't start a war" .....says.....who.....?

^Exactly this. This is precisely Lewis's 'lord/liar/lunatic' false trilemma. The notion that a religious leader can't be crazy as a bedbug isn't borne out by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Boru

[Cyberman]

So your evidence is a pile of more unsupported claims, followed by an argument from ignorance?

No; make your case. Don't point to other things and pretend you're talking about your magic book.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's the claim. Now it's down to you to support it and make your case.

Take any other 1400 years old book talking about nature and the universe, you'll immediately discover hundreds of inconsistencies with the current state of knowledge. And therefore it is safe to assume that it cannot be the word of God.

The Qur'an contains hundreds of verses talking about the observable universe and none of them - unless you have one - seems to be obviously wrong or contradicting basic modern science facts, this is already impossible to achieve by someone who lived more than thousand years ago.


For example in chapter 21 verse 30 we can read "Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were one mass, and We tore them apart?" . If the universe turned out to be eternal, this verse will simply be FALSE. But current physics tells us that all the universe was indeed one mass and was torn apart in an incredibly short amount of time.

How can anyone from the 7th century come up with anything even remotely close to our current knowledge of the universe ?

A foetus is not a blood clot. Q'ranic infallibility go boom.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the claim. Now it's down to you to support it and make your case.

Take any other 1400 years old book talking about nature and the universe, you'll immediately discover hundreds of inconsistencies with the current state of knowledge. And therefore it is safe to assume that it cannot be the word of God.

If finding inconsistencies with current knowledge rules out a book as being the word of god...then the Quran is not the word of god.  

The Qur'an contains hundreds of verses talking about the observable universe and none of them - unless you have one - seems to be obviously wrong or contradicting basic modern science facts, this is already impossible to achieve by someone who lived more than thousand years ago.

You mean like the time that the ghostwriters...cribbing galen word for word, got it wrong exactly where galen got it wrong?  Or was that just an unhappy coincidence?  

For example in chapter 21 verse 30 we can read "Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were one mass, and We tore them apart?" . If the universe turned out to be eternal, this verse will simply be FALSE. But current physics tells us that all the universe was indeed one mass and was torn apart in an incredibly short amount of time.

Cool story.  Not sure why you think that's physics, though.  

How can anyone from the 7th century come up with anything even remotely close to our current knowledge of the universe ?

You mean, other than copying similar religious narratives...going back much further than the 7th century, just like we're informed was the case with mo...in the quran?

In any case, plenty of people came up with plenty of shit "close" to our current klnowledge of the universe. Why wouldn;t they? They have eyes, they have brains, they were fully modern human beings just like you and I. If some pagan nitwit somewhere didn't need his pagan gods help to figure out some natural truth....then why would Mo need it, or anyone, really...and if there;s just no way - without a gods help...well, you have an immense body of pagan science to reconcile with your beliefs, a good portion of it -in- your magic book.

[brewer]

That's the claim. Now it's down to you to support it and make your case.

Take any other 1400 years old book talking about nature and the universe, you'll immediately discover hundreds of inconsistencies with the current state of knowledge. And therefore it is safe to assume that it cannot be the word of God.

The Qur'an contains hundreds of verses talking about the observable universe and none of them - unless you have one - seems to be obviously wrong or contradicting basic modern science facts, this is already impossible to achieve by someone who lived more than thousand years ago.

For example in chapter 21 verse 30 we can read "Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were one mass, and We tore them apart?" . If the universe turned out to be eternal, this verse will simply be FALSE. But current physics tells us that all the universe was indeed one mass and was torn apart in an incredibly short amount of time.

How can anyone from the 7th century come up with anything even remotely close to our current knowledge of the universe ?

bold mine

What are "the heavens"? Can't be the universe because a god would have said universe. The verse is simply false, at most a product of man's fantasy. 

Of the "hundreds" what else ya got?

[Amarok]

Why would anyone assume the universe was not one thing ? Considering even the word universe means is derived of the word one

[Parsim0ny]

1. you are assuming god created a perfect brain . On top of assuming god has a perfect brain .

2. Your assuming that nothing aside god can create a reliable brain . The imperfections of our brain and thinking are a fact if they were not then we would have no need for science, logic ,or math or philosophy or any form of study.

3. It is a baseless assertion that everything that begins to exist has a cause . It's also a baseless assertion that the universe had beginning or a cause.

---

The content of the Qur'an is too sophisticated to be the work of the person you're talking about.

The Quran like every other so called holy book is a development of gradual cultural evolution. It was not created in a vacuum.  But even if it wasn't this is clearly an argument from incredulity .

1. I am only assuming that human brain must have a supernatural creator, because otherwise judgment of the brain cannot be trusted. A supernatural creator per se doesn't need a brain because he has by definition all the absolute attributes. Is our brain perfect ? No. Is it reliable ? We are compelled to answer yes. And we should provide a rational justification of our answer, whichever it is.

2. I agree, our brain is imprefect. But the fact alone that we can produce science means our brains are somehow reliable.

3. The universe expanded from a very high density state, the notions of space and time didn't exist in the beginning. The universe has a starting point and there must have an explanation for its existence. Because out of nothing comes nothing.

I don't think it is even serious to claim that the Quran was written by an illiterate man in the 7th century, and not one of its verses seems to be obviously false with known modern scientific facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. I am only assuming that human brain must have a supernatural creator, because otherwise judgment of the brain cannot be trusted.

Which is a silly thing to assume.  The supernatural creator made our brains as we find them.  That;s the "reliable brain" made by our supernatural creator.  It follows.....that any brain like our brain would be as reliable as our brain.  If that brain happened to be an evolved brain (which, in actuality, it is) then it would be just as reliable as the created brain to which it is identical.

A supernatural creator per se doesn't need a brain because he has by definition all the absolute attributes. Is our brain perfect ? No. Is it reliable ? We are compelled to answer yes. And we should provide a rational justification of our answer, whichever it is.

That justification existed long before we knew we had an evolved brain, and nothing about it changes just for figuring out that our brain comes from factory b, instead of factory a.

I don't think it is even serious to claim that the Quran was written by an illiterate man in the 7th century, and not one of its verses seems to be obviously false with known modern scientific facts.

Riiiiight, except for the obviously false ones.  

[Alex K]

Of course our brain isn't always reliable. D'oh.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course our brain isn't always reliable. D'oh.

Case in point;

"I don't understand the brain or evolution - therefore pixies"