>Skeptic "There is no proof for Allah"
>Muslim "If I show you proof for the necessity of a Creator right now, will you admit you are wrong?"
>Skeptic "Nope"
>Muslim "See that proves you are not sincere, an atheist will never accept empirical proof"
>Skeptic "Go ahead, I'm listening"
Muslim "You're jacket it says Under Armour on it, right? Do we need to see the man in the factory physically stitching the under Armour logo into the jacket to say that it was made by a designer?"
>Skeptic: "Urghh I mean urr"
>Muslim: "We do not need to see the man designing the jacket to conclude it was designed with purpose and intent and knowledge? Correct?
>Skeptic "Yeah sure but it's just a jacket, there's nothing miraculous about it"
>Muslim "Exactly. So why would you assume a human being 100x more complex and more amazing functionally than a jacket has no designer?"
>Skeptic "Well you see I can track down the person who made the jacket, I can verify there"
>Muslim "And if we took this jacket to a remote tribe in the jungle, would they believe it to be amazing and supernatural and made by a higher power, they would right?"
>Muslim "they would not have the ability to track down the designer and see him for themselves, they would assume it to be a product of a higher power, correct?"
>Skeptic "Not necessarily"
>Muslim "Then you are nuts, sorry, you are insane if you wouldn't accept that a remote tribe with no human contact would affirm a higher power as the designer for this jacket or for your smart phone you are not sincere at all. May Allah guide you. Good day"
Inference for design comes naturally. But an atheist will do everything he possibly can to dance around that fact.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
scientific atheism is a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt
Yhwh still isn't real
the muslim never actually shows "proof" of Allah, it's all stuff that can be explained by naturalistic phenomena
it's not an "inference for design," it's more like "I live in this puddle, so this puddle was designed for me"
like if we were intelligently designed, why do humans have such bad teeth?
>the Supreme Being must be perfectly good and perfectly beautiful
>this goodness and beauty must also extend to people who are closer to the Supreme Being than those who are further away from it
>islam is a religion created by a rapist and a madman, preached by beastlike people with skin and eyes the color of shit
>the more moral and beautiful people with light skin and eyes, who actually have a divine spark of conscience in them, usually either worship the God Who Became Man, who, in his life as a man, never hurt anyone and was healing the sick and even brough the dead back to life, or don't believe in the Supreme Being altogether
>therefore, islam is further from the Supreme Being than both Christianity and atheism
>lets assume the prime mover
>therefore the quran is true
Another day, another instance of abrahamist bullshit.
What Muslims are trying to do is show to you the necessity of a Creator and Designer before they even get onto discussing Qu'ran, Bible, Prophets, etc. Muslims are laying down the foundation for the necessity of the Creator first and foremost, but atheists don't understand order.
>Hurr tell me why Muhammad did this thing in battle. Justify this moron
>But I don't even agree that there is a Creator in the first place
Because theism is something most modern religions agree on.
Now, a rapist caravan bandit as the perfect man?
Thats an Islamic exclusive.
Yes, so it is the job of the Muslims to convince the other religions why they should be following Muhammad. A Christian or israelite already affirms God, so then the discussions about Quran's, Bible's, Prophets, Messages, etc follow on from that. This is pointless with an atheist who doesn't even affirm a Creator anyway. Why would an atheist accept me telling him that he should pray 5 times a day, or what the punishment prescribed for adultery is, for example? He doesn't even believe in revelation. He doesn't believe in Allah.
Innate human faculties unavoidably generate beliefs of design, order and purpose which are rationally legitimate and warranted. What the Muslim is trying to figure out is why the atheist is denying this.
Cheers!
It’s the same freak who posts all the nonsense spam, he’s been doing it for months.
https://desuarchive.org/his/search/text/Muslims%20atheist/type/op/
Yikes!
There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad and Ali are his messengers.
Wow, and that's just the ones with Muslim-Atheist in the title? I'm sure ive seen this OP make other threads as well with a similar theme minus the atheist title so there must be even more. He is committed thats for sure!
So Allah's best argument hinges on the notion that jungle people are too stupid to learn the skill of sewing? It truly is big brain time.
>claims to have empirical proof
>gives a deductive proof
They're not sending their best
It's partially true. Most atheists are as such for practical reasons. They haven't to be convinced to believe in God. They have to be convinced it's rational and convenient to follow a religion.
Considering that most religious people use it more as a cultural marker, and that makes it more like a worship of the church/temple, than the religion? I don't really see your point.
Everyone goes on and on about the "moderate" Christian/Jew/Muslim, as if someone who compromises their beliefs to fit into contemporary society is somehow a good thing.
I have far more respect for people of the West Babstro Church, because they stay true to their beliefs, even in changing times, where their beliefs are very unpopular to the society.
>Inference for design comes naturally. But an atheist will do everything he possibly can to dance around that fact.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Anon makes the Muslim ignorant of 400 year old philosophy. Based, anon. Showing that the believers are very rarely even aware of what they're arguing about.
The watch-maker argument not a fallacy. It's a reasonable conclusion.
Imagine you are an astronaut. You land on a planet and find what looks like an abandoned city. It has what appears to be roads, buildings etc. laid out according to plan. The buildings have scribblings and marks on them which seem to follow syntax etc.
From this information it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that this was a city built by intelligent beings who had reason and planning.
The unreasonable and silly conclusion here would be to think this was some blind natural process which somehow by chance made it look like a city. No amount of "arguments"/word play will convince you that it happened by blind physical processes. You would be perfectly reasonable to laugh at such silly thinking.
From an Islamic perspective, The strongest and the firmest argument for Allaah is the intact fitrah (natural disposition). Any person with sound mind and intact fitrah would see the signs of Allaah's creation everywhere he looks.
No, it is, because all the failures are not showing up in your sample, so you become blind to the trail-and-error mechanism that's actually behind your 'design'
No it's not, because we know of "complex" structures that came up not by design. For example: Life.
>fitrah
Then why's monotheism not the standard throughout the world and the 200,000 year old history of humanity? Why's it an invention from 3000 years ago, which evolved from polytheism?
>No it's not, because we know of "complex" structures that came up not by design. For example: Life.
Only for those such as yourself who have a prior commitment to materialism and naturalism.
What you have is a metaphysical belief (natural selection acting upon random mutations) which has no scientific basis, but is merely a preferred explanation based upon a prior assumption of naturalism.
Your modern synthesis (natural selection acting on random mutations as the explanation for all life's diversity) has been proven false and impossible. Your evolutionary biologists know this and this is why they are devising what they call an "extended evolutionary synthesis" to move away from the gene-centric neo-Darwinian view (because they know it is false). It is impossible to account for life's diversity through random mutations in genes alone, it is probabilistically unfeasible and practically impossible. This has been proven without any shadow of doubt.
Yeah, God creating Adam and Eve, which are the parents of all of mankind is much, much more believable and better evidenced, indeed. No bias here, of course.
>Then why's monotheism not the standard throughout the world and the 200,000 year old history of humanity? Why's it an invention from 3000 years ago, which evolved from polytheism?
Look at all ancient cultures and people throughout history. All of them affirmed a HIGHER God than the other ones, even though they may have had many Gods and many "routes" to God, all of them placed one Supreme God above the other ones, one God more powerful than the others, etc. This is simply the way it has always been. This is the Muslim claim. The Muslims do not claim that polytheism never existed, the claim is simply that *even in* these polytheistic belief systems they always had ONE ALL-POWERFUL GOD above all the others. This is the same God Muslims simply call to and cut out all the middle-men and the smaller Gods.
Quran claims that people used to worship one God and people stopped worshiping this one God and started associating partners. This message is reiterated over and over. Of course, this is false and, in fact, it's the opposite: People used to worship more than one God, until monotheism came along about 3000 years ago localized entirely in the Levant. It's also wrong than people worship Gods in general - whether with one big boss on top or not -, which is clear when looking at Buddhists or Taoists from East Asia.
>INB4 that's also Allah, unless I'm debating Buddhists or Taoists themselves, in which case it isn't
Allah here, Sup
>it's another episode of the watchmaker argument
There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad and Ali are his messengers.
There is no Allah but God, and Muhammad and Ali are his messengers.
>Skeptic: "There is no proof for Allah"
>Muslim: "My friend, in these lands we respect and tolerate your people, but you know, according to tradition you will owe a small 'Jizyah' to local religious authorities."
>Skeptic: The Jizyah will make me absolutely uncompetitive relative to non-Muslim merchants. I therefore refuse to pay it.
>Muslim: Okay [decapitates him]
How do you respond without sounding mad?
With a gun
There is a design, but the designer is neither a conscious being nor automatically deserving of worship.
"If I show you proof for the necessity of a Creator right now, will you admit you are wrong?"
"Nope"
"See that proves you are not sincere, an atheist will never accept empirical proof"
The skeptic is right. Even if you can prove a creator is necessary (which you can't), that doesn't mean it's the sock puppet of the cross-dressing piss drinker who raped a 9-year-old girl.