I believe in God: So Debate me

[Mister Agenda]

1. I was never raised to believe in the god I believe.

You never believed in the God of Abraham prior to adopting Islam? I may have to call shenanigans.

2. I do not differentiate shit.

You should.

3. I do not even believe in "supernatural entities"

That would make you an atheist, since God cannot be defined as a 'natural entitiy' and remain God.

4. Coincidentally the god I believe in has nothing to do with anything I was ever taught.

Shenanigans still pending.

5. You assume to much and are thus objectively stupid.

You claim too much.

6. You are worthless and if eugenics was brought back you would be the first to go.

That's an awful thing to say, but the sort of thing I often see Muslims posting, so your conversion seems to have been thorough.

I have been a Christian, Hindu and Muslim in the past although my brush with Hinduism was more intellectual and I have only truly been a Christian and a Muslim.

Shenanigans. Although they have confused the hell out of the original concept, the God of Christianity is the same God as the God of Islam, just understood differently. It is fatuous for an ex-Christian to claim that they were never raised to believe in the God of Islam. There's a reason why they're both referred to as Abrahamic religions.

I never said god is objectivelly called Allah it is just the fact that the world Allah is unisex. Al-ilah is male and al-Ilaha is female and Allah is unisex. It is just the best word possible to remove gender. Sikhs use the word Allah, as do Christians and Muslims. But Allah is a pagan name with pagan connotations.

That's nice, but how do you know the God you believe in is real and the gods the Hindus believe in aren't, regardless of the name used?

I have never asked for any credence from you. I am not exactly asking for inferior biological units to acknowledge me so I sure as hell do not care about your concerns towards my convictions.

Then perhaps you should not have started this thread.

Why do multiple hypothesis exist for the Abiogenesis process? Why do multiple models and theories exist to explain it?

Because there is not enough evidence yet to conclude which model is the correct one.

Why do multiple religions exist to explain God(who I dubbed Allah)?

Because you can make up anything you want about an imaginary being and it won't correct you.

I have only concluded 5 things about God

1. All religions are wrong

This seems highly likely.

2. Only Natural Theologies hold actual understanding of god

Under the presumption that there is a God to understand.

3. Each of these natural theologies should be taken as theoretical approaches to the Divinity Dilemma.

In the qolloquial sense of theory as 'educated guess', okay. In the sense of 'being based on falsifiable hypotheses', no.

4. My own(along with others) theology seems the most plausible.

Plausible to you, personally. Implausible to many other people.

5. Because of it's plausibility I apply it to the natural world.

What makes it so plausible?

---

Totally off-topic, but why do we keep getting theists who act like complete arseholes?

At least this one is up-front about his insults rather than under the mistaken impression that he is being polite.

[Cyberman]

At least this one is up-front about his insults rather than under the mistaken impression that he is being polite.

I suppose a backhanded compliment is the most he can expect at this point.

[Michael Schubert]

You asked me how life began. I answered. You are the world's worst debater it seems.

You also made a red-herring when began talking about god when the thread is about god.

You also made the Genetic Fallacy when you said the essay, Why Religion is Bullshit is nonsense.

The article has nothing to do with me. I am not religious and far from it. Morality, science, and metaphysics are completely irrelevant. I have the same morality as a secularist. Understand and approve of the same scientific evidences while also not holding a believe in the "soul". I am a goddamn deist so how the fuck can I reject any of these things? But now that I think of it you are not very bright .

When you wish to refute a person's claims refute the claims they actually make and the beliefs they hold. Rampant.A.I. could do similar I may add

Are you a troll? Or perhaps very bad at understanding philosophy and argumentation?

Yep, now you're making ad hominem fallacies. The thread is most definitely about God. It is entitled, "I believe in God, so debate me."

[Rabb Allah]

That's begging the question,

Rampant.A.I. has been doing that all day

as your thoughts could only be evidence of the god you claim exists if you assume that god exists to cause them in the first place. Taken in a vacuum, your thoughts are evidence of thoughts.

Nope by my own logic my thoughts are a subsidiary of God Corp. Panendeism should be a default if you ask me but most people dislike the concept. It simply allocates ownership to everything including any idea that contradicts the other. If I was to say that god is omnipotent and omniscient then he should be aware of all things. So God should even be aware of an absurdity.
This actually extends the three "O"s and is far from begging the question as it actually solves it.

Why the hell do you think I am a panandeist/panentheist? Did you think I made a claim to refute myself purposefully? You seem to have a very poor understanding of theology and philosophy. While your understanding of philosophy is solid you are applying it to stereotypical models of religion which I myself enjoy refuting.

I still have to fight away this annoying conviction that many have about me "being a Muslim". Why on earth would you be so eager to fit me into a norm I reject?
You are going to have to start thinking of me as your insane brother who knows everything about you. If you can maintain that symbolic relationship then we can have a debate because I am not far removed from being an atheist honestly. You just do not know it.

Would you like me to give you a list of things I entirely reject?

---

You asked me how life began. I answered. You are the world's worst debater it seems.

You also made a red-herring when began talking about god when the thread is about god.


The article has nothing to do with me. I am not religious and far from it. Morality, science, and metaphysics are completely irrelevant. I have the same morality as a secularist. Understand and approve of the same scientific evidences while also not holding a believe in the "soul". I am a goddamn deist so how the fuck can I reject any of these things? But now that I think of it you are not very bright .

When you wish to refute a person's claims refute the claims they actually make and the beliefs they hold. Rampant.A.I. could do similar I may add

Are you a troll? Or perhaps very bad at understanding philosophy and argumentation?

Yep, now you're making ad hominem fallacies. The thread is most definitely about God. It is entitled, "I believe in God, so debate me."

You are now making a dumb ass fallacy as you cannot tell sarcasm from literalism.

[pocaracas]

Gentlemen, meet fr0d0's crazier brother: Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab.

[Rampant.A.I.]

That's begging the question,

Rampant.A.I. has been doing that all day :D

Really? Where?

as your thoughts could only be evidence of the god you claim exists if you assume that god exists to cause them in the first place. Taken in a vacuum, your thoughts are evidence of thoughts.

Nope by my own logic my thoughts are a subsidiary of God Corp. Panendeism should be a default if you ask me but most people dislike the concept. It simply allocates ownership to everything including any idea that contradicts the other. If I was to say that god is omnipotent and omniscient then he should be aware of all things. So God should even be aware of an absurdity.
This actually extends the three "O"s and is far from begging the question as it actually solves it.

Word salad, anyone?

You have to show your argument is valid before you can refer to it as a solution.

Why the hell do you think I am a panandeist/panentheist? Did you think I made a claim to refute myself purposefully? You seem to have a very poor understanding of theology and philosophy. While your understanding of philosophy is solid you are applying it to stereotypical models of religion which I myself enjoy refuting.

Screaming incoherent gibberish and obscenities refutes nothing. You have yet to present a valid argument.

I still have to fight away this annoying conviction that many have about me "being a Muslim". Why on earth would you be so eager to fit me into a norm I reject?

Might have something to do with your ridiculous username and raving about Allah.

You are going to have to start thinking of me as your insane brother who knows everything about you. If you can maintain that symbolic relationship then we can have a debate because I am not far removed from being an atheist honestly. You just do not know it.

Maybe you should present your views in a coherent fashion.

Would you like me to give you a list of things I entirely reject?

---

Yep, now you're making ad hominem fallacies. The thread is most definitely about God. It is entitled, "I believe in God, so debate me."

You are now making a dumb ass fallacy as you cannot tell sarcasm from literalism.

Rev that Word Salad-Shooter into high gear!

---

Gentlemen, meet fr0d0's crazier brother: Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab.

He prefers Mahmoud Mc Allah Gonna Weara Dinnetjacket.

[Rabb Allah]

Gentlemen, meet fr0d0's crazier brother: Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab.

Is fr0d0 a Christian or a "spiritualist"(really hate that word)? I can never guess his views out

[Esquilax]

Nope by my own logic my thoughts are a subsidiary of God Corp.

Sorry, you don't get your own logic. There is logic, and it either works or it doesn't. Your premises fall under the fallacious umbrella of begging the question, and therefore cannot be considered logical. The fact that you're happy to continue begging the question because you're okay with it doesn't suddenly make it okay; it just makes you okay with being irrational.

[Cyberman]

Is fr0d0 a Christian or a "spiritualist"(really hate that word)? I can never guess his views out

Don't worry, you're not on your own with that. And that, I think, is just how he likes it.

[Michael Schubert]

You are now making a dumb ass fallacy as you cannot tell sarcasm from literalism.

Yep, there it is again: The Argument Ad Hominem Fallacy.