Muslims and Christmas
Every year I notice Muslims asking their scholars or learned ones how to respond when told merry Christmas. Stupidly enough it's rehashed not to participate in a pagan celebration or rite and by wishing kuffars merry Xmas you are encouraging them.
As an atheist when I say merry Christmas this does not mean I am endorsing the birth of the God-man or advocating the Christian theology behind it.
But this is indeed what this religion does turn such a simple pleasant token into a corrupted satanic. Gesture not to be responded to in kind.
This is another reason to f**k Islam. This is the type of hyperliteral lunacy that religion breeds. Who would of thought such an insignificant issue required a post but no doubt Muslim have hundreds of pages dedicated to absurd questions like this.
Atheist on David Wood blog named Don Dan refutes himself based on his own standard
An atheist who is called Don Dan happened to post a comment on David Wood's blog, the thread is called arguement from reason. The atheist says that he only believes in things based on evidence. It appears that he hasn't taken the time to think about these issues philosophically. Since he presupposes that David Wood must have evidence for God and the Holy Bible in order for them to be true.
A problem arises if that is the case, question is does he have evidence for evidence and evidence for that evidence, which would lead up to infinite regress? And that would mean he doesn't have justification for the very evidence that he demands, he simply assumes that we must have evidence.
Since assumptions without evidence are invalid according to his standard, then that would mean his very challenge to David Wood is invalid because it is just merely an assumption in which he doesn't have evidence for evidence.
Secondly, in light of his naturalistic worldview, how does he account for the laws of logic which are immaterial? Because he assumes these laws of logic, while he presents his challenge to David Wood. Just curious, why in the world is David Wood obligated to be rational according to the atheistic worldview? And if David Wood is obligated to be rational, how does Dan justify from going from what is the case and what ought to be the case?
He says that he is just like the apostle Thomas, he wouldn't believe unless he has seen Jesus and the nails on his hands and feet. I chuckled when I read this comment, because if that is the case why isn't he demanding to see the laws of logic?
And even if he does demand the laws of logic he has to assume these laws while demanding them or denying them, which is a self refutation.
Since Don may be reading this blog and anticipating my evidence for God, this is my answer God is the precondition for evidence and apart from him we can't know anything for certain.
Ironically Don every time you attempt to use evidence to refute the existence God, it is a self refutation. Kind of like arguing against air but while breathing air, aruging against words while using words.
Sidenote: Don Dan every time you engage in science apart from the Christian God you have the problem of induction, in which I will soon demonstrate.
I recall you saying that you are similar to the apostle Thomas because just like him you would demand that you see the nails and wounds on the body of Jesus before you would believe in his resurrection basically alluding that you are a champion of evidence.
Question on what bases do you believe that anytime someone is nailed to a cross that he would have wounds and bruises on his body and also in what bases do you deny that someone could raise from the dead? You would eventually argue from induction Don Dan, but you can't account for induction with out engaging in circular reasoning. Which would mean your boast about being like Thomas is futile since you don't have any justification for what you are boasting about sir.
Another atheist bites the dust.
I would like to thank my Lord and Savior for bringing me out of the darkness of Islam and Atheism. Lord willing my co author will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and come into the perfectly saving hands of Jesus. Nothing but love for you Derek Adams you are major influence in my life
A problem arises if that is the case, question is does he have evidence for evidence and evidence for that evidence, which would lead up to infinite regress? And that would mean he doesn't have justification for the very evidence that he demands, he simply assumes that we must have evidence.
Since assumptions without evidence are invalid according to his standard, then that would mean his very challenge to David Wood is invalid because it is just merely an assumption in which he doesn't have evidence for evidence.
Secondly, in light of his naturalistic worldview, how does he account for the laws of logic which are immaterial? Because he assumes these laws of logic, while he presents his challenge to David Wood. Just curious, why in the world is David Wood obligated to be rational according to the atheistic worldview? And if David Wood is obligated to be rational, how does Dan justify from going from what is the case and what ought to be the case?
He says that he is just like the apostle Thomas, he wouldn't believe unless he has seen Jesus and the nails on his hands and feet. I chuckled when I read this comment, because if that is the case why isn't he demanding to see the laws of logic?
And even if he does demand the laws of logic he has to assume these laws while demanding them or denying them, which is a self refutation.
Since Don may be reading this blog and anticipating my evidence for God, this is my answer God is the precondition for evidence and apart from him we can't know anything for certain.
Ironically Don every time you attempt to use evidence to refute the existence God, it is a self refutation. Kind of like arguing against air but while breathing air, aruging against words while using words.
Sidenote: Don Dan every time you engage in science apart from the Christian God you have the problem of induction, in which I will soon demonstrate.
I recall you saying that you are similar to the apostle Thomas because just like him you would demand that you see the nails and wounds on the body of Jesus before you would believe in his resurrection basically alluding that you are a champion of evidence.
Question on what bases do you believe that anytime someone is nailed to a cross that he would have wounds and bruises on his body and also in what bases do you deny that someone could raise from the dead? You would eventually argue from induction Don Dan, but you can't account for induction with out engaging in circular reasoning. Which would mean your boast about being like Thomas is futile since you don't have any justification for what you are boasting about sir.
Another atheist bites the dust.
I would like to thank my Lord and Savior for bringing me out of the darkness of Islam and Atheism. Lord willing my co author will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and come into the perfectly saving hands of Jesus. Nothing but love for you Derek Adams you are major influence in my life
Challenge to Muslims
I CHALLENGE A SINGLE MUSLIM TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A SONLESS GOD BEFORE THE ADVENT OF ISLAM IN THE 7TH CENTURY IF NT I CHARGE YOU GOD TO BE A MADE UP CONCOCTION AND FABRUCATION THAT HAS NO EXISTENCE IN HISTORY AND OUTSIDE OF YOUR MIND.
Samuel Lattibeaudiere up and coming Christian apologist
Samuel argues from the presuppositional apologetics stand point, he is a current senior in college. He normally goes around the campus questioning the students regarding their worldview. Today while on campus he began speaking to a young lady and the first question he asked her was could she be wrong about everything she claims to know?
She answered him by saying ,yes she could be wrong about everything she claims to know, he follows up by asking her could she be wrong even about that claim it self? and she responded and said yes. Samuel pointed out that she would end up in an infinite regress.
And the only way to stop an infinite regress is someone who has infinite knowledge which is YWH. She responded back by saying we can't be certain about anything and Sam goes on ask her is she certain that we don't certainty? and she says yes.
He argues that her statment is self refuting and the only way we can have certainy is from an ALL KNOWING BEING, i.e YWH who can reveal things to his creatures in which they can know for certain.
She answered him by saying ,yes she could be wrong about everything she claims to know, he follows up by asking her could she be wrong even about that claim it self? and she responded and said yes. Samuel pointed out that she would end up in an infinite regress.
And the only way to stop an infinite regress is someone who has infinite knowledge which is YWH. She responded back by saying we can't be certain about anything and Sam goes on ask her is she certain that we don't certainty? and she says yes.
He argues that her statment is self refuting and the only way we can have certainy is from an ALL KNOWING BEING, i.e YWH who can reveal things to his creatures in which they can know for certain.
Farhan Qureshi self refuting belief
Farhan Qureshi is a former muslim who embraces the idea that every faith is valid. Secondly according to law of non contradiction a statment can't be both true and false in the very same sense and same way, if contradictory beliefs are equally valid that means I can say things such as: Farhan is wrong for believeing universalism and he can't say am absolutely wrong.
Because people who believe in universalism profess that they don't believe in absolutes. But yet they are making an absolute claim by implying universalism is true.
Its self refuting, all I need to do simply ask Farhan Qureshi is he absolutely certain that universalism is true? If he answers yes, its a self refuting claim, if he answers no, then why in the world is he making a postive claim about universalism if it isn't absolutely true? Since you do not claim objective truth, why should anyone believe you?
Because people who believe in universalism profess that they don't believe in absolutes. But yet they are making an absolute claim by implying universalism is true.
Its self refuting, all I need to do simply ask Farhan Qureshi is he absolutely certain that universalism is true? If he answers yes, its a self refuting claim, if he answers no, then why in the world is he making a postive claim about universalism if it isn't absolutely true? Since you do not claim objective truth, why should anyone believe you?
A critique of Jamal Hassan response to Sam Shamoun
Jamal Hassan says to Sam Shamoun: "Did you ignore the verse in the Quran about Jews changing their book? So if Prophet Muhammad says he believes in the Torah and Allah who revealed the Torah, does that mean everything in it is true? That does not make sense, especially in light of the verse I provided. We Muslims are mandated to believe in all the holy scriptures, does that mean we say everything in it is true? Yes, we believe in the Torah and He who revealed it. But the Quran is clear about the changing of the Torah".
It appears that Jamal is implying that Sam Shamoun should of used deductive reasoning and if he did, he wouldn't have assumed that Muhmmad believed in all of the Torah as the word of Allah. Since supposedly the Quran states the Jews changed their book. Problem that Jamal has to face is according to the Quran none can change the words of Allah.
The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. (S. 6:115 Pickthall)
1. None can change the words of Allah. 2. The Torah is the word of Allah. 3. Therefore Torah cannot be cannot be changed.
Because Jamal wants to interpret certain Quranic passages as saying that the Jews did change the Torah with their hands, he is faced with dealing with a contradiction, its either Allah's word namely the Torah can't be corrupted or can be corrupted? If he argues the former then he has to accept the Torah as the uncorrupt word of Allah, but if he argues the latter he would have to question the trustworthiness and omnipotence of Allah for making the claim that none can change his words.
It appears that Jamal is implying that Sam Shamoun should of used deductive reasoning and if he did, he wouldn't have assumed that Muhmmad believed in all of the Torah as the word of Allah. Since supposedly the Quran states the Jews changed their book. Problem that Jamal has to face is according to the Quran none can change the words of Allah.
The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. (S. 6:115 Pickthall)
1. None can change the words of Allah. 2. The Torah is the word of Allah. 3. Therefore Torah cannot be cannot be changed.
Because Jamal wants to interpret certain Quranic passages as saying that the Jews did change the Torah with their hands, he is faced with dealing with a contradiction, its either Allah's word namely the Torah can't be corrupted or can be corrupted? If he argues the former then he has to accept the Torah as the uncorrupt word of Allah, but if he argues the latter he would have to question the trustworthiness and omnipotence of Allah for making the claim that none can change his words.
Sam Shamoun quotes Hadith demonstrating that Muhmmad believed in all of the Torah, not just simply parts of it.
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I BELIEVED IN THEE AND IN HIM WHO REVEALED THEE.
He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434: http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=38&translator=3&start=0&number=4434)
What's interesting Muhmmad makes the profession that he believes in the Torah that the Jews believed in and IN HIM WHO REVEALED THEE, which implies he believes in the very concept of their God that happens to be YWH. But yet the Torah states that YWH is a Father to his people and that they are his childern and the Quran denies both.
Isaiah 63:16 But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.
The Quran denies Allah being a Father and his people being his childern.
Sura 5:18 And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are the children of Allah and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins?" Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return of all.
Question readers should ask themselves how in the world could Muhmmad claim to believe in the very God that the Jews believe when the very basic concept of fatherhood, the Quran denies and Bible affirms?
Wouldn't have Muhmmad known these differences if he was a true prophet?
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I BELIEVED IN THEE AND IN HIM WHO REVEALED THEE.
He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434: http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=38&translator=3&start=0&number=4434)
What's interesting Muhmmad makes the profession that he believes in the Torah that the Jews believed in and IN HIM WHO REVEALED THEE, which implies he believes in the very concept of their God that happens to be YWH. But yet the Torah states that YWH is a Father to his people and that they are his childern and the Quran denies both.
Isaiah 63:16 But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.
The Quran denies Allah being a Father and his people being his childern.
Sura 5:18 And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are the children of Allah and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins?" Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return of all.
Question readers should ask themselves how in the world could Muhmmad claim to believe in the very God that the Jews believe when the very basic concept of fatherhood, the Quran denies and Bible affirms?
Wouldn't have Muhmmad known these differences if he was a true prophet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)