Quote:Interesting analysis. However, to be honest with you I must say the Islamic apologetics today is poor. It was good when the likes of Deedat came in but unfortunetly most of apologists today just repeat what Deedat said and most of Deedat's arguments have been refuted because they are old arguments I guess.They were refuted because the arguments are not based in logic or reason. You might as well complain that the apologetics for Mother Goose just arent that good today.
Quote:It is improving because we have guys like Adam Deen, Abdullah Al-Andalusi and Hamza Tzortzis but there is still more to go. One thing I don't like about our apologetics is that they use others arguments instead of making thier own arguments. How many times have modern apologists repeated Zakir Naik's words?You think the arguments for your superstition are improving? Look, there is only a limited amount of bullshit fake argument you can make for something like this. Eventually the bullshit is maxed out and nobody can think of anymore new bullshit ways to fool people into believing the superstition.
This means, with a little patience, one can easily learn every single bullshit argument for the superstition and easily debunk it. This also means that apologietics can never "get better", but they can have new twists they can put on the same old tired debunked arguments. This is why apologetics get old, eventually people realize:
"Hey, this "new" argument is the same as this old debunked argument...weve got to think up some new bullshit to add to it and quick!"
Allah has not one single good argument for his existence, not a single one.
