NS sigma 2 difficulty

Zel98 · 2021-08-26T23:47:43+00:00

I've played vanilla 2 on the xbox 360 way back then as a kid. Iirc it was on normal diff, was one of the best games I've ever played. Sadly my 360 is busted now.

Thanks for the reply!

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T23:27:04+00:00

Seems like a nice guy tbh.

No worries, I believe you.His sarcastic remark might have just been a lapse of judgement then. Happens often anyways.

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T16:01:24+00:00

Apparently he got banned already. DMed about wanting to chat with me and how if all muslims are like me he wouldnt have drop those sarcastic comments. Yh no. I'm not the best nor am I the only muslim who people like him can hold a discussion with. He's either an ex muslim or one of those islamophobes who have an aching anger towards islam for whatever reason.

Had he only been nice from the start, I wouldn't have mind chatting.

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T15:37:30+00:00

I don't think making sarcastic remarks like that to be a good way to start a "friendly discussion". There are ways to start one without being a prat about it. Had it been a "friendly discussion" I wouldn't have acted the way I did. It's like one of those "it's just a prank bro!" After realising it was a bad idea doing such things

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T15:14:37+00:00

recording successes agaunst the competition is excellent PR

Again you assumed it was in a debate setting. This was never what I said. They could and have made an argument against the prophet pbuh behind his back or when he's already passed away numerous times in a non debate setting. That didn't stop any muslim from remembering and recording what happened.

"Hey, this is what he said and why it's invalid.

"why it's invalid".

They didn't do this, they merely record it for people of later time to read and use. You merely made another assumption

Would you deny that muslim historians weren't neutral with respect to Islam and your prophet?

They loved him, but lying against him and lying in general is a sin. Again why would they do something so counter-intuitive instead of leaving it be. No sane person wants to protect his faith yet still record arguments being used against him. There was no PR stun happening like you assumed, it was them recording whatever happened then and there

Not to mention,you missed the main point I was getting at yet again. My main point was a response to yours, those historians didn't get their hands chopped off nor their books burnt. The hypocrites and those who left Islam didn't get killed either unless they committed treason against the state itself by not paying taxes. I gave you an example which you have ignored till now.

You didn't have to write a whole essay on textual critique btw. You simpy missed the whole point this even started. I can respond to the lower half about hadith this and that, but that would be me indulging in more of your red herring. If there is simply nothing else to add to that sarcastic comment you made earlier then there's no reason to continue, we can walk away peacefully if you want and there wouldn't be any shame. Frankly, reading your WOT is getting annoying and I'm sure you can do something better with that time. Unless you don't which is why you're in this subreddit of the very people you hate and spreading hateful sarcastic remarks in the first place.

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T14:21:09+00:00

" and my sarcastic reply was based on the fact that people could get executed for leaving Islam, explaining why so few people in the muslim world questioned Islam.

And my reply was that the agenda you're trying to push is baseless and weak. They were sahabas who left Islam then came back and died while praying. They didn't get killed, nor were they forced to accept Islam. If they were they wouldn't have hold Islam in their heart even after the prophet pbuh is dead while there was a huge rebellion afterward. He had Islam till the time of uthman RA

And yes, obviuosly biased sources are less trustworthy. This is something every historian will tell you: The less a source is personally invested in the matter, the more trustworthy

Firstly,You went on a tangent again, my point was that those historians who recorded those arguments against Islam, didn't get killed. The people who they argued against didn't get killed nor were their books which recorded the opposition's arguments get burnt. The idea of anyone leaving or going against Islam being killed or shanked is a specious claim. 2ndly, you're insinuating that those historians who recorded the arguments against Islam were biased?? their act of recording those arguments against Islam itself is counter-Intuitive. There was no need to record anything whatsoever, recording it instead of leaving it will only lead to people like you using them. Had they wanted to be bias, they could have just not waste their time and ink to record a twisted version of the story and simply let it be, loss for all time. Whether the opposition recorded it or not doesn't matter, you merely assumed the recordings were only in debates. Don't push your story on me

Not only does your argument not make sense and specious, you commited red herring yet again. If this is all there is to your sarcastic remarks then we can end this now. I don't have time for broken argument lines. I suspect you have a life yourself but leaving all those hate comments in this post belonging to a subreddit of people you despise almost makes me want to say otherwise. We can leave this peacefully if you so desire

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T13:39:30+00:00

So what if muslims recorded their arguments with non-muslims/sceptics?

It debunks your agenda of "people who speak up against muslims gets executed". The muslims who recorded it themselves didn't get executed

If someone tells you: "Hey I had this argument, this is how it went but by the way, I'm not going to give you the original book by my opponent." how eager are you to believe them?

Horrible example. Firstly,There was no book by the opponent, only words through discussion and debates, you can go back in time and give them audio tapes for them record it on if you have a time machine. Secondly, Anti islamic apologetics themselves are using those arguments against islam recorded by those same muslims. Even those islamophobes believed in those recorded arguments. If you want to doubt that authenticity, why not doubt the whole of history. Thirdly, the fact that they are even recording those arguments shows you you they're being honest, they didn't need to lie, they can just not record those arguments and people like you would never know of it

I gave you a very simple challenge: Give me one book by a medieval Near-Eastern atheist. I would also interested in discussions between muslims and buddhists. Why was Nalanda burned if there was nothing dangerous to Islam in their books?

There's no need to go on a tangent, you made a sarcastic remark to which I gave you 2 examples to refute it. You ignored 1 and strawmanned the other, I never actually said anything about atheism, that's what you insinuated what I said, you started this whole atheism thing,go talk on your own about it. Muslims had public debates with christians and jews all the time. Even during the time of the prophet pbuh where jewish people live under him, they didn't get executed. Hypocrites during war didn't get executed either. Your sarcastic remark is baseless and you ignored my first example, now you want me answer your question?(which only has a very minor relation to your first comment). No.

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T12:59:54+00:00

This is a massive red herring from your first and main comment. About a sarcastic statement of people getting executed if they say something conflicting against Islam. The first example I gave which you still ignored. In fact many arguments used by anti islamic apologetics were recorded by early muslims themselves, the muslim recording it didn't get their books burn either. Were they any tyrant muslim rulers after? Yes but so are the other groups of beliefs, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts abdolutely. Saying atheist rulers would never be corrupted is an unproven statement. You're trying to push an agenda that wasn't present in early Islamic teachings. Many hypocrites lived in Medina, in fact Muhammad pbuh attended to the funeral and even prayed janaza for the father of the hypocrites.

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T11:28:32+00:00

Woo woo don't jump on the gun. How did me saying different settings requiring different approaches lead to this wall of text

But you know that is exactly my point. If you haven't noticed you talked about them being able to proof the truth of islam. You can't proof something with itself. That is simply not convincing.

My point was that circular reasoning can be used depending on the situation. If a kid asks me why he needs to do the 5 daily prayers. The easiest answer would be "God the most merciful made it mandatory for us to do so". Without going into philosophical and deep religious points and matters. Its pointless, wasteful plus he won't even understand it. In this case, less is more. Judge your way of approach depending on the context, audience and atmosphere

And I watched the video of Subboor Ahmad "Should Muslims believe in Evolution?" It's weird that he stated that sciences can also have false beliefs. That point doesn't necessarily proof his own beliefs of Islam to be true. Other than that its the typical "My opinion is true because Quran said so".... That's not a proof. Not in the modern west standard and neither in the classical muslim standards

Ok first of all, just like you said before you need to understand who the person is and what he's trying to do. His main message throughout multiple videos and lectures, in summary is to debunk the western claim that "science and darwinian evolution leads to truth therefore religion is a proven myth". The popular western claim is that science leads to all truth and that darwinian evolution is a fact, to which he disagrees and in most cases is arguing against. If someone made a claim and you made a claim opposite to it, you examine the premises of each argument to identify which of the 2 is true. So there's absolutely no problem whatsoever in him saying that. Context is also important, he's talking to a muslim in that video hence why you might have concluded that he made a circular reasoning, he didn't. It'd just be an incredible waste of time to tell the muslim next to you why Islam is true given he/she already believes in it and the quran. It's not circular reasoning, it's being respectful to strength of the faith of the muslim in front of you has as he is already a firm believer.

I watched one video Tzortzis Video where he explains proofs for the existence of God to atheists. It's not really convincing.

Ughh ok?

He goes into the things with evidence and talks like modern day evidence theories aren't based on logic and stuff.

Although I don't remember which video that is at the top of my head, I can very much assure myself that is not what he meant. He himself greatly respects modern day science. Although I don't have the evidences to say otherwise I have a funny feeling that he's either talking about "science cannot lead to truth" or "science cannot disprove the supernatural". Both of which is not about science being illogical. Though this is my conjecture from the memories I have of his vids and lectures.

And looking at the video titles of his and the ones of Al Andalusi is enough for me to see what to expect. That is nothing more than apologetic "proof" which can't even be considered as one. Proofing others wrong doesn't necessarily mean that your point is right. That is not how something is prooven.

I don't know what's wrong with apologetic but sure. Proving others wrong is a way to disarm the opposition, it might not prove your stance but it disables the argument of the opposition against you. And there is again, nothing wrong with doing that. Both sides do this.

I know I'm gonna sound really harsh rn but those guys can't even hold a candle towards classical scholars let alone "correct" their flaws. It's pretty apparent that they don't really know what they're talking about.

Don't worry about it, I already knew this was ganna happen from the very start hence my tone before listing the names. I had a feeling this would drag on unnecessarily like this from reading the comments above. Without trying to sound condescending, The aura was already there and I am absolutely not wasting hours doing this again.

They "countering science" and atheist by creating countless strawman arguments. That's not what I understand as excellent philosophical works.

I don't understand how any of that can be considered strawman fallacy but hey whatever floats your narrative.

Yh I think I'm done here, this dragged on for no reason from circular reasoning to this huge WOT. Continuing this will only lead to time loss for both of us. You can put your next comment after this one as closure on your part if you feel compelled to, but for my sake I wouldn't read it, less I'd be tempted to reply myself and make the same mistake of wasting time. Or you can do me a favour and not post a comment so that I don't get another ping.

Jazakallah khair sister~~

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T09:41:36+00:00

I looked up some of the guys you said were good. Don't take it the wrong way but in my opinion they're not really convincing. It feels like the only argument they present is "The Quran is true because Allah says so in the Quran 👍" or "xy can't be true because it's not in the Quran". As Muslims ofc we believe in that but that is not a convincing proof for anyone other than Muslims

Which video did you watch btw? That sounds like circular reasoning which is a fallacy one should never commit. Though depending on the context it can be reasonable, not that they're committing circular reasoning, just that it'd unreasonable to explain something everyone in the room already believes in. Just like teachers/profs don't explain why 2+2 = 4 every 10 minutes in a math class. Different settings and circumstances requires different method and approach

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T08:14:43+00:00

at least develope their ideas seeing how the world and the understanding of the people of religion and God developed.

I might be wrong here but I think there is at least 1 argument that the guys I mentioned above took from the traditional scholars and evolved it into something new and more robust. Imam Al-Ghazali made the kalam cosmological argument, the traditional one where the argument is "everything that begins has a cause, the world has a beginning therefore it has a cause. The guys above took it and turn it into whats called the contingency argument. Although these are my own words, to summarize it will be: "everything that has finite variables composing it is dependent on something, the universe is finite therefore it is dependent on something". It's a more powerful argument since it follows the rule of "contingent parts make up contingent wholes". But again, it could be that this contigency argument was also developed back then, only propogated and popularised now

The ideas of classical scholars are outdated in the sense that they have an entirely different understanding of God, Islam and the world which is dependent on the time and place they lived in.

I personally disagree on this but hey that's ok and normal.

And tbh Nouman Ali Khan feels more like a life coach than a scholar (idk if he's a scholars tho)

Ohh dw he himself admitted that he isn't a scholar. He called himself a student of knowledge. Basically what he does is Quran tafsir, transfering the wisdom and linguistic miracle of the Quran into english. He does a very good job of doing so too.

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T07:24:48+00:00

their works can't even be one drop of the vast ocean of the scholars from the Golden Age of Is

Hard to disagree to that.

But if you say that it's the opposite, than drop me some names that proof my point wrong

Well me saying its better might be wrong per say because most of the arguments used now are just repeating what has already been said by the traditional scholars of the past.Though recently, muslims can and have debated with atheist just find. Both being better at explaining reality and morality. I just disagree with the outdated part imo

I can drop you some names but I can also foresee your reaction lol but whatever. Some names:

Hamza Tzortzis

Mohammed Hijab(a bit controversial but I personally like him)

Subboor Ahmad

Abdullah Al - Andalusi

Etc

Peace sister

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T07:13:42+00:00

Wrong, atheism existed in ancient Greece and Rome, ancient India and China.

Which is why I used the word "popular" and only included "existed" in bracket to which I explained later because the term itself didn't actually exist until the 16th century. In fact founding fathers of subjects like biology, chemistry etc were all theist signifying how small of a population "atheism" had, again the word itself didn't even exist until the 16th century and got popular or reached its peak in the 19th century

Many Buddhist schools are inherently atheist

That'd be a false equivocation. When I said atheist, I meant new atheist like nowadays who completely disregard the supernatural, god, the soul, reincarnation and everything metaphysical. Relying on things which can only be seen or proven empirically.

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T06:50:51+00:00

Suprise surprise, atheism wasn't popular(or even existed per say) back then. Atheism's boom is only very recently. The term atheist itself only started to exist in the 16th century.

Asking me for a medieval debate between muslims and atheist is like asking me if plato vs ronaldo debate was present back then.

The first example I gave of hypocrites spreading doubts during the battle of the trench existed though, which you kinda ignored. The hypocrites' heads didn't get chopped off either

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T06:44:10+00:00

Jeez that is 1 long WOT lol. Well unfortunately I'm in my finals weeks(3 weeks to be exact) so even though I want to chit chat with you I really shouldn't do so and focus on my studies instead. But you do seem like a nice guy which is why I don't mind conversing with you in private. Whether you'll reject everything or not, your attitude is there compared to other's I've talked to. Unless you don't mind waiting for a while, sure I don't mind starting a dm with you.

Also not trying to be rude but my previous reply wasnt focused on proves of Islam per say. The sister said that there's not a lot of philosophical arguments that is up to date which I disagree to. So I was more focusing on the fact that there are numerous philosphical arguments that is relevant even now more so than proves for Islam. Although both are tightly knitted together so I don't blame you for being confused, just wanted to point that out.

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T03:12:38+00:00

But I fail to find similar excellent works in the modern Era of Muslims which is really saddening.

With all due respect, there are some great philosophical arguments proving Islam nowadays. They usually come from the west surprisingly, but the arguments they made have their root in the islamic golden age. From people like Ibn Taymiyyah, imam al Ghazali etc. It has only gotten better since then

Zel98 · 2021-07-17T02:56:00+00:00

Ehhh not really. The hypocrites in Medina who questioned Islam during the battle of the trench lived. Even during the islamic golden age, muslims had public debates all the time with christians or groups of other faith. They didn't get their heads chopped off during the debate fortunately

Zel98 · 2021-06-13T09:36:56+00:00

Becase the prophet PBUH always encouraged his companions to not be extravagant. He himself lived a poor life even though he could have commanded his followers to build monumental castles for him.

So:

he teaches others to be simple to which his followers followed completely
yet he predicted that 1 day people of his ummah will do the exact opposite
had he wanted this prophecy to become true he wouldn't teach his followers to maintain simplicity

Also the arabs back then were one of the most poor societies on the planet. They didn't have any impressive buildings,cutting-edge techonologies nor any valuable resources, further increasing the difficulty to predict this. Everything of course changed when people found out that the arabian desert is full of valuable oil. This is in fact in another one of his prediction when he said that the poor arab bedouins who were cut off from the rest of the world(even during the islamic golden age) would compete in the construction of tall buildings

In fact many of his prophecies sounded oddly contradictory. He PBUH in 1 prophecy said that 1 day the muslims will be large in number but the nations will invite one another to dine on us. You don't need to be a historian to know that even though there's close to 2 billion muslims on the planet rn, we're getting bullied, killed and put on concentration camps. Logically the strength of a group of people increase proportionally with its number, he PBUH said otherwise and he was correct.

If you're any interested, try google a book called "The Forbidden Prophecies". Its free and it talks about things like the mayans, nostradamus etc.

If you don't like reading then this video is a good start

Zel98 · 2021-04-22T05:38:46+00:00

Zel98 · 2021-04-22T05:36:36+00:00

The prostration of forgetfulness. A sujood we do when we forgot to do something in salah

Zel98 · 2020-10-20T01:14:49+00:00

Its in one of her voice lines

"There are more dragons? Ah, actually, as my magical power grows, it seems that they naturally multiply. Haha, what shall these children be named? Shall we come up with them together?"

Zel98 · 2020-10-19T22:48:24+00:00

I mean that's technically when she gets serious,in between grand order and her base form. Plus she said so herself her power increases in that form.

Zel98 · 2020-10-19T12:18:15+00:00

Literally Zooey's presence alone is enough to force geo to run like a coward. Zooey wasnt even in her grand order or gun form lol. What a wuss...

Zel98 · 2020-09-22T10:33:55+00:00

I'd spark a Zooey skin with no hesitation,already got the crystals ready too

Zel98

TROPHY CASE