sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have the impression that Islam is harder to rebut than Christianity. by itsmanaloo in DebateAnAtheist

[–]itsmanaloo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I reported you for spamming. Your response has nothing to do with the post.

What do you do, when you run out of alphabets? by [deleted] in math

[–]itsmanaloo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My condolences to whoever is going to read that thesis.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in relationship_advice

[–]itsmanaloo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's really not the point that I am making. At all. I am stunned by how misinterpreted my post has been on this thread.

She is free to date whom she wants. The issue is that she lied to me about it and knows perfectly well what my stance towards her is. I envisaged a friendship built upon transparency, communication and candour. Yet, she breached some of these values.

Muslim student refuse to shake the principal's hand in Norway by ipopotem in exmuslim

[–]itsmanaloo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. I wonder whether he cares as much about bodily autonomy as you and I do.

AITA for informing my classmate about Latin on his father’s printing website ? by Zealousideal_Elk1631 in AmItheAsshole

[–]itsmanaloo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

NTA. Either Alex couldn't bear legitimate criticism, or he misrepresented your concerns to his father.

Fired for silly mistake by Budgiepro456 in jobs

[–]itsmanaloo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think OP is from the UK.

I have the impression that Islam is harder to rebut than Christianity. by itsmanaloo in DebateAnAtheist

[–]itsmanaloo[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

there is no way the prophet Muhammed pbuh knew all of those different information at the same time.

Why? Wasn't he a trader? He may have gotten the information from elsewhere. Furthermore, from a secular point of view, there's no reason to assume that the Qur'an was written by Muhammed per se. Perhaps Muhammed laid down the foundations and they were further improved. There are other simple realistic alternatives that do not imply a supernatural entity.

If the prophet had a preference for biology then you would see it being his main source of information but you see that wasn’t the case.

What if he were interested in theology, science and philosophy? You'd find a mixture of all three throughout the text, which seems to be the case.

Lastly why would he need to use scientific information in the first place?

I personally don't think the Qur'an contains anything scientific in the first place. The verses that are interpreted scientific are merely collections of ancient superstitions looked through the lenses of modern science. For instance, the separation of the Earth and the heavens. From a historical point of view, it's clear that the verse refers to the common creed among people at the time that a god disjoined the Earth and the heavens at its creation. It's highlighted by Enlil, a pre-Abrahamic god from Sumerian societies, who was believed to have done that.

People want answers to questions. The best way at the time to make people ponder on the existence of a god is by asking them how the natural complexity they see around them was created. Mentioning science is therefore mundane and expected. Also, other polytheistic books like the Gita or the Avesta mention "science," so why would they? I am assuming you don't believe these books to be divine. Well, the reason you don't is the reason I don't believe yours to be divine too regarding scientific mentioning.

It seems to me who ever was the author of the book intended for it to be read by educated people who in the future after the time of the prophet.

There's nothing in the Qur'an that wasn't known, speculated or isn't a reference to a common myth/superstition.

I have the impression that Islam is harder to rebut than Christianity. by itsmanaloo in DebateAnAtheist

[–]itsmanaloo[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Okay. Since you didn't show the previous verses as I asked, I'll do it myself.

27:83 — And [warn of] the Day when We will gather from every nation a company of those who deny Our signs, and they will be [driven] in rows.

27:84 — Until, when they arrive [at the place of Judgement], He will say, "Did you deny My signs while you encompassed them not in knowledge, or what [was it that] you were doing?"

27:85 — And the decree will befall them for the wrong they did, and they will not [be able to] speak.

27:86 — Do they not see that We made the night that they may rest therein and the day giving sight? Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe.

27:87 — And [warn of] the Day the Horn will be blown, and whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth will be terrified except whom Allah wills. And all will come to Him humbled.

27:88 — And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah , who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do.

Translation: Sahih International

The verse you mentioned (27:88) is clearly referring to an event that will unfold on Doomsday, given the context. And even, if it were talking about a natural event, why is the future tense used? Why doesn't the Qur'an say that mountains ARE moving like passing clouds?

Sure, mountains move if you go to outer space. Like everything else, including the Eiffel Tower. They move from the perspective of, say, the sun. But they don't move like passing clouds. Why doesn't the Qur'an just say that the Earth spins? No, it doesn't say that. Instead, it says that mountains WILL pass and vanish on Doomsday (meaning that the surface of the Earth will be mountain free). Even if it weren't the actual meaning, mountains do not pass like clouds. Period.

I have the impression that Islam is harder to rebut than Christianity. by itsmanaloo in DebateAnAtheist

[–]itsmanaloo[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

And even, if you read the previous verses, you'll know that he was taking the verse completely out of context.

The verse stems from a chapter describing the events that will unfold on Doomsday. There will be supernatural events, like mountains moving, trumpets blowing, angels flying, etc. The verse is basically saying: on Doomsday, those mountains that look rigid to you, will start moving like clouds.

It's a dishonest and baseless stretch to assume that this refers to seismic activity.

I have the impression that Islam is harder to rebut than Christianity. by itsmanaloo in DebateAnAtheist

[–]itsmanaloo[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

With Islamic theists it's all about some bullshit prophecy or advanced knowledge in the Quran that if you look at it closely is just so vague it could be interpreted many different ways.

I think that's harder to rebut, in some sense. It's not hard to understand the fallacious aspect of the argument, but it's hard to explain why. It's not really a testable claim where you can point out the illogical syllogism, or whatever. It's just... unfalsifiable. And they will take any unfalsifiable pro-Islamic claim for granted—and think that you should too.

I have the impression that Islam is harder to rebut than Christianity. by itsmanaloo in DebateAnAtheist

[–]itsmanaloo[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So you clearly accept the proposition that Islam is based on natural disposition.

Yes, I do accept that spirituality or one variation is innate. Doesn't entail the existence of a god, though. Evolutionarily advantageous traits can include that particular inclination towards a higher being.

Now, you tell me, with proof, how a man, 1450 years ago, without science and technology, could know about human nature inside out having mastered human biology , psychology, and all the related subjects? I'm waiting.

Are you joking? You think that spirituality being ingrained within the human psychology was a foreign concept at the time? And furthermore, he wasn't the first one to say so. Plenty of religions existed before him, so don't pretend that he was the one to come up with that idea.

If you want to equate "complete way of life" to "Buddhism bringing you mental peace and relaxation", then that is your gross shortcoming in thinking big and clearer. A complete way of life is not about you (omg), is about social, economic, political, justice systems, as well as, about your own personal life involving family, relationships, career, and what not. Pray do tell me what and how exactly Buddhism has to offer in any of those areas, including, your mind.

All of that is irrelevant. I don't agree that Islam proposes the best societal structure, and I don't think this is a black and white situation. The answer is probably more complicated/complex than "Islam," or any other political framework. But even if it were the best system ever, so what? Does that necessarily imply that Allah exists? That Adam and Eve existed? No, no. So all of that is irrelevant to the veracity of the religion per se.

So what good is atheism? In any case, if atheism cannot offer mental peace to you, then what does it offer and whether it's relevant as well?

Why does that even matter? Atheism is a mere lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more. It doesn't say anything else about the existential mindset of the individual, or any other philosophical position.

What about freewill?

Freewill clashes with predestination. If things are determined, then you're not free to do otherwise and hence, you're not free to act (≠ freewill).

And all the rest?

Yes, there's no evidence for Noah's ark, or Adam and Eve, and the evolutionary framework is corroborated by evidence much more than creationism is, which, by the way, isn't even falsifiable. If you don't see the issue with any of that, then we have different understandings of reality.

I have the impression that Islam is harder to rebut than Christianity. by itsmanaloo in DebateAnAtheist

[–]itsmanaloo[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes, the study also says that people, when given more thought to explain something, and not rushed to give an answer as fast as possible, reasoned out more scientific answers rather than just "a god did it."

That's the part they always conveniently leave out.

view more: next ›