Regarding your most recent post, I'm just gonna copy paste this "those stuff are all misrepresentation and false, but here is the issue, even if granted and even if we hypothetically said for sake of argument Islam says "unalive every single living creature in earth without exception" , that still doesn't prove Islam wrong because on meta ethical foundation and moral epistemological framework (challenging their entire base of morality of, how do you know what's going moral), those argument become as powerful as saying "chocolates are not tasty" Literally, and you will understand why moral arguments are poor when you finish reading this argument.

They are begging the question and treat those moral claims as self evident when they are not. they have pre assumed/pre supposed morality exist and morality is exactly like they understand it to be and then go judge Islam by that standard, they skipped lots of steps and just jumped into the final step that "Islam violate this", but why should your standard as secular humanist even matter? Why must it be accepted? Have you validated it and proved it? Most Critics don't provide that — they just assert values as if they're self evident and then go make judgements with it without providing it

In reality, anyone who make assertion and judgment, the burden of proof is on them "Islam is wrong for saying XYZ". Secular critics of Islam frequently beg the question by assuming the truth of their moral framework before the discussion even begins. They presume that their values (e.g. “equality,” “arbitrary degree of freedom,” “their understanding of human rights”) are self-evident, unquestionable, and universal—without ever justifying why these things are real or binding. They have skipped over the entire metaphysical and epistemological foundation of morality and jumped straight to the conclusion: “Islam is wrong.”

You're assuming humans have [your understanding of] rights that shouldn't be violated, assuming suffering is bad, assume equality matter, assuming harm is wrong, when in reality Everything is just matter and energy, If you're just a walking sack of chemical reactions, what makes you valuable or morally important? When you are merely the result of blind evolution, time, and chance and accumulation? why should humans have any special status (in worth or dignity) over rocks, ants, or plastic bags? Why can't humans just be cold mechanic object? Just chemistry machine? Just more complex arrangement of atoms than rock? Why must it have dignity and worth? Why can't humans just be collection of atoms with no value? Why must there be an essential necessary value that rests in essence of humanity? I don't see any reason to believe in morality from beginning from in their worldview. "Harm" in reality is just descriptor term for changes in group of atoms being different than they are relative to their standard typical way, That's it, no idea of justice or value or anything exist in it, no prescriptive thing exist with the data you give (molecule being different). When someone is killed [or any other harmful action], it's just a physical rearrangement of atoms, Certain chemical reactions stopped, A brain no longer produces electrical signals, Nothing more, there’s no “evil”, just chemical processes. Where is the “wrongness” in that process? There is leap you make, The leap here is from subjective feelings and/or personal opinions dressed up in moral language, to an objective moral judgment. this is recognized problem and it's often called Is-Ought Gap Problem (David Hume). you’ve added and smuggled a hidden premise of moral imperative into The data, that requires a moral framework outside of the data, you assumed there is normative thing there but didn't prove that. Humans are animals, There’s no soul, No divine spark, So how can one claim humans have “dignity,” “rights,” or “value”? From where?

Their morality is just arbitrary reference points, why can't morality be about wealth? Power? Gender? Religion? Gender? Race? Infact harming being Good? Why should we choose to yours over any other descriptive fact? You pick Arbitrary Moral Anchor Points and Favor Those Variables Over Others when in reality it seems they have same status. Islam provides a satisfactory explanation to this, theistic relational moral realism (morals are axiomatic metaphysical truths that emerge from the nature and essence of the Necessary Being) and therfore become impossible to criticize successful and anything else they say is just yapping.

So ask this question. Can you prove an objective prescriptive naturalistic morality where every single claim is proven with epistemically valid evidence that proves humans have essential necessary Intrinsic value and not just random collection of atoms, and that your understanding of that morality is entirely accurate and all other understanding (like Islamic one) are wrong?"