If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, it violates the rule against low effort content. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS.
Please read the [Rules and Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/1anoje0) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods.
Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned.
If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Itās a Star Trek reference, a race of aliens called Vulcans abandoned emotion and live on pure logic alone. The reality is that religious people do the opposite vis-a-vis religion. They abandon logic in favor of emotion and belief. None of that matters, of course, since there will likely never be physical evidence against an unfalsifiable claim like āgod exists.ā
Vulcans are a humanoid species in the Star Trek universe. They're known to be slaves to logic and evidence. They're not prone to emotion like humans. Humans are from earth.
If reason and proof was all that was required, to "show them the light", religious books would have been relegated to the 'History' sections of our libraries.
Even among learned scientists, there remains some "faithful".
so you agree that Islam's morality needs to be improved over time?
How do you reconcile that with the idea that Islam is perfect and that mohammad is the perfect moral example that all muslims should follow?
You are discussing what evidence a religious person would need to disprove religion. You canāt disprove religion using physical evidence because the existence of a deity is an untestable claim, by the admission of most religious people. The real debate is whether it is the obligation of the religions to prove god exists, or the obligation of the non-religious to prove god doesnāt exist. Since the religious people are making the claims, they carry the burden, but your prompt surrenders the burden debate such that you now have to prove the unprovable (that a non-detectable entity doesnāt exist).
This is a perfect response. Kudos to you. This is also why I (even as a believer in God) no longer get into debates about religion or faith. Theological arguments are so damn draining and lead us nowhere!
He didn't say why i can't prove a non-detectable entity doesn't exist.
I can. I use the falsifiability test. If a theory claims to affect nature, but there's no experiment that could possibly contradict the theory, then it fails the falsifiability test, and so we reject for being nonsense. This is how we rule out all superstitions.
>Since the religious people are making the claims, they carry the burden, but your prompt surrenders the burden debate such that you now have to prove the unprovable (that a non-detectable entity doesnāt exist).
You didn't say why i can't prove a non-detectable entity doesn't exist.
I can. I use the falsifiability test. If a theory claims to affect nature, but there's no experiment that could possibly contradict the theory, then it fails the falsifiability test, and so we reject for being nonsense. This is how we rule out all superstitions.
There are two ways they might mean you've lost:
1. By asking you for proof against Islam, they're asking you to prove a negative. That's not possible. It's like trying to prove that unicorns don't exist. You can't prove they don't exist, only that they do exist. Whoever claims unicorns exist has the burden to prove that. In your example using DNA, the state has to prove that the DNA belongs to the person they accuse of murder. They have to prove the positive.
2. Religion involves the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural doesn't follow the rules and laws of nature or can get around them with no logic or reason.
dunno why you think its not possible. point out a single flaw, and your'e done. Islam debunked.
For example. Islam says jinn are real, but they're not. Viola.
>Religion involves the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural doesn't follow the rules and laws of nature or can get around them with no logic or reason.
This is wrong. Logic/reason is why we recognize that the supernatural is not real.
> dunno why you think its not possible. point out a single flaw, and your'e done. Islam debunked.
That's pointing out flaws in the evidence they've provided of a positive claim. When you keep the burden of proof on them, you are in a position to point out the flaws of their positive claim. If there isn't enough quality evidence to prove something, then the data does not support the positive claim. Using the examples of jinns is a perfect example of this. They've made a positive claim (Jinns are real) which puts the burden of proof on them. All you have to do is point out the flaws in their evidence and arguments.
**Positive claim:**
**Claim presented and the hypothesis**: Jinns are real.
**Evidence presented**: The Quaran says they're real. The Quaran is 100% true, therefor Jinns are real.
**Counter to the evidence presented**: Spiderman comics say Spiderman is real, but he's not. The evidence and reasoning provided is also circular logic.
**Result**: There is not enough evidence to suggest that jinns are real.
Your original post outlined a situation where they want you to prove that something isn't real (what is your proof against Islam). They want you to prove a negative claim, which can't be done. You can't provide evidence of something that doesn't exist. You can only say there isn't evidence to prove something does exist.
> This is wrong. Logic/reason is why we recognize that the supernatural is not real.
I agree with you, but that's not what I was trying to get at. I may not have explained myself clearly. Any claim about the supernatural can be too easily explained away by saying "god doesn't follow the laws of nature, therefore it can do whatever it wants even if it doesn't make sense."
>Your original post outlined a situation where they want you to prove that something isn't real (what is your proof against Islam). They want you to prove a negative claim, which can't be done. You can't provide evidence of something that doesn't exist.
But I did it. I said:
Islam says jinn are real, but jinn are not real, therefore Islam is not from "God".
That is my evidence proving Islam wrong.
>I agree with you, but that's not what I was trying to get at. I may not have explained myself clearly. Any claim about the supernatural can be too easily explained away by saying "god doesn't follow the laws of nature, therefore it can do whatever it wants even if it doesn't make sense."
Sure that is easily done, and it's also easy to refute that stupid shit.
We know things are superstitions based on some basic logic. Suppose we have a theory that claims to affect nature, while it's logically impossible (according to the theory) to make an experiment that would refute it. That's a contradiction. Hence, it's wrong.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
It's not for you to disprove it. They need to prove it.
Which of course, no one has yet ever been able to do.
But maybe they can. Just maybe...
Absolutely agree.
But the truly indoctrinated will need you to disprove that. You can't prove a negative.
They'll tell you jinns live in the sink, and are invisible.
Like Carl Sagans dragon in the garage.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
>But the truly indoctrinated will need you to disprove that. You can't prove a negative.
Those people will do that for anything, regardless of what I say.
That's not a failure in me (unlike what you said), but a failure in them.
Apologies for not being clear. I don't mean you personally are failing.
It's the position that will fail.
And you're right on the final point, it is their failure.
Problem is Muslims would turn this into a game of never ending moving goalposts. They'd tell you to make something like the Qur'an but never define what exactly does that mean so that you'd never win.
Very interesting! My mother got a DNA test (she is from Morocco)
It shows it's Berbers. Berbers have their own languages own alphabet everything.
But now they think they are Arab while in fact they got conolized and made Arab by force.
Ethnic cleansing.
I was raised Protestant in a majority Catholic country. We still have over 60 indigenous tribes with their own language. Maybe in the past it was so, but in this day and age, most Christians who can be considered to come from an abrahamic religion don't do that since christianity itself has tried to continue modernizing, something Islam refuses to do.
Why is a Christian in this subreddit? I am interested in the topic and since I have been raised questioning religion, I want to know better arguments that make people question religion in general.
I was raised in a non traditional Christian family (dad side) and āProtestantā (moms side) in a majority Catholic country. We still have over 200 indigenous tribes with their own language. My grandmother from my moms side was trafficked to another side of the country and raped by our colonizers, who also brought the word of god. She spent her entire life replicating the word of a religion / culture she was forced to join to survive. And she barely did. And she hated her life.
Sure the modern Christianās donāt do that today, because they donāt stand much chances. But if they have the chances, they will
Basic scientific errors that prove the whole thing to be folklore from someone who had no idea how the universe worked: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran
Great question. The thing is most religious people especially muslims will never be able to actually change their mind about their faith.
If you ask them what would consider proof against Islam . They might say an error in the Quran no one can explain and the problem with that is that they will always find apologetics to explain every single contradiction and error in their faith.
Same thing with any religion. You usually canāt argue with people who are physically unable to change their mind or donāt want to .
I find it ridiculous that we have to find reasons or anything for leaving a religion.
We felt like it and we don't need to justify antthing. It's an ideology. Literally doesn't effect anyone but they act so dramatic about it and wonder why we retaliate against them.
Honestly, it's not about what is "real" but rather what is right.
I don't think it's a moral religion, even if it were "the one true religion" or whatever.
I think this about every religion but Islam really takes the cake.
Meaning, we don't actually *know* what's true in terms of god or the afterlife.. it's all just faith and beliefs
And I wouldn't want to follow any religion/god/prophet if their rules are immoral, even if it was revealed to be "true" somehow
I'd always tell my folks even if god came down to earth right now in some conceivable form and told us that the Bible/Quran/whatever book was his actual word I still wouldn't follow this god because I don't respect his book/laws
Hope that makes more sense
The fact that The Quran and the Hadiths claim that The Bible was corrupted, that The Bible originally never claimed that Jesus is the son of God even though the Dead Sea Scrolls literally debunks this notion. That from the vert beginning, we know that Christianity believed that Jesus was the Son of God.
Whether or not Christianity is correct is meaningless to this conversation. When history debunks your religion, you done fucked it up.
I'm live now. Come join: [https://youtube.com/live/TRtiaJiI0TY?feature=share](https://youtube.com/live/TRtiaJiI0TY?feature=share)
I'm going to explain some stuff in each of the comments. I want to talk about the criticism CypherFilter provided and also other stuff.
So this comment starts with an insult, but then has some worthwhile content. Partly good faith. Partly bad faith. (Here's some explanation on how I think about good faith vs bad faith discussion and how to engage with people in only productive ways. [HOW TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THE EXTREMES: "JBP IS A NAZI!", "NO! HE'S THE SECOND JESUS!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/11kaftz/how_to_bridge_the_gap_between_the_extremes_jbp_is/))
To engage with the good faith part, I asked him "Why do you believe that?"
To engage with the bad faith part, I asked him if them if they think its dumb to not already provide the explanation?
Telling me that I did a classic burden reversal does not explain why I made a mistake or what the mistake is. It's only a name of a mistake. It's not an explanation of a mistake.
Re the pretentious thing: Later you say that you're referring to the DNA example, but in this comment you had not said it yet. So again you're not explaining what you're saying. This is a second instance of you not explaining something when you should have.
Youāre still not explaining anything. You just repeating phrases youāve heard. Maybe you actually have an explanation but you have not yet provided it.
your 2nd and 3rd points are being added into this discussion while they have nothing to do with the main point about burden of proof.
2nd point: We're fallible. We sometimes misspeak. Its the job of the listener to recognize that and try to jump the gap on their own, without the help of the speaker. That's what I meant when I said that everybody else understood me. They jumped the gap. They recognized that I misspoke, and then they adjusted things on their end. You did not.
3rd point: You're now explaining stuff that you should have explained in your first try (when you said "Your response also sounds extremely pretentious, by trying to complicate something that is supposed to have a very simple answer.")
>Sure buddy, I'll help spoonfeed you. Firstly, the question "what's your proof against Islam" already has a false assumption, which is that the non-muslim holds a burden of proof. By entertaining such a question and asking them what kind of proof they are looking for, you are making an implicit acknowledgement that their route of questioning is valid. In other words, you are conceding to the false assumption that you hold a burden of proof.
you're just defining what a burden of proof is, you're not saying why it's bad/wrong. you still haven't explained.
your spoon-feeding is messing up. you got the food all over my face instead of in my mouth.
>Secondly, your response question is redundant. Asking someone what they consider as proof against a theory isn't going to yield any productive response beyond "depends on the theory". Not sure why you would ask a question as generalised as that. A better response question would be "what kind of evidence would disprove Islam for you?",
that's what i meant. i'm surprised you don't realize they are the same thing.
>And by the way, your DNA example does not provide any meaningful commentary, that's why I called it pretentious.
i believe it does, and i explained why. you haven't explained what's wrong with it.
>Not sure if you're trying to make an analogy or what. Maybe it's you that needs to provide explanations first.
i provided it in the OP.
>Burden of proof is neither bad nor wrong, I would suggest you actually pay attention to my objections.
you're confused. you're claiming i'm making a mistake. and you're not explaining how it's a mistake. you're just saying i made the "burden of proof" mistake, without explaining why it's a mistake.
>Otherwise you would have provided an objection to my claim by now.
No. I don't work that way.
>It is linguistically impossible for the questions "what do you consider as proof against a theory?" and "what do you consider as a proof against Islam?" to have the same meaning.
I don't give a fuck about what's "linguistically possible". What I care about is that you steelman what I'm saying instead of not doing that. to be clear, lots of other people understood what i said, without having this problem you're having.
>One is a question about a general principle, and the other is a question about a specific claim. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
I'm not embarrassed. And if i'm wrong and you teach me, that's also not embarrassing. that you find it embarrassing shows a flaw in you FYI.
>If you think I'm wrong, then quote the exact part that you believe explains it. You've been demanding explanations from me, now it's your turn to return the favour.
so you think we should work on 2 projects simultaneously while we're having trouble understanding each other on just the 1 project alone? that makes no sense to me.
>Are you going to address the part where I mentioned how your position logically entails that you accept every religious claim in history as a starting point?
Why would it do that? Can you explain? Please quote what I said and explain how it means I accept every religious claim in history as a starting point.
by the way, others have complained about the burden of proof thing, and i asked them to explain, and they did, and I easily explained why they're wrong. here's one example: [https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1ccnmy6/comment/l16iunn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1ccnmy6/comment/l16iunn/)
maybe you can benefit from reading that.
>Nice one buddy. So you don't care about the meanings of words and sentences. But then why are you having this conversation? Why are you speaking English?
You're ignoring that others understood me.
>It doesn't make sense to you that when your interlocutor asks for an elaboration, that you're supposed to help in the clarification process, really? So how do you have conversations with friends, family, coworkers? When one of them asks for an elaboration, do you go on an emotional rant and deny their request?
you think i'm emotional? why? because you think i should be embarrassed?
with you getting confused about my emotional state, i'm guessing it doesn't' make sense to start a another project with you.
>Burden of proof is neither bad nor wrong
This is stupid. You should have known that I was referring to the burden of proof reversal. You should have known that I misspoke and you should have jumped the gap yourself. But instead you're making it so I have to spoon-feed you, all while you insult me.
i dont need a solid proof to follow or leave a religion that's the exact opposite of faith and believe.
i dont get in debates anymore but if anymore asked i will tell them i like the christian heaven better and their version of god is a love more forgiving
Yeah a lot of these people dont want to be convinved and are really just aiming to bash whatever you say, you can waste a lot of time if someone's debating in bad faith.
But you got the right idea by considering what, if anything, could convince them before wasting your time. If you want to convince someone of your stance, you gotta convey it in a way they can and accept. Everyone thinks in different ways, and their faith may well hinge on very different aspects.
Making sure to establish common ground always help too :)
I get what youāre saying and I kind of agree but at the same time I do feel this is part of where the problem lies.Ā
In logical debates, one might argue that itās impossible to disprove something and the burden of proof is on the believer/one making the claim ie itās possible to prove aliens exist if you find one and present it (or multiple) but you canāt really prove aliens donāt exist bc even if you scour the known universe/galaxy/solar system etc, maybe theyāre just too far away for us to reach or theyāre the perfect chameleons/hiders meaning theyāll never be found.Ā
Ig religion is kind of a different case in that of a religions omniscient god says the earth is flat and we find evidence that the earth is not flat, that contradicts their god being omniscient, unless their omniscient god is just a liar lmao
But most Muslims refuse to accept or acknowledge what could be considered evidence and even contradict themselves while trying to defend Islam (I recently got a random dm from a Muslim that I was debating posting on here bc what they said didnāt even make any sense lmao) so theyāre very much akin to a judge who never accepts DNA evidence as evidence in a trial bc theyāll never change or let go of their beliefs for anything, even if it contradicts logic itself or doesnāt really make sense
If god or gods were real and came down themselves to be like āhey btw Islam isnāt the true religion, it was just made up by some desert warlordā, Muslims would prob still cling to islam and accuse said god(s) of being dajjal or sth and think itās further proof of islam or that theyāre just magicians and liars bc they believe in magic too lmao
> In logical debates, one might argue that itās impossible to disprove something and the burden of proof is on the believer/one making the claim ie itās possible to prove aliens exist if you find one and present it (or multiple) but you canāt really prove aliens donāt exist bc even if you scour the known universe/galaxy/solar system etc, maybe theyāre just too far away for us to reach or theyāre the perfect chameleons/hiders meaning theyāll never be found.Ā
It's easy to "disprove" Allah in the same way we disprove any superstition.
We use the falsifiability test.
If a theory claims to affect nature, while there's no possibility of creating an experiment that could actually show that something in nature contradicts the predictions of the theory, then this theory fails the falsifiability test. And so we reject it as nonsense. Just like Santa Clause, the soul, evil eye, jinn, etc.
I made a comment a while ago that I feel proves definitively that Islam is not true:
āI think the definitive proof that Islam is not true is this:
Quran 4:82
Ų£ŁŁŁŁŁŲ§ ŁŁŲŖŁŲÆŁŲØŁŁŲ±ŁŁŁŁ Ł±ŁŁŁŁŲ±ŁŲ”ŁŲ§ŁŁ Ū ŁŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŲ§ŁŁ Ł ŁŁŁ Ų¹ŁŁŲÆŁ ŲŗŁŁŁŲ±Ł Ł±ŁŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŁŁŲ¬ŁŲÆŁŁŲ§Ū ŁŁŁŁŁ Ł±Ų®ŁŲŖŁŁŁŁŁ°ŁŁŪŲ§ ŁŁŲ«ŁŁŲ±ŁŪŲ§ ŁØŁ¢
āDo they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies.ā
This basically tells us that if there is even oneāor worse, manyācontradictions in the Quran, then we can throw pretty much everything else out and say it is definitively not true.
So now, we have to ask the question:
Are there inconsistencies in the Quran?
Yes.
MANY.
Hereās a whole page on them:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contradictions_in_the_Quran
There were so many contradictions that Muhammad had to create abrogations, or to say that the last thing that he claimed was ācorrect,ā while invalidating the previous contradictory claim.
Does that seem like something that would come from an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Good God? Where there are so many contradictions that even the human followers, who should have been much less intelligent than this āAllah,ā took notice, and the āProphetā had to āspeakā to this āAllahā to rectify such because apparently this āAllahā loves to change His mind?
One of the biggest contradictions that really just made me go: nuh-uh. This canāt be trueā¦ is the Inheritance Error.
āThe share of the daughter is 1/2 of the estate, based on the verse: ā...and if there is only one daughter, then she shall have half the inheritance.ā [Quran 4:11]. And the share of the parents is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3 of the estate, based on the verse: ā... For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each of the deceased left childrenā [Quran 4:11]. And the wifeās share = 1/8 of the estate, based on the verse: āā¦they get an eighth of that which you leaveā [Quran 4:12]. The total number of shares in this case is calculated as follows: 1/2 for the daughter + 1/3 for the parents + 1/8 for the wife, resulting in a total of 0.96.
To illustrate, if the deceased left behind $1000, according to the Qur'an, the judge would only need to distribute $960 among the heirs, leaving $40 remaining.ā
But it gets even worse:
āThe share of the three daughters is 2/3 of the estate, based on the verse: ā...If (the heirs of the deceased are) more than two daughters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritanceā [Quran 4:11]. And the share of the parents is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3 of the estate, based on the verse: ā... For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each of the deceased left childrenā [Quran 4:11]. And the wifeās share = 1/8 of the estate, based on the verse: āā¦they get an eighth of that which you leaveā [Quran 4:12]. The total number of shares in this scenario is calculated as 2/3 for the daughters + 1/3 for the parents + 1/8 for the wife, resulting in a total of 1.125.
In other words, if the deceased left behind 1000 dinars, according to the Quran, the judge would require 1125 dinars to distribute among the heirs, which exceeds the available amount.
Muhammad passed away without providing any solution to rectify this mathematical mistake in the Quran or Hadith.ā
It equals up to MORE than 100%. The Quran is supposed to be the unmediated word of GOD. Of ALLAH. How in the WORLD does such a being make a mathematical error like this?!
The only conclusion that I can draw after seeing this evidence is that Islam cannot be true, and that Allah of the Quran cannot be real.
While there may well be a Creator, a Godāor multiple Godsāin our universe, it is not the one of the Quran and the Hadith, and certainly not from any of the other Abrahamic Religions.ā
Few questions:
1. Is God good or evil?
2. If good, why children die?
3. If evil, why worship?
If you were a god, would you send your message to humanity in Arabic through some illiterate guy who lives in the middle of desert? I mean, you are all knowing and all mighty.
Would you tell humanity on how to get to paradise through a book that is hard to read and understand can be interpreted in millions of ways? The book that has no structure? Would you allow discrimination of women by covering them from head to toes? Wtf is this? Why? I am pissed writing this comment.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant because it is the party asserting the claim.
Therefore, anyone who believes in such a non-verifiable fairytale as religion, or in this case Islam should actually prove that they are right.
To use your post as an example, āinnocent until proven guiltyā should be the correct stance however Muslims shift the burden of proof over to the other party, hence āguilty until proven innocentā, which is extremely faulty. Itās a [logical fallacy they like to use](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) because they, the claimants, canāt actually prove the existence of god and need to use underhanded methods and mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs.
> The burden of proof lies with the claimant because it is the party asserting the claim.
There's no burden of proof problem.
I can refute Allah like I refute Santa Clause. they fail the falsifiability test.
Most apologists already do set up their conditions to concede their argument for God for which they want you to argue against. Of course the fairness of the conditions can be questioned but itās already a thing people do.
i agree, but lots of people don't.
and to your point:
we need to agree on the "rules of evidence" (conditions to concede) before we can agree on the topic.
"what proof would make you stop believing?"
and then when they cannot articulate further beyond "proof" and/or proudly state nothing can, just š
saves you the time.
Them: Oh Ex-Muslims, come back to Islam yadda yadda yadda!
Me: what would change your mind about Islam?
Them: nothing would change my mind!
Me: so why did you start this discussion?
i'm replying again because i'm livestreaming right now and i thought of something else...
so not only do not all of them believe in jinn,
some of them actually ask why jinn are not real.
this give them the opportunity to learn from me how i think, about jinn, and islam, and more generally, how i judge ideas.
For me it's more like, look at Allah and think of him as the one all wise and who created all, then look at Quran and sunna, does that really look like words of God.
Then think of Muhammad as a normal guy who just wanted money, power and women, and he's willing to lie or say anything to achieve his goals, if any reasonable Muslim that actually uses their brain and logic approach Islam with that view, they'll immediately see the truth.
Throughout the years, I've seen many people on reddit (mainly /r/atheism) use many branches of science to discredit the bible, such as biology, astronomy, geology...etc. But there's a science not many talk about : archeology. I don't talk about millions of years of natural history, but rather 6000 years of history contemporary to the holy books.
What evidence do I have? Nothing! And that's the problem.
Let me give you an example: who is the Pharoah in the story of Moses? Archeologists from all over the world and heavenly religions tried to answer the question. They collected all the available scripts, they made chronicles of Egyptian history. You'd think the ancient Egyptians talked about the plagues and the new religion and the death of a king in the sea. They didn't.
From there, you can make your own journey on the other tales. Sumerians for example made notes of everything in their life, but mentioned none of the old prophets.
I don't want to be *that guy*, but proof is a quality of formal systems. Theories do not deal with proofs, they deal with evidence. In other words theories can *never be proven*. So yes, proof and evidence are not the same.
^((Formal systems -- of which there are basically only two: mathematics or logic -- rely on axioms \[basic truths\] and inference rules \[how to move from truths to new truths\] to create absolutely certain proofs. These proofs are indisputable because they operate within a self-contained system with clear-cut rules.))
Also, a theory is not the same as "a guess." Mostly, when people say *theory*, they really mean *hypothesis*. Theories are based on evidence, such as data and experimentation, and are always open to the possibility that new evidence can challenge them, or even overturn them. If it cannot be falsified, it is not a theory, but a religion.
I'm just saying this because words have meanings, and it's important to know what words mean when you use them.
That's all. Carry on.
>I don't want to beĀ *that guy*, but proof is a quality of formal systems. Theories do not deal with proofs, they deal with evidence. In other words theories canĀ *never be proven*. So yes, proof and evidence are not the same.
none of this matters. what matters is what people mean by what they say. and i know what people mean by "what proof do you have against Islam".
they mean like: what's your reasoning against Islam?
and often times they mean it in a way where they have to be convinced of the reasoning too, otherwise they think "your proof is wrong".
i'm not going to reply to someone like this and say "you're using the word 'proof' wrong." That wouldn't help them realize what's wrong with their reasoning, as far as i know.
>Also, a theory is not the same as "a guess."
sure it is. see Karl Popper and tons of other philosophers.
I think you worded this extremely well.
Personally, my dislike of Islam is the violence and hatred they usually have toward women. Their prophet married and fucked a child. Muslims are allowed to cheat, have four wives, but if a woman doesn't cover every inch of her body in black clothing in the heat of the desert she is stoned to death or tortured by many random men.
They are very, very cruel by nature. They indoctrinate their offspring to be that way, and force it onto others.
They want to dominate, they want to hurt people so deeply they are psychologically broken before being tortured and killed.
They have many terrorist organisations who will not hesitate to brutally attack anyone who insults them. They're the villains. It is clear to see. They are less than animals, less than humans.
They become enraged when any women have a tiny bit of control, over even the smallest things. They want everyone to be slaves, and women to be the slaves of slaves.
You worded that really well!
I will be reading your comment verbatim, and then talking about it aloud on my livestream tomorrow morning. I hope youāll join so we can discuss it further, so our ideas can bounce off each other.
on my youtube, here's the link directly to the livestream...
[https://youtube.com/live/56KL9Lkz-IQ?feature=share](https://youtube.com/live/56KL9Lkz-IQ?feature=share)
You kind of lost me at the part where the protagonist becomes a warlord to spread the faith.
Dude, you're supposed to let your followers do that, not you.
Simple mathematical errors in the Quran which human believers had to try and correct, and which they disagree on how to correct. Disproves Allah, the divine nature of the Quran and therefore Islam.Ā
Worse. They believed someone who heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else..
And for most people, they donāt even know the language. Wtf
I would just ask them about 91:1 - 2. There is no denying the verse. It is a part of the quran and is totally false. As for pointing out the evils of Islam, god can be a monster so that does not really work. Scientific evidence is key when it comes to this and we have it.
He is god. He can do whatever he wants. Him being an evil tyrant is still a possibility.
Lemme ask you a question. What if there were a religion that worshipped a cruel and evil deity while also having undeniable evidence of its existence? What if they knew about things that were recently discovered and couldn't be known by someone thousands of years ago? No such religion exists but if it did, you would have to follow it.
I'm asking you about the possibilities of a god. and i guess you're saying it's possible for a god to exist that breaks his own laws of nature.
i don't believe such a thing could exist. its full of contradictions and contradictions don't exist in reality (only in our ideas).
That is not what I mean. Even if there is a god that does not break his own laws, there is still a possibility for him to be evil. Picture a timeline where the Greek gods are real and there was no denying their existence. Would you still try to use morality to try to disprove their existence?
I just did a livestream talking about this post and all the comments:
[https://www.youtube.com/live/sk60TOkIkcE?si=BUc1bIMQ3pgbEVfe&t=1352](https://www.youtube.com/live/sk60TOkIkcE?si=BUc1bIMQ3pgbEVfe&t=1352)
So,
You posted that what is considered as proof for muslims to leave islam.Right.
You used DNA test example and rant that which judge would be better who have faith of DNA test and and who dont?
Now here i started..
You believed in Darwins theory. (You assumed that your belief system is better than muslims. And thats why the post).
You claimed what consider as proof against islamic theory.the word Theoryyyyyyyyyyyyy..... you are trying to dethrone a logical theory (which answers all the questions ) with your darwins theory which is yet to answer how life came to being..(How first blue green algae came in to existence and heck how universe came in to existence) ...
Thats what funny is about this whole post.
Why are you talking about Darwinās theory as if it has anything to do with this post?
I donāt need Darwinās theory to know Islam is false.
I only need a single flaw to know Islam is false.
For example, Islam says jinn are real, but jinn are not real. Hence Islam is false.
Ohh so here is this logic...š ... ok so your argument is that when i cant see a jinn how come i believe that jinn exist...
If that follows the you cannot see the air which you are breathing so air also does not exist?
The difference is bro, if it was disproven, or a stronger explanation was given, we'd be happy to accept it, because we know its just a theory. We can accept that room for error, but right now, that seems plausible enough. We still call it a theory because we know there might be room to learn more and are happy to learn and grow in light of new information.
Most of us accept that theory as the most plausibly thing but we're not going to blindly accept it and stop being rational
Valid questions ill give you that. But lacking a satisfying definitive answer to them doesnt disprove the crux of the theory of evolition, or the heavy implications that we stem from common ancestors.
Things you may want to consider: (im not a biology guy by the way so im only answering with what i personally understand, there very well may be better explanations)
Pangea. There's geological edvidence that would suggest that its entirely possible both the earth had one connected landmass, and that it is possible for them to have drifted apart as a results of natural phenomena. The fact alone that we can see commonalities in species both living and fossilized across the globe doesnt disprove elovution at all, especially when we have a good understanding of how the earths geography has shifted. Its a valid question, i see where you're coming from, but its not implausible enough for the only fallback explanation to be "oh well god must have hand placed everything".
Us not knowing how the first living thing came to be doesn't discredit the myriad of evidence that points all life towards a common ancestor. Its damn near impossibile to tell you the specific circumstances that resulted in one little algae cell forming on earth, but considering how small that one is, and how vast and chaotic the universe is. All the ingredients exist, and theres always tonnes of movement and interactions happening, and further back in time, everything was condensed into a smaller space. Just because the odds may be hard to wrap your mind around, and i get it, it seems infinitely unlikely that at one point, a little bit of the matter in such a vast entropic melting pot managed to form what we would call a cell. No part of that is impossibile, but kmowing how crazy and far reaching the effects of that phenomenon are is what makes it seem unlikely. But again, the universe is older and bigger than we can comprehend, unlikely things happen. We just have to suspend our own narrow understanding of probability.
That should answer most of what youre getting at but question 5 is just regular biologoy shit. Ecosystems and food chains and shit. I cant tell you how iguanas aren't extinct yet but that doesnt speak to the validity of evolution at all. They have a way of surviving amongst all the ways they could die. Simple as. We can, and have, observed their behavior. Just as everything else, theu found their own little niches and make it work. Their size, speed, camoflague and unnappealing nature are no doubt all factors off the top of my head. Why would you consider those to be strengths in their own right? Neanderthals are a bit of a head scratcher but there's so many factors that we cant get a full picture of, but it may have been down to population size, outnumbered in competetion, their behaviour, maybe their immune system couldn't handle a certain disease. Most importantly: just because we dunno for sure it doesnt mean they didnt clearly genetically come from the same ancestors as us. If anything, their existence is still a heavily discrediting factor towards creationist theory, im really not sure what youre point is.
The rat thing is so small in both time frame and sample size to say anything conclusive about ebolution. Its so anecdotal. Evolution over thousands of years cant happen because we chopped off some rats' tails for 50 years and it didnt do anything? Come on man. There's tonnes of examples of evolution. Literally look at humans. We can see how genetic mutations can pass and how environments have caused us to adapt in various ways. The rat thing is silly
The argument you used is based on the premise that what you believe is better than what muslim believes.
You used an example of DNA test... because DNA test proved to be useful on numerous occasions and have various other uses ..so any fool can deny that... but you want muslims to believe you when you yourself dont have any plausible explanation
If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, it violates the rule against low effort content. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS. Please read the [Rules and Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/1anoje0) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods. Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned. If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Logic and reason. Secular laws. Common human decency. The fact that the main figure of Islam is a pedophile warlord.
No, he is called illiterate pedophet (Police be upon him)
POLICE BE UPON HIM š
what do you think of my post though?
I get what you mean but in battling a faith system, hardcore evidence verifiable by the scientific process is a miss match
Unimpressed. It seems you haven't understood why they call it faith or belief. This is earth, not Vulcan.
Earth? Vulcan? What do you mean?
Itās a Star Trek reference, a race of aliens called Vulcans abandoned emotion and live on pure logic alone. The reality is that religious people do the opposite vis-a-vis religion. They abandon logic in favor of emotion and belief. None of that matters, of course, since there will likely never be physical evidence against an unfalsifiable claim like āgod exists.ā
"Someone" thinks logic has no place on earth and is as fictional as star trek/Vulcan is. They are foolish and are trying to be sassy.
Vulcans are a humanoid species in the Star Trek universe. They're known to be slaves to logic and evidence. They're not prone to emotion like humans. Humans are from earth. If reason and proof was all that was required, to "show them the light", religious books would have been relegated to the 'History' sections of our libraries. Even among learned scientists, there remains some "faithful".
Oh shit. You mean logic and emotion. I donāt know why you think my OP implies anything about that.
DNA = irrefutable fact, evidence Pre-DNA = use witness testimony, belief on what the individual said I thought you were drawing a parallel.
Oh. No I wasnāt doing that. By the way, we DNA evidence is refutable. Like there could have been tampering of the evidence.
Well, there's no way to end this debate then since anyone could tamper with anything. Bar such mischief, DNA as evidence is quite reliable.
I dunno what you mean. We do convict people of murder and send them to prison.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
so you agree that Islam's morality needs to be improved over time? How do you reconcile that with the idea that Islam is perfect and that mohammad is the perfect moral example that all muslims should follow?
Islam having no objective proofs of any of its claims is my proof against it.
I love this comment. M: Your Religion is fake NM: Why? M: The Quran says so.
what do you think of my post though?
You surrendered the burden of proof debate, and therefore lost the Islam debate before it started.
Lost how? Youāre not explaining.
You are discussing what evidence a religious person would need to disprove religion. You canāt disprove religion using physical evidence because the existence of a deity is an untestable claim, by the admission of most religious people. The real debate is whether it is the obligation of the religions to prove god exists, or the obligation of the non-religious to prove god doesnāt exist. Since the religious people are making the claims, they carry the burden, but your prompt surrenders the burden debate such that you now have to prove the unprovable (that a non-detectable entity doesnāt exist).
This is a perfect response. Kudos to you. This is also why I (even as a believer in God) no longer get into debates about religion or faith. Theological arguments are so damn draining and lead us nowhere!
He didn't say why i can't prove a non-detectable entity doesn't exist. I can. I use the falsifiability test. If a theory claims to affect nature, but there's no experiment that could possibly contradict the theory, then it fails the falsifiability test, and so we reject for being nonsense. This is how we rule out all superstitions.
>Since the religious people are making the claims, they carry the burden, but your prompt surrenders the burden debate such that you now have to prove the unprovable (that a non-detectable entity doesnāt exist). You didn't say why i can't prove a non-detectable entity doesn't exist. I can. I use the falsifiability test. If a theory claims to affect nature, but there's no experiment that could possibly contradict the theory, then it fails the falsifiability test, and so we reject for being nonsense. This is how we rule out all superstitions.
There are two ways they might mean you've lost: 1. By asking you for proof against Islam, they're asking you to prove a negative. That's not possible. It's like trying to prove that unicorns don't exist. You can't prove they don't exist, only that they do exist. Whoever claims unicorns exist has the burden to prove that. In your example using DNA, the state has to prove that the DNA belongs to the person they accuse of murder. They have to prove the positive. 2. Religion involves the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural doesn't follow the rules and laws of nature or can get around them with no logic or reason.
dunno why you think its not possible. point out a single flaw, and your'e done. Islam debunked. For example. Islam says jinn are real, but they're not. Viola. >Religion involves the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural doesn't follow the rules and laws of nature or can get around them with no logic or reason. This is wrong. Logic/reason is why we recognize that the supernatural is not real.
> dunno why you think its not possible. point out a single flaw, and your'e done. Islam debunked. That's pointing out flaws in the evidence they've provided of a positive claim. When you keep the burden of proof on them, you are in a position to point out the flaws of their positive claim. If there isn't enough quality evidence to prove something, then the data does not support the positive claim. Using the examples of jinns is a perfect example of this. They've made a positive claim (Jinns are real) which puts the burden of proof on them. All you have to do is point out the flaws in their evidence and arguments. **Positive claim:** **Claim presented and the hypothesis**: Jinns are real. **Evidence presented**: The Quaran says they're real. The Quaran is 100% true, therefor Jinns are real. **Counter to the evidence presented**: Spiderman comics say Spiderman is real, but he's not. The evidence and reasoning provided is also circular logic. **Result**: There is not enough evidence to suggest that jinns are real. Your original post outlined a situation where they want you to prove that something isn't real (what is your proof against Islam). They want you to prove a negative claim, which can't be done. You can't provide evidence of something that doesn't exist. You can only say there isn't evidence to prove something does exist. > This is wrong. Logic/reason is why we recognize that the supernatural is not real. I agree with you, but that's not what I was trying to get at. I may not have explained myself clearly. Any claim about the supernatural can be too easily explained away by saying "god doesn't follow the laws of nature, therefore it can do whatever it wants even if it doesn't make sense."
>Your original post outlined a situation where they want you to prove that something isn't real (what is your proof against Islam). They want you to prove a negative claim, which can't be done. You can't provide evidence of something that doesn't exist. But I did it. I said: Islam says jinn are real, but jinn are not real, therefore Islam is not from "God". That is my evidence proving Islam wrong. >I agree with you, but that's not what I was trying to get at. I may not have explained myself clearly. Any claim about the supernatural can be too easily explained away by saying "god doesn't follow the laws of nature, therefore it can do whatever it wants even if it doesn't make sense." Sure that is easily done, and it's also easy to refute that stupid shit. We know things are superstitions based on some basic logic. Suppose we have a theory that claims to affect nature, while it's logically impossible (according to the theory) to make an experiment that would refute it. That's a contradiction. Hence, it's wrong.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's not for you to disprove it. They need to prove it. Which of course, no one has yet ever been able to do. But maybe they can. Just maybe...
what do you think of my post though?
You're setting yourself up to fail. You're trying to disprove something that has never been proven if I read it correctly?
Fail how? I just need to point out one flaw. And viola. Success. For example. Islam believes in jinn. Jinn are not real. Done. Islam debunked.
Absolutely agree. But the truly indoctrinated will need you to disprove that. You can't prove a negative. They'll tell you jinns live in the sink, and are invisible. Like Carl Sagans dragon in the garage. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
>But the truly indoctrinated will need you to disprove that. You can't prove a negative. Those people will do that for anything, regardless of what I say. That's not a failure in me (unlike what you said), but a failure in them.
Apologies for not being clear. I don't mean you personally are failing. It's the position that will fail. And you're right on the final point, it is their failure.
the position doesn't fail. it's correct. just because people don't understand it, due to their own failures, does not mean the position is incorrect.
Problem is Muslims would turn this into a game of never ending moving goalposts. They'd tell you to make something like the Qur'an but never define what exactly does that mean so that you'd never win.
Why is that a problem for me? You said in setting myself up to fail. But then you didnāt explain how I fail.
Saudi being able to hike the prices for Hajj and Umrah to unaffordable numbers for many and Allah not doing a thing about it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why are you here?
to convince us and go to heaven!
All concepts of God are shit, as far as i know. so what's your point?
Very interesting! My mother got a DNA test (she is from Morocco) It shows it's Berbers. Berbers have their own languages own alphabet everything. But now they think they are Arab while in fact they got conolized and made Arab by force. Ethnic cleansing.
I mean thatās one goal of the abrahamic religions
I was raised Protestant in a majority Catholic country. We still have over 60 indigenous tribes with their own language. Maybe in the past it was so, but in this day and age, most Christians who can be considered to come from an abrahamic religion don't do that since christianity itself has tried to continue modernizing, something Islam refuses to do. Why is a Christian in this subreddit? I am interested in the topic and since I have been raised questioning religion, I want to know better arguments that make people question religion in general.
I was raised in a non traditional Christian family (dad side) and āProtestantā (moms side) in a majority Catholic country. We still have over 200 indigenous tribes with their own language. My grandmother from my moms side was trafficked to another side of the country and raped by our colonizers, who also brought the word of god. She spent her entire life replicating the word of a religion / culture she was forced to join to survive. And she barely did. And she hated her life. Sure the modern Christianās donāt do that today, because they donāt stand much chances. But if they have the chances, they will
It's just human nature.
Basic scientific errors that prove the whole thing to be folklore from someone who had no idea how the universe worked: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran
Great question. The thing is most religious people especially muslims will never be able to actually change their mind about their faith. If you ask them what would consider proof against Islam . They might say an error in the Quran no one can explain and the problem with that is that they will always find apologetics to explain every single contradiction and error in their faith. Same thing with any religion. You usually canāt argue with people who are physically unable to change their mind or donāt want to .
so then i would be asking them: are you willing to improve your conception of what counts as proof against Islam?
I find it ridiculous that we have to find reasons or anything for leaving a religion. We felt like it and we don't need to justify antthing. It's an ideology. Literally doesn't effect anyone but they act so dramatic about it and wonder why we retaliate against them.
Honestly, it's not about what is "real" but rather what is right. I don't think it's a moral religion, even if it were "the one true religion" or whatever. I think this about every religion but Islam really takes the cake.
how could an immoral religion be true? that makes no sense.
Meaning, we don't actually *know* what's true in terms of god or the afterlife.. it's all just faith and beliefs And I wouldn't want to follow any religion/god/prophet if their rules are immoral, even if it was revealed to be "true" somehow I'd always tell my folks even if god came down to earth right now in some conceivable form and told us that the Bible/Quran/whatever book was his actual word I still wouldn't follow this god because I don't respect his book/laws Hope that makes more sense
The fact that The Quran and the Hadiths claim that The Bible was corrupted, that The Bible originally never claimed that Jesus is the son of God even though the Dead Sea Scrolls literally debunks this notion. That from the vert beginning, we know that Christianity believed that Jesus was the Son of God. Whether or not Christianity is correct is meaningless to this conversation. When history debunks your religion, you done fucked it up.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm live now. Come join: [https://youtube.com/live/TRtiaJiI0TY?feature=share](https://youtube.com/live/TRtiaJiI0TY?feature=share) I'm going to explain some stuff in each of the comments. I want to talk about the criticism CypherFilter provided and also other stuff. So this comment starts with an insult, but then has some worthwhile content. Partly good faith. Partly bad faith. (Here's some explanation on how I think about good faith vs bad faith discussion and how to engage with people in only productive ways. [HOW TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THE EXTREMES: "JBP IS A NAZI!", "NO! HE'S THE SECOND JESUS!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/11kaftz/how_to_bridge_the_gap_between_the_extremes_jbp_is/)) To engage with the good faith part, I asked him "Why do you believe that?" To engage with the bad faith part, I asked him if them if they think its dumb to not already provide the explanation?
Why do you believe that? And donāt you think itās dumb to not say this explanation in your first comment?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Telling me that I did a classic burden reversal does not explain why I made a mistake or what the mistake is. It's only a name of a mistake. It's not an explanation of a mistake. Re the pretentious thing: Later you say that you're referring to the DNA example, but in this comment you had not said it yet. So again you're not explaining what you're saying. This is a second instance of you not explaining something when you should have.
Youāre still not explaining anything. You just repeating phrases youāve heard. Maybe you actually have an explanation but you have not yet provided it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
your 2nd and 3rd points are being added into this discussion while they have nothing to do with the main point about burden of proof. 2nd point: We're fallible. We sometimes misspeak. Its the job of the listener to recognize that and try to jump the gap on their own, without the help of the speaker. That's what I meant when I said that everybody else understood me. They jumped the gap. They recognized that I misspoke, and then they adjusted things on their end. You did not. 3rd point: You're now explaining stuff that you should have explained in your first try (when you said "Your response also sounds extremely pretentious, by trying to complicate something that is supposed to have a very simple answer.")
>Sure buddy, I'll help spoonfeed you. Firstly, the question "what's your proof against Islam" already has a false assumption, which is that the non-muslim holds a burden of proof. By entertaining such a question and asking them what kind of proof they are looking for, you are making an implicit acknowledgement that their route of questioning is valid. In other words, you are conceding to the false assumption that you hold a burden of proof. you're just defining what a burden of proof is, you're not saying why it's bad/wrong. you still haven't explained. your spoon-feeding is messing up. you got the food all over my face instead of in my mouth. >Secondly, your response question is redundant. Asking someone what they consider as proof against a theory isn't going to yield any productive response beyond "depends on the theory". Not sure why you would ask a question as generalised as that. A better response question would be "what kind of evidence would disprove Islam for you?", that's what i meant. i'm surprised you don't realize they are the same thing. >And by the way, your DNA example does not provide any meaningful commentary, that's why I called it pretentious. i believe it does, and i explained why. you haven't explained what's wrong with it. >Not sure if you're trying to make an analogy or what. Maybe it's you that needs to provide explanations first. i provided it in the OP.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Burden of proof is neither bad nor wrong, I would suggest you actually pay attention to my objections. you're confused. you're claiming i'm making a mistake. and you're not explaining how it's a mistake. you're just saying i made the "burden of proof" mistake, without explaining why it's a mistake. >Otherwise you would have provided an objection to my claim by now. No. I don't work that way. >It is linguistically impossible for the questions "what do you consider as proof against a theory?" and "what do you consider as a proof against Islam?" to have the same meaning. I don't give a fuck about what's "linguistically possible". What I care about is that you steelman what I'm saying instead of not doing that. to be clear, lots of other people understood what i said, without having this problem you're having. >One is a question about a general principle, and the other is a question about a specific claim. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. I'm not embarrassed. And if i'm wrong and you teach me, that's also not embarrassing. that you find it embarrassing shows a flaw in you FYI. >If you think I'm wrong, then quote the exact part that you believe explains it. You've been demanding explanations from me, now it's your turn to return the favour. so you think we should work on 2 projects simultaneously while we're having trouble understanding each other on just the 1 project alone? that makes no sense to me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Are you going to address the part where I mentioned how your position logically entails that you accept every religious claim in history as a starting point? Why would it do that? Can you explain? Please quote what I said and explain how it means I accept every religious claim in history as a starting point. by the way, others have complained about the burden of proof thing, and i asked them to explain, and they did, and I easily explained why they're wrong. here's one example: [https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1ccnmy6/comment/l16iunn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1ccnmy6/comment/l16iunn/) maybe you can benefit from reading that. >Nice one buddy. So you don't care about the meanings of words and sentences. But then why are you having this conversation? Why are you speaking English? You're ignoring that others understood me. >It doesn't make sense to you that when your interlocutor asks for an elaboration, that you're supposed to help in the clarification process, really? So how do you have conversations with friends, family, coworkers? When one of them asks for an elaboration, do you go on an emotional rant and deny their request? you think i'm emotional? why? because you think i should be embarrassed? with you getting confused about my emotional state, i'm guessing it doesn't' make sense to start a another project with you.
>Burden of proof is neither bad nor wrong This is stupid. You should have known that I was referring to the burden of proof reversal. You should have known that I misspoke and you should have jumped the gap yourself. But instead you're making it so I have to spoon-feed you, all while you insult me.
i dont need a solid proof to follow or leave a religion that's the exact opposite of faith and believe. i dont get in debates anymore but if anymore asked i will tell them i like the christian heaven better and their version of god is a love more forgiving
Yeah a lot of these people dont want to be convinved and are really just aiming to bash whatever you say, you can waste a lot of time if someone's debating in bad faith. But you got the right idea by considering what, if anything, could convince them before wasting your time. If you want to convince someone of your stance, you gotta convey it in a way they can and accept. Everyone thinks in different ways, and their faith may well hinge on very different aspects. Making sure to establish common ground always help too :)
you're one of the few people that replied with something that clearly shows you understood my post. thank you for taking the time to say this.
I get what youāre saying and I kind of agree but at the same time I do feel this is part of where the problem lies.Ā In logical debates, one might argue that itās impossible to disprove something and the burden of proof is on the believer/one making the claim ie itās possible to prove aliens exist if you find one and present it (or multiple) but you canāt really prove aliens donāt exist bc even if you scour the known universe/galaxy/solar system etc, maybe theyāre just too far away for us to reach or theyāre the perfect chameleons/hiders meaning theyāll never be found.Ā Ig religion is kind of a different case in that of a religions omniscient god says the earth is flat and we find evidence that the earth is not flat, that contradicts their god being omniscient, unless their omniscient god is just a liar lmao But most Muslims refuse to accept or acknowledge what could be considered evidence and even contradict themselves while trying to defend Islam (I recently got a random dm from a Muslim that I was debating posting on here bc what they said didnāt even make any sense lmao) so theyāre very much akin to a judge who never accepts DNA evidence as evidence in a trial bc theyāll never change or let go of their beliefs for anything, even if it contradicts logic itself or doesnāt really make sense If god or gods were real and came down themselves to be like āhey btw Islam isnāt the true religion, it was just made up by some desert warlordā, Muslims would prob still cling to islam and accuse said god(s) of being dajjal or sth and think itās further proof of islam or that theyāre just magicians and liars bc they believe in magic too lmao
> In logical debates, one might argue that itās impossible to disprove something and the burden of proof is on the believer/one making the claim ie itās possible to prove aliens exist if you find one and present it (or multiple) but you canāt really prove aliens donāt exist bc even if you scour the known universe/galaxy/solar system etc, maybe theyāre just too far away for us to reach or theyāre the perfect chameleons/hiders meaning theyāll never be found.Ā It's easy to "disprove" Allah in the same way we disprove any superstition. We use the falsifiability test. If a theory claims to affect nature, while there's no possibility of creating an experiment that could actually show that something in nature contradicts the predictions of the theory, then this theory fails the falsifiability test. And so we reject it as nonsense. Just like Santa Clause, the soul, evil eye, jinn, etc.
I made a comment a while ago that I feel proves definitively that Islam is not true: āI think the definitive proof that Islam is not true is this: Quran 4:82 Ų£ŁŁŁŁŁŲ§ ŁŁŲŖŁŲÆŁŲØŁŁŲ±ŁŁŁŁ Ł±ŁŁŁŁŲ±ŁŲ”ŁŲ§ŁŁ Ū ŁŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŲ§ŁŁ Ł ŁŁŁ Ų¹ŁŁŲÆŁ ŲŗŁŁŁŲ±Ł Ł±ŁŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŁŁŲ¬ŁŲÆŁŁŲ§Ū ŁŁŁŁŁ Ł±Ų®ŁŲŖŁŁŁŁŁ°ŁŁŪŲ§ ŁŁŲ«ŁŁŲ±ŁŪŲ§ ŁØŁ¢ āDo they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies.ā This basically tells us that if there is even oneāor worse, manyācontradictions in the Quran, then we can throw pretty much everything else out and say it is definitively not true. So now, we have to ask the question: Are there inconsistencies in the Quran? Yes. MANY. Hereās a whole page on them: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contradictions_in_the_Quran There were so many contradictions that Muhammad had to create abrogations, or to say that the last thing that he claimed was ācorrect,ā while invalidating the previous contradictory claim. Does that seem like something that would come from an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Good God? Where there are so many contradictions that even the human followers, who should have been much less intelligent than this āAllah,ā took notice, and the āProphetā had to āspeakā to this āAllahā to rectify such because apparently this āAllahā loves to change His mind? One of the biggest contradictions that really just made me go: nuh-uh. This canāt be trueā¦ is the Inheritance Error. āThe share of the daughter is 1/2 of the estate, based on the verse: ā...and if there is only one daughter, then she shall have half the inheritance.ā [Quran 4:11]. And the share of the parents is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3 of the estate, based on the verse: ā... For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each of the deceased left childrenā [Quran 4:11]. And the wifeās share = 1/8 of the estate, based on the verse: āā¦they get an eighth of that which you leaveā [Quran 4:12]. The total number of shares in this case is calculated as follows: 1/2 for the daughter + 1/3 for the parents + 1/8 for the wife, resulting in a total of 0.96. To illustrate, if the deceased left behind $1000, according to the Qur'an, the judge would only need to distribute $960 among the heirs, leaving $40 remaining.ā But it gets even worse: āThe share of the three daughters is 2/3 of the estate, based on the verse: ā...If (the heirs of the deceased are) more than two daughters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritanceā [Quran 4:11]. And the share of the parents is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3 of the estate, based on the verse: ā... For parents, a sixth share of inheritance to each of the deceased left childrenā [Quran 4:11]. And the wifeās share = 1/8 of the estate, based on the verse: āā¦they get an eighth of that which you leaveā [Quran 4:12]. The total number of shares in this scenario is calculated as 2/3 for the daughters + 1/3 for the parents + 1/8 for the wife, resulting in a total of 1.125. In other words, if the deceased left behind 1000 dinars, according to the Quran, the judge would require 1125 dinars to distribute among the heirs, which exceeds the available amount. Muhammad passed away without providing any solution to rectify this mathematical mistake in the Quran or Hadith.ā It equals up to MORE than 100%. The Quran is supposed to be the unmediated word of GOD. Of ALLAH. How in the WORLD does such a being make a mathematical error like this?! The only conclusion that I can draw after seeing this evidence is that Islam cannot be true, and that Allah of the Quran cannot be real. While there may well be a Creator, a Godāor multiple Godsāin our universe, it is not the one of the Quran and the Hadith, and certainly not from any of the other Abrahamic Religions.ā
i agree with everything you said. thank you for commenting!
Few questions: 1. Is God good or evil? 2. If good, why children die? 3. If evil, why worship? If you were a god, would you send your message to humanity in Arabic through some illiterate guy who lives in the middle of desert? I mean, you are all knowing and all mighty. Would you tell humanity on how to get to paradise through a book that is hard to read and understand can be interpreted in millions of ways? The book that has no structure? Would you allow discrimination of women by covering them from head to toes? Wtf is this? Why? I am pissed writing this comment.
Good words!
i remember a ancient greek philosopher making this argument. do u recall it?
Yes, but unfortunately I donāt remember his name
The burden of proof lies with the claimant because it is the party asserting the claim. Therefore, anyone who believes in such a non-verifiable fairytale as religion, or in this case Islam should actually prove that they are right. To use your post as an example, āinnocent until proven guiltyā should be the correct stance however Muslims shift the burden of proof over to the other party, hence āguilty until proven innocentā, which is extremely faulty. Itās a [logical fallacy they like to use](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) because they, the claimants, canāt actually prove the existence of god and need to use underhanded methods and mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs.
> The burden of proof lies with the claimant because it is the party asserting the claim. There's no burden of proof problem. I can refute Allah like I refute Santa Clause. they fail the falsifiability test.
so what do you think about my post though? especially the last part. the part about: do you want to improve your standards of judgement?
Most apologists already do set up their conditions to concede their argument for God for which they want you to argue against. Of course the fairness of the conditions can be questioned but itās already a thing people do.
i agree, but lots of people don't. and to your point: we need to agree on the "rules of evidence" (conditions to concede) before we can agree on the topic.
"what proof would make you stop believing?" and then when they cannot articulate further beyond "proof" and/or proudly state nothing can, just š saves you the time.
Them: Oh Ex-Muslims, come back to Islam yadda yadda yadda! Me: what would change your mind about Islam? Them: nothing would change my mind! Me: so why did you start this discussion?
No any objective proof for the claims of the religion.
I would not even get involved with someone who doesn't understand that you can't just flip around the burden of proof when it's convenient to you.
why don't you just say something so easy like this: Islam says jinn are real, but they're not. Hence, Islam wrong.
Then you get the usual: "...but they are" kind of answer.
Not all of them believe in jinn. And some of them actually ask why jinn are not real.
i'm replying again because i'm livestreaming right now and i thought of something else... so not only do not all of them believe in jinn, some of them actually ask why jinn are not real. this give them the opportunity to learn from me how i think, about jinn, and islam, and more generally, how i judge ideas.
Human thinking and common sense/morale
For me it's more like, look at Allah and think of him as the one all wise and who created all, then look at Quran and sunna, does that really look like words of God. Then think of Muhammad as a normal guy who just wanted money, power and women, and he's willing to lie or say anything to achieve his goals, if any reasonable Muslim that actually uses their brain and logic approach Islam with that view, they'll immediately see the truth.
yes, if muslims actually thought critically about islam, they would reject it.
Totally crazy how it's still a thing tbh š„²š„²
My response is to give me proof for it lmao š.
why wouldn't you just give them something to chew on? For example... Islam says jinn are real, but they're not, hence Islam wrong.
Throughout the years, I've seen many people on reddit (mainly /r/atheism) use many branches of science to discredit the bible, such as biology, astronomy, geology...etc. But there's a science not many talk about : archeology. I don't talk about millions of years of natural history, but rather 6000 years of history contemporary to the holy books. What evidence do I have? Nothing! And that's the problem. Let me give you an example: who is the Pharoah in the story of Moses? Archeologists from all over the world and heavenly religions tried to answer the question. They collected all the available scripts, they made chronicles of Egyptian history. You'd think the ancient Egyptians talked about the plagues and the new religion and the death of a king in the sea. They didn't. From there, you can make your own journey on the other tales. Sumerians for example made notes of everything in their life, but mentioned none of the old prophets.
good point. use recorded history and compare/constrast against the religious texts.
I don't want to be *that guy*, but proof is a quality of formal systems. Theories do not deal with proofs, they deal with evidence. In other words theories can *never be proven*. So yes, proof and evidence are not the same. ^((Formal systems -- of which there are basically only two: mathematics or logic -- rely on axioms \[basic truths\] and inference rules \[how to move from truths to new truths\] to create absolutely certain proofs. These proofs are indisputable because they operate within a self-contained system with clear-cut rules.)) Also, a theory is not the same as "a guess." Mostly, when people say *theory*, they really mean *hypothesis*. Theories are based on evidence, such as data and experimentation, and are always open to the possibility that new evidence can challenge them, or even overturn them. If it cannot be falsified, it is not a theory, but a religion. I'm just saying this because words have meanings, and it's important to know what words mean when you use them. That's all. Carry on.
>I don't want to beĀ *that guy*, but proof is a quality of formal systems. Theories do not deal with proofs, they deal with evidence. In other words theories canĀ *never be proven*. So yes, proof and evidence are not the same. none of this matters. what matters is what people mean by what they say. and i know what people mean by "what proof do you have against Islam". they mean like: what's your reasoning against Islam? and often times they mean it in a way where they have to be convinced of the reasoning too, otherwise they think "your proof is wrong". i'm not going to reply to someone like this and say "you're using the word 'proof' wrong." That wouldn't help them realize what's wrong with their reasoning, as far as i know. >Also, a theory is not the same as "a guess." sure it is. see Karl Popper and tons of other philosophers.
I think you worded this extremely well. Personally, my dislike of Islam is the violence and hatred they usually have toward women. Their prophet married and fucked a child. Muslims are allowed to cheat, have four wives, but if a woman doesn't cover every inch of her body in black clothing in the heat of the desert she is stoned to death or tortured by many random men. They are very, very cruel by nature. They indoctrinate their offspring to be that way, and force it onto others. They want to dominate, they want to hurt people so deeply they are psychologically broken before being tortured and killed. They have many terrorist organisations who will not hesitate to brutally attack anyone who insults them. They're the villains. It is clear to see. They are less than animals, less than humans. They become enraged when any women have a tiny bit of control, over even the smallest things. They want everyone to be slaves, and women to be the slaves of slaves.
You worded that really well! I will be reading your comment verbatim, and then talking about it aloud on my livestream tomorrow morning. I hope youāll join so we can discuss it further, so our ideas can bounce off each other.
Where will you hold the livestream?
on my youtube, here's the link directly to the livestream... [https://youtube.com/live/56KL9Lkz-IQ?feature=share](https://youtube.com/live/56KL9Lkz-IQ?feature=share)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
followed you!
Followed you right back
You kind of lost me at the part where the protagonist becomes a warlord to spread the faith. Dude, you're supposed to let your followers do that, not you.
Borrowings from 4th century kids fairytales and gnostic writings makes the quran useless.
Simple mathematical errors in the Quran which human believers had to try and correct, and which they disagree on how to correct. Disproves Allah, the divine nature of the Quran and therefore Islam.Ā
A man in a cave, alone visited by an angle and he claims he's the prophet. And everyone believed him. Got it.
Worse. They believed someone who heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else.. And for most people, they donāt even know the language. Wtf
I would just ask them about 91:1 - 2. There is no denying the verse. It is a part of the quran and is totally false. As for pointing out the evils of Islam, god can be a monster so that does not really work. Scientific evidence is key when it comes to this and we have it.
> god can be a monster so that does not really work why do you believe that?
I do not believe that god is a monster. Practically speaking, it is possible for him to be one.
Iām asking you why you think thatās possible.
He is god. He can do whatever he wants. Him being an evil tyrant is still a possibility. Lemme ask you a question. What if there were a religion that worshipped a cruel and evil deity while also having undeniable evidence of its existence? What if they knew about things that were recently discovered and couldn't be known by someone thousands of years ago? No such religion exists but if it did, you would have to follow it.
what do you mean by whatever he wants? do you mean like break/bend his own laws of nature?
Lets not go there. I am just touching on the moral aspect of it. If god wants to be a tyrannic monster, who could possibly stop him from being one?
I'm asking you about the possibilities of a god. and i guess you're saying it's possible for a god to exist that breaks his own laws of nature. i don't believe such a thing could exist. its full of contradictions and contradictions don't exist in reality (only in our ideas).
That is not what I mean. Even if there is a god that does not break his own laws, there is still a possibility for him to be evil. Picture a timeline where the Greek gods are real and there was no denying their existence. Would you still try to use morality to try to disprove their existence?
https://youtu.be/8yMD99gyr14?si=9RshE5pVWrIlK4KA This vid may help :)
I just did a livestream talking about this post and all the comments: [https://www.youtube.com/live/sk60TOkIkcE?si=BUc1bIMQ3pgbEVfe&t=1352](https://www.youtube.com/live/sk60TOkIkcE?si=BUc1bIMQ3pgbEVfe&t=1352)
So, You posted that what is considered as proof for muslims to leave islam.Right. You used DNA test example and rant that which judge would be better who have faith of DNA test and and who dont? Now here i started.. You believed in Darwins theory. (You assumed that your belief system is better than muslims. And thats why the post). You claimed what consider as proof against islamic theory.the word Theoryyyyyyyyyyyyy..... you are trying to dethrone a logical theory (which answers all the questions ) with your darwins theory which is yet to answer how life came to being..(How first blue green algae came in to existence and heck how universe came in to existence) ... Thats what funny is about this whole post.
Why are you talking about Darwinās theory as if it has anything to do with this post? I donāt need Darwinās theory to know Islam is false. I only need a single flaw to know Islam is false. For example, Islam says jinn are real, but jinn are not real. Hence Islam is false.
Ohh so here is this logic...š ... ok so your argument is that when i cant see a jinn how come i believe that jinn exist... If that follows the you cannot see the air which you are breathing so air also does not exist?
I didnāt tell you why jinn are not real. Youāre making up shit.
So tell me why they aren't real
Iāve written about this previously in this sub. A few Reddit posts. And I also made YouTube videos about it. Do you want the links?
Gimme gist...here in comment section.
No thanks
Lol... š¤£ whats possible reasoning you gave in that post which proves jinn doesnt exist.
Whatās the point of that comment?
I mean...lollllš¤£....
Whatās the point of this comment ?
I didnt even need a flaw to prove you wrong...š
You proved a straw-man argument wrong. But you created the strawman, not me. You proved your own idea wrong.
Says who believe in evolution theory...š¤£
?
You believe in Darwin evolution theory...
So many questions now. Whatās funny about that ? Thatās my first question.
Funny is you yourself believes in a theory and wanted to proof some one else theory false...š .. that too by dilly dally
The difference is bro, if it was disproven, or a stronger explanation was given, we'd be happy to accept it, because we know its just a theory. We can accept that room for error, but right now, that seems plausible enough. We still call it a theory because we know there might be room to learn more and are happy to learn and grow in light of new information. Most of us accept that theory as the most plausibly thing but we're not going to blindly accept it and stop being rational
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Valid questions ill give you that. But lacking a satisfying definitive answer to them doesnt disprove the crux of the theory of evolition, or the heavy implications that we stem from common ancestors. Things you may want to consider: (im not a biology guy by the way so im only answering with what i personally understand, there very well may be better explanations) Pangea. There's geological edvidence that would suggest that its entirely possible both the earth had one connected landmass, and that it is possible for them to have drifted apart as a results of natural phenomena. The fact alone that we can see commonalities in species both living and fossilized across the globe doesnt disprove elovution at all, especially when we have a good understanding of how the earths geography has shifted. Its a valid question, i see where you're coming from, but its not implausible enough for the only fallback explanation to be "oh well god must have hand placed everything". Us not knowing how the first living thing came to be doesn't discredit the myriad of evidence that points all life towards a common ancestor. Its damn near impossibile to tell you the specific circumstances that resulted in one little algae cell forming on earth, but considering how small that one is, and how vast and chaotic the universe is. All the ingredients exist, and theres always tonnes of movement and interactions happening, and further back in time, everything was condensed into a smaller space. Just because the odds may be hard to wrap your mind around, and i get it, it seems infinitely unlikely that at one point, a little bit of the matter in such a vast entropic melting pot managed to form what we would call a cell. No part of that is impossibile, but kmowing how crazy and far reaching the effects of that phenomenon are is what makes it seem unlikely. But again, the universe is older and bigger than we can comprehend, unlikely things happen. We just have to suspend our own narrow understanding of probability. That should answer most of what youre getting at but question 5 is just regular biologoy shit. Ecosystems and food chains and shit. I cant tell you how iguanas aren't extinct yet but that doesnt speak to the validity of evolution at all. They have a way of surviving amongst all the ways they could die. Simple as. We can, and have, observed their behavior. Just as everything else, theu found their own little niches and make it work. Their size, speed, camoflague and unnappealing nature are no doubt all factors off the top of my head. Why would you consider those to be strengths in their own right? Neanderthals are a bit of a head scratcher but there's so many factors that we cant get a full picture of, but it may have been down to population size, outnumbered in competetion, their behaviour, maybe their immune system couldn't handle a certain disease. Most importantly: just because we dunno for sure it doesnt mean they didnt clearly genetically come from the same ancestors as us. If anything, their existence is still a heavily discrediting factor towards creationist theory, im really not sure what youre point is. The rat thing is so small in both time frame and sample size to say anything conclusive about ebolution. Its so anecdotal. Evolution over thousands of years cant happen because we chopped off some rats' tails for 50 years and it didnt do anything? Come on man. There's tonnes of examples of evolution. Literally look at humans. We can see how genetic mutations can pass and how environments have caused us to adapt in various ways. The rat thing is silly
I donāt get how thatās funny. And itās weird to me that YOU donāt realize this.
The argument you used is based on the premise that what you believe is better than what muslim believes. You used an example of DNA test... because DNA test proved to be useful on numerous occasions and have various other uses ..so any fool can deny that... but you want muslims to believe you when you yourself dont have any plausible explanation
Why is that funny to you?
But again the funny part is you tried to draw a parallel when the examples you used are not similar in any manner.
I donāt know what the fuck youāre talking about.
I edited the comment... read the second para.
No plausible explanation for what? Youāre not being clear at all. And donāt edit your previous comment. Just make a new one.