i can proof god is real (agnostic and atheist click this!)

[sync!]

I'm arguing against 3 of you and still winning, funny.

no lol your poinyt being debunked 50 times you bring em over and over and now were just tired cuz arguing with you is pointless ur like a dog who never get tired of barking

 

[Sage]

im too tired bru but ur a kaffir

Classic, can't defend your arguments so you call me a disbeliever, no shit, Sherlock.
You said he sent it in English and I corrected you, you're tired because you know you're wrong.

 

[Sage]

no lol your poinyt being debunked 50 times you bring em over and over and now were just tired cuz arguing with you is pointless ur like a dog who never get tired of barking

3 vs 1 and none of you can answer backbone, free will, or child marriage without adding words. keep running in circles together.

 

[Ahmed88]

When did he debunk it, it's not middle. Writing paragraphs for one "Simple" verse is extremely stupid, yes saying "Why didn't god make it clear" is a reasonable argument, this is just mental gymnastics and vague wording

Every argument you made has been debunked, and when it does you just find out another reason to argue, people don't have time to solve every teensy fucking question, you have, if you want to debate so badly go to the local mosque, i bet there's tons of people there

 

[sync!]

3 vs 1 and none of you can answer backbone, free will, or child marriage without adding words. keep running in circles together.

1. i alr debunked child marriage
2. backbone is litereally false in english it wasnt translated properly and has a different meaning in arabic (u can ask chatgpt)
and idk what the freewill point was

 

[Sage]

Every argument you made has been debunked, and when it does you just find out another reason to argue, people don't have time to solve every teensy fucking question, you have, if you want to debate so badly go to the local mosque, i bet there's tons of people there

debunked" where? backbone. free will. child marriage. without adding words. "go to mosque" deflection

 

[Sage]

1. i alr debunked child marriage
2. backbone is litereally false in english it wasnt translated properly and has a different meaning in arabic (u can ask chatgpt)
and idk what the freewill point was

"debunked"strategy and memory don't require a 9 year old. not debunked. "backbone translation" it's only clear in arabic, not for all humanity. chatgpt gives 10 interpretations. vague. "freewill" if God knows everything with certainty, you can't do otherwise. that's not free will.

 

[sync!]

"debunked"strategy and memory don't require a 9 year old. not debunked. "backbone translation" it's only clear in arabic, not for all humanity. chatgpt gives 10 interpretations. vague. "freewill" if God knows everything with certainty, you can't do otherwise. that's not free will.

what are things that removes our freewill? this entire sentence made 0 sense can you pls read what ur typing before sending because this just looks like words slapped on each other

 

[Ahmed88]

debunked" where? backbone. free will. child marriage. without adding words. "go to mosque" deflection

I'm not ruing my post-rep on you faggot

Like i said, you can throw words to seem smart, but there's a mosque you can go to debate

 

[Sage]

what are things that removes our freewill? this entire sentence made 0 sense can you pls read what ur typing before sending because this just looks like words slapped on each other

If God knows what you'll choose with certainty, you can't choose differently.

I'm not ruing my post-rep on you faggot

Like i said, you can throw words to seem smart, but there's a mosque you can go to debate

you care about internet points more than your religion? sad. you keep saying "go to mosque" because you can't defend your beliefs here. if you had answers, you'd give them. backbone, free will, child marriage, you can't answer without adding words or deflecting.

 

[sync!]

If God knows what you'll choose with certainty, you can't choose differently.

you care about internet points more than your religion? sad. you keep saying "go to mosque" because you can't defend your beliefs here. if you had answers, you'd give them. backbone, free will, child marriage, you can't answer without adding words or deflecting.

retarded point this is like
if you watch a recording of a football match, you know what happens, but your knowledge didn't force the players to make those moves

Knowing what someone will choose does not cause the choice. allah sees the choice, but you still make it freely

 

[Sage]

retarded point this is like
if you watch a recording of a football match, you know what happens, but your knowledge didn't force the players to make those moves

Knowing what someone will choose does not cause the choice. allah sees the choice, but you still make it freely

your football analogy proves my point. If you watch a recording, the outcome is fixed. God knows what you'll do before you exist with 100% certainty. You can't do otherwise. That's a fixed outcome/

"Knowing doesn't cause it" doesn't matter. If his knowledge is perfect and unchangeable, your choice is locked in. You can't surprise him or suddenly do something different.

Still waiting on backbone, free will, and child marriage. You called my point retarded but didn't refute anything.

 

[Ahmed88]

you care about internet points more than your religion? sad. you keep saying "go to mosque" because you can't defend your beliefs here. if you had answers, you'd give them. backbone, free will, child marriage, you can't answer without adding words or deflecting.

I'm not just caring about internet points, i'm caring about valuable time, that i already spent too much on

I'm not defending my "religion" retard, we all know it's going to end nowhere, i've debated countless people multiple times and it went nowhere, so statistically there's absolutely no reason i should ever debate with a retard like you, i say "go to mosque" because there's genuine certified people with more knowledge then anyone on this forum, not 16 year old kids on an incel forum

 

[Sage]

I'm not just caring about internet points, i'm caring about valuable time, that i already spent too much on

I'm not defending my "religion" retard, we all know it's going to end nowhere, i've debated countless people multiple times and it went nowhere, so statistically there's absolutely no reason i should ever debate with a retard like you, i say "go to mosque" because there's genuine certified people with more knowledge then anyone on this forum, not 16 year old kids on an incel forum

youre still here replying, if that wasnt valuable you'd stop.
debates go nowhere because you can't defend them
going to a mosque, already went to one, everyone deflected, like you just did.

 

[sync!]

your football analogy proves my point. If you watch a recording, the outcome is fixed. God knows what you'll do before you exist with 100% certainty. You can't do otherwise. That's a fixed outcome/

"Knowing doesn't cause it" doesn't matter. If his knowledge is perfect and unchangeable, your choice is locked in. You can't surprise him or suddenly do something different.

Still waiting on backbone, free will, and child marriage. You called my point retarded but didn't refute anything.

The claim that the Quran says semen is literally made between the backbone and the ribs comes from taking the translation too literally. The Arabic words ṣulb and tarā’ib can have different meanings and scholars have interpreted them in different ways. The verse doesn’t clearly explain the modern anatomy of where semen comes from. Semen is made by the reproductive organs, so many people understand the verse as a more general or poetic description of human creation.

 

[Sage]

The claim that the Quran says semen is literally made between the backbone and the ribs comes from taking the translation too literally. The Arabic words ṣulb and tarā’ib can have different meanings and scholars have interpreted them in different ways. The verse doesn’t clearly explain the modern anatomy of where semen comes from. Semen is made by the reproductive organs, so many people understand the verse as a more general or poetic description of human creation.

"scholars have different interpretations" thats the point. if it was clear, you wouldn't need interpretations. proving my point.

"general or poetic" so it's not a miracle? just poetry?

still waiting on free will and child marriage. you're retreating into "poetic"

 

[sync!]

"scholars have different interpretations" thats the point. if it was clear, you wouldn't need interpretations. proving my point.

"general or poetic" so it's not a miracle? just poetry?

still waiting on free will and child marriage. you're retreating into "poetic"

Having different interpretations doesn’t automatically disprove something. Many ancient texts require interpretation because languages have changed and words have multiple meanings. Also, being poetic doesn’t mean it can’t be meaningful or considered miraculous; poetry can communicate ideas in ways normal speech cannot. The question is whether the interpretation is reasonable, not whether everyone agrees on one wordingg

And for the child marriage part you can scroll up i alr debunked it...

 

[Sage]

Having different interpretations doesn’t automatically disprove something. Many ancient texts require interpretation because languages have changed and words have multiple meanings. Also, being poetic doesn’t mean it can’t be meaningful or considered miraculous; poetry can communicate ideas in ways normal speech cannot. The question is whether the interpretation is reasonable, not whether everyone agrees on one wordingg

And for the child marriage part you can scroll up i alr debunked it...

Yep exactly if It was clear, it wouldn't need reinterpretation.
Poetic is not scientific.
You didn't debunk child marriage, if you did please put it under your reply again.

 

[sync!]

Yep exactly if It was clear, it wouldn't need reinterpretation.
Poetic is not scientific.
You didn't debunk child marriage, if you did please put it under your reply again.

Needing interpretation doesn’t prove a text is unclear it’s normal for old languages to have multiple meanings. And poetry and science aren’t always opposites a statement can use poetic language while still referring to something real. The question is whether the interpretation is valid.

also for the child marriage my point was that it was NORMAL back then

 

[Sage]

Needing interpretation doesn’t prove a text is unclear it’s normal for old languages to have multiple meanings. And poetry and science aren’t always opposites a statement can use poetic language while still referring to something real. The question is whether the interpretation is valid.

also for the child marriage my point was that it was NORMAL back then

"Needing interpretation" proves it's unclear especially when used as a scientific miracle. Poetry isn't science. 'Normal back then' doesn't make it right lol slavery was normal too I already went over this. You keep saying you debunked child marriage but just said it was normal. That's excusing, not debunking. Burden of proof is on you/

 

[EmperorVon]

People believed life originated from Water way before such as Thales of Miletus in the 6th century BC over a thousand years before Muhammad was even born

 

[sync!]

"Needing interpretation" proves it's unclear especially when used as a scientific miracle. Poetry isn't science. 'Normal back then' doesn't make it right lol slavery was normal too I already went over this. You keep saying you debunked child marriage but just said it was normal. That's excusing, not debunking. Burden of proof is on you/

iinterpretation ≠ automatically unclear. Ancient languages often need interpretation because words have context and multiple meanings. Also, poetic language and factual claims are not mutually exclusive; the real question is whether the verse was meant as a scientific claim in the first place.
slavery was normal back then but classified as wrong.
child marriage was normal and was classified as normal.
so at thatt ime many people were against slaver.y
but there were barely any people against child marriage.

 

[Sage]

iinterpretation ≠ automatically unclear. Ancient languages often need interpretation because words have context and multiple meanings. Also, poetic language and factual claims are not mutually exclusive; the real question is whether the verse was meant as a scientific claim in the first place.
slavery was normal back then but classified as wrong.
child marriage was normal and was classified as normal.
so at thatt ime many people were against slaver.y
but there were barely any people against child marriage.

10 interpretations is immedately unclear.
And yeah poetry ≠ science.
"Barely anyone was against it" barely anyone was against slavery for most of the times we've been on earth too. Normal does not mean moral.
You keep saying that it's normal, it doesn't matter.

 

[sync!]

10 interpretations is immedately unclear.
And yeah poetry ≠ science.
"Barely anyone was against it" barely anyone was against slavery for most of the times we've been on earth too. Normal does not mean moral.
You keep saying that it's normal, it doesn't matter.

Multiple interpretations show that a text can be deb/ated, not necessarily that it is meaningless. Ancient texts often require interpretation because language depends on contextt and saying “poetry isn’t science” only works if the verse is meant to be a scientific claim that’s the part that actually needs to be argued.?
?? many people were against slavery during slavery what are you on about? it was only white people who were pro slavery or the people who did the slaving (which was a small population) meanwhile the slaves and all other were against it.

 

[LoveTheWayYouLie]

Islam started in the 7th century AD.
Archimedes had an approximation for the size of the sun and his own planetarium literally hundreds of years prior.

 

[sync!]

Islam started in the 7th century AD.
Archimedes had an approximation for the size of the sun and his own planetarium literally hundreds of years prior.

does claims
doesnt provide sources and proof

 

[Sage]

Multiple interpretations show that a text can be deb/ated

sure, but when a verse is used as a scientific miracle, it shouldn't require debate. It should be clear. If God wanted to tell us where sperm comes from, He could've just said "testicles." Instead we have 10 interpretations.

saying “poetry isn’t science” only works if the verse is meant to be a scientific claim that’s the part that actually needs to be argued.?

exactly. That's my point. If it's not meant to be scientific, then why do Muslims use it as a scientific miracle?

?? many people were against slavery during slavery what are you on about? it was only white people who were pro slavery or the people who did the slaving (which was a small population) meanwhile the slaves and all other were against it.

but not everywhere and not always. The point is "normal" doesn't mean "moral." Whether people were against it or not doesn't change that. Child marriage was normal, but that doesn't make it right. That's the whole argument.

 

[sync!]

sure, but when a verse is used as a scientific miracle, it shouldn't require debate. It should be clear. If God wanted to tell us where sperm comes from, He could've just said "testicles." Instead we have 10 interpretations.

exactly. That's my point. If it's not meant to be scientific, then why do Muslims use it as a scientific miracle?

but not everywhere and not always. The point is "normal" doesn't mean "moral." Whether people were against it or not doesn't change that. Child marriage was normal, but that doesn't make it right. That's the whole argument.

The disagreement is not whether the verse says “testicles” it doesn’t. The disagreement is whether it was ever intended as a detailed anatomy lesson. If someone claims it is a scientific miracle, they have to prove that from the text and context; if someone claims it cannot have any scientific meaning, they also have to prove that. The interpretation itself is the debate.

and anither oner of my point is that marrying them back then was normal and seen as right but for slavery sure it was normal but seen as wrong murders and robberies are normal but also seen as wrong meanwhile eating is seen as normal and seen as right so it 2 different THINGS!!

 

[InertiaBoy]

Thank god you understand this. Religioncels always try to put the burden of proof of god not existing on atheists when it should be religious people sayinf why god exists.

Either way heres my evidence for evolution: https://tsjok45.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/evolution__3rd_edition-ridley-book.pdf

Nigga want me to read a 800 page book are u fr

 

[Sage]

The disagreement is not whether the verse says “testicles” it doesn’t. The disagreement is whether it was ever intended as a detailed anatomy lesson. If someone claims it is a scientific miracle, they have to prove that from the text and context; if someone claims it cannot have any scientific meaning, they also have to prove that. The interpretation itself is the debate.

and anither oner of my point is that marrying them back then was normal and seen as right but for slavery sure it was normal but seen as wrong murders and robberies are normal but also seen as wrong meanwhile eating is seen as normal and seen as right so it 2 different THINGS!!

If it's a scientific miracle, it shouldn't require debate. It should be clear. God could've just said "testicles" and ended all discussion. Instead we have 10 interpretations and scholars disagreeing. A clear miracle would've been better for everyone. So why didn't He make it clear? You can't claim it's a scientific miracle and then say "well it's up for interpretation." That's a stupid muslimtard contradiction. If you claim it's a miracle, prove it from the text without adding new words. And "it was normal" doesn't make it right. People thought slavery was normal. People thought sacrificing children was normal. "Seen as right" ≠ "actually right". That's the whole point stop changing shit up.

 

[sync!]

If it's a scientific miracle, it shouldn't require debate. It should be clear. God could've just said "testicles" and ended all discussion. Instead we have 10 interpretations and scholars disagreeing. A clear miracle would've been better for everyone. So why didn't He make it clear? You can't claim it's a scientific miracle and then say "well it's up for interpretation." That's a stupid muslimtard contradiction. If you claim it's a miracle, prove it from the text without adding new words. And "it was normal" doesn't make it right. People thought slavery was normal. People thought sacrificing children was normal. "Seen as right" ≠ "actually right". That's the whole point stop changing shit up.

The issue is whether the verse was meant as a technical scientific statement or not. If it was meant to be a biology lesson, then the criticism about clarity is stronger. But if it is a broader description of human creation, expecting the word “testicles” is applying a modern standard to an ancient text. The scientific miracle claim still has to be argued from the text, though.

and like i said
and anither oner of my point is that marrying them back then was normal and seen as right but for slavery sure it was normal but seen as wrong murders and robberies are normal but also seen as wrong meanwhile eating is seen as normal and seen as right so it 2 different THINGS!!
so for ur slow brain
marrying 9 year old back then = seen as right and normal
slavery back then = seen as normal NOT SEEN AS RIGHT (BY MINORITY OF PEOPLE)

 

[InertiaBoy]

So finally the claim I made in the beginning is true, you're literally admitting you're a pedo @DildoFaggins

What claim

 

[Sage]

The issue is whether the verse was meant as a technical scientific statement or not. If it was meant to be a biology lesson, then the criticism about clarity is stronger. But if it is a broader description of human creation, expecting the word “testicles” is applying a modern standard to an ancient text. The scientific miracle claim still has to be argued from the text, though.

and like i said
and anither oner of my point is that marrying them back then was normal and seen as right but for slavery sure it was normal but seen as wrong murders and robberies are normal but also seen as wrong meanwhile eating is seen as normal and seen as right so it 2 different THINGS!!
so for ur slow brain
marrying 9 year old back then = seen as right and normal
slavery back then = seen as normal NOT SEEN AS RIGHT (BY MINORITY OF PEOPLE)

If it's a "broader description," stop calling it a scientific miracle. If it's a miracle, it should be clear. God could've said "balls." He didn't. A clear miracle would've been better.
Normal ≠ moral. You keep splitting hairs between slavery and child marriage, doesn't matter. Society can be wrong. People thought slavery was normal. Child sacrifice was normal. "Seen as right" ≠ right. That's the whole point. Stop saying "it was normal" as if that means anything.

 

[yushmaxx]

Nigga want me to read a 800 page book are u fr

How else am I supposed to prove to you that evolution is real? It is documented and is scientifically accepted by EVERY SINGLE place of education. You choosing to not believe it is ignorance.

 

[sync!]

If it's a "broader description," stop calling it a scientific miracle. If it's a miracle, it should be clear. God could've said "balls." He didn't. A clear miracle would've been better.
Normal ≠ moral. You keep splitting hairs between slavery and child marriage, doesn't matter. Society can be wrong. People thought slavery was normal. Child sacrifice was normal. "Seen as right" ≠ right. That's the whole point. Stop saying "it was normal" as if that means anything.

The argument only works if the verse is supposed to be a biology lesson. If someone claims it is a detailed scientific prediction, they need to prove that. But not every religious sign has to be written as a modern scientific explanation to have meaning. The real debate is about what the verse is intended to communicate.

holy SHIT AND YOU DONT GET IT!! AT FIRST you said i said it was normal back then. you fired back by sayi ng slavery was normal.
whats the key difference?
one was seen as right and normal
one was seen as wrong and normal

 

[Sage]

What claim

man sorry for all this but its been 4 hours and its 2 am im sleepy

 

[silently_said]

dnr bucaileism ramblings the quran gets embryology embarrassingly wrong

 

[Sage]

The argument only works if the verse is supposed to be a biology lesson. If someone claims it is a detailed scientific prediction, they need to prove that. But not every religious sign has to be written as a modern scientific explanation to have meaning. The real debate is about what the verse is intended to communicate.

HOLY SHIT AND YOU DONT GET IT!! AT FIRST you said i said it was normal back then. you fired back by sayi ng slavery was normal.
whats the key difference?
one was seen as right and normal
one was seen as wrong and normal

You changed the debate because you're obviously using AI then adding that slop at the end "muh real debate is about what the verse is intended to communicate"
I don't fucking care if it's normal please read it thoroughly even if it was right and normal back then that doesn't make it any more moral or better. society can be wrong

 

[Sage]

I'm going to sleep, goodnight.

 

[sync!]

You changed the debate because you're obviously using AI then adding that slop at the end "muh real debate is about what the verse is intended to communicate"
I don't fucking care if it's normal please read it thoroughly even if it was right and normal back then that doesn't make it any more moral or better. society can be wrong

¨¨society can be wrong¨¨ ok and how is it his fault? also i didnt use ai i typed my sentences in arabic and translated it to enlgish because i dont know what the word for it is in english