Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 9, 2012 at 8:01 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: The challenge is:
"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."
This must be the Muslim analog to the "would-they-have-died-for-a-lie" argument often used by Christians.
The argument, such as it is, follows a similar pattern of heavy reliance on the folklore of the religion combined with an argument from incredulity or "I can't imagine why people would act this way unless something supernatural had happened."
The problems with both arguments are similar:
1. You're using folklore to prove mythology. The details of early Christian persecution are likely exaggerated or outright fabricated by the victorious church. How reliable is the history of Muhammad's ministry and the ascendant Islamic faith? My understanding is this history is largely reliant on folklore and oral traditions.
2. Even if it were so, such things do happen with no supernatural activity. Crazy cults form that convince people to give up their beliefs, their money, their family and even their lives. It happens all the time even today.
3. The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Is this the best evidence you can offer?
By the way, I was just visited by an angel who told me we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws best understood through science and reason. God wants us to stop believing in religious nonsense and instead use science to find the answers. You can't prove that didn't just happen and I'm an honest man so I wouldn't just make that up.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
(December 9, 2012 at 8:32 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: Yet if asked how you know that these historians were eyewitnesses, your answer is "because they said so", thus you debunked yourself again. For it still relies on hearsay that the eyewitness were actually eyewitness.
Ok, for one thing, stop reposting the same thing over and over again as if it's some magic bullet...because it isn't, and simply saying something repeatedly does not make it fact...it just makes it repetitious. It's still unsubstantiated, and you did not address my point that your own claim are from nothing more than a book as well. I will assume your silence on the matter means you are keenly aware of the truth of my words and are choosing to attempt misdirection.
You also neglected to notice that I stated "historians" AS WELL AS "eyewitness accounts from still-living men who saw for themselves Hitler's rise to power." There are also visually-documented features, hundreds if not thousands, of Hitler's rise to power, how he did it, what he did, etc.
Nothing of my argument has been debunked. You have not refuted anything I have stated, only thrown up smokescreens to obfuscate what has been said.
At this point you can either practice that thing that your holy book demands (humility, modesty) and admit your argument has been torn asunder, or you can bring up an actually valid point. OR, the third option, you can have no grace, dignity, humility, or modesty at all and pretend like I never said anything and completely negate yourself not just in our eyes but in the eyes of your own god.
(December 9, 2012 at 8:35 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: Not at all. Even so, the Qur'an can be proven as th true word of Allah from anhands-on eyewitness account as the challenge provides, while your alleged evidence cannot.
Again, CAN-YOU-READ? You claim the challenge cannot be answered by human words. I am asking you to prove that Muhammud himself was able to answer the challenge. And I stand by the fact that people today won't fall for it. My evidence? They haven't fallen for it yet.
(December 9, 2012 at 8:01 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: The challenge is:
"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."
This must be the Muslim analog to the "would-they-have-died-for-a-lie" argument often used by Christians.
The argument, such as it is, follows a similar pattern of heavy reliance on the folklore of the religion combined with an argument from incredulity or "I can't imagine why people would act this way unless something supernatural had happened."
The problems with both arguments are similar:
1. You're using folklore to prove mythology. The details of early Christian persecution are likely exaggerated or outright fabricated by the victorious church. How reliable is the history of Muhammad's ministry and the ascendant Islamic faith? My understanding is this history is largely reliant on folklore and oral traditions.
2. Even if it were so, such things do happen with no supernatural activity. Crazy cults form that convince people to give up their beliefs, their money, their family and even their lives. It happens all the time even today.
3. The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Is this the best evidence you can offer?
By the way, I was just visited by an angel who told me we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws best understood through science and reason. God wants us to stop believing in religious nonsense and instead use science to find the answers. You can't prove that didn't just happen and I'm an honest man so I wouldn't just make that up.
Aww, c'mon, Deist, lemme toy with the mouse a bit more before you devour him. :<
(December 9, 2012 at 8:31 pm)Darkstar Wrote: How do you come to that conclusion? Or are we to suppose that Yahweh exists as well, after all, the crusades didn't happen for nothing!
Resonse: The same way you conclude fire is hot. You test it and find out. And when you put your theory to the test that one can do it, you will fail.
(December 9, 2012 at 8:35 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: Not at all. Even so, the Qur'an can be proven as th true word of Allah from anhands-on eyewitness account as the challenge provides, while your alleged evidence cannot.
Uh, no. No, it cannot, because none of those eyewitness accounts still live, therefore verification if books and historical sources are not allowed is not possible, ergo you have nothing.
(December 9, 2012 at 8:34 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Can you read!?! You are relying on hearsay that the challenge was fulfilled by Muhammud himself! You say it is impossible to do, so how do you know Muhammud ever did it!?!
Response: Yet at no time have I ever stated that it's true because someone said so, but shown that it's true because the challenge provides a hands-on eyewitness account of so. Thus your argument fails again.
(December 9, 2012 at 8:31 pm)Darkstar Wrote: How do you come to that conclusion? Or are we to suppose that Yahweh exists as well, after all, the crusades didn't happen for nothing!
Resonse: The same way you conclude fire is hot. You test it and find out. And when you put your theory to the test that one can do it, you will fail.
I guess you CAN'T read after all. If it can't be done by someone who is using non-inspired words, this does not prove Muhammud was a genuine prophet unless you can prove that he succeeded in the challenge, which you apparently can't, otherwise you would have done so one of the previous times I asked you.
"Debunked again."
It's amazing how similar these arguments are to the the arguments Christians use to try to prove the resurrection.
My ignore list
No one is here because I can handle all of you motherfuckers!
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
I guess you CAN'T read after all. If it can't be done by someone who is using non-inspired words, this does not prove Muhammud was a genuine prophet unless you can prove that he succeeded in the challenge, which you apparently can't, otherwise you would have done so one of the previous times I asked you.
