i’m officially converting to islam

[sexist]

god has helped me thru so many battles he never let me alone, i’d be dumb not to believe in him.

thank you so much, dajjal (SWT)

 

[MROK1231]

god has helped me thru so many battles he never let me alone, i’d be dumb not to believe in him.

thank you so much, dajjal (SWT)

i left islam and religion as a whole

 

[TheWigger]

god has helped me thru so many battles he never let me alone, i’d be dumb not to believe in him.

thank you so much, dajjal (SWT)

It's dumb to believe in islam if you are going to pick an abrahamic faith Christianity is the correct one, with the most historical evidence, the islamic dilemma proves its fake

 

[sexist]

i left islam and religion as a whole

dajjal exterminate him

 

[sexist]

It's dumb to believe in islam if you are going to pick an abrahamic faith Christianity is the correct one, with the most historical evidence, the islamic dilemma proves its fake

may dajjal have mercy upon ur soul, though he wont

 

[TheWigger]

may dajjal have mercy upon ur soul, though he wont

quran says to verify if it's truth look at the old books, the old books prove islam isnt true so muslim scholars say that the old books were lost and the records we have today are forgeries yet allah is suppoaed to preserve his word but not for the tawrat and injil also signs the qu'ran is false is the fact that it takes stories from gnostic gospels which were written during the 4th century this all proves islam is unequivocally false

 

[TheWigger]

may dajjal have mercy upon ur soul, though he wont

Christians wouldnt add that lost part "though he wont" because they genuinely would want mercy on ur soul, your religion is demonic af, muslim culture is backwards and produces fruitless socities that's why you all move to the west, the only muslim socities doing well are the more secular ones. You all are pedos, you all fuck animals (not just your wives, your ugly wives dont truly love and desire you so you have to rape and beat them. You guys are most definitely going to hell.

 

[Banned User]

allah strike this nigga down

 

[Demirs]

quran says to verify if it's truth look at the old books, the old books prove islam isnt true so muslim scholars say that the old books were lost and the records we have today are forgeries yet allah is suppoaed to preserve his word but not for the tawrat and injil also signs the qu'ran is false is the fact that it takes stories from gnostic gospels which were written during the 4th century this all proves islam is unequivocally false

Dumbest arguement
that argument mixes several different claims together. the quran doesnt simply say use the bible we have today to test whether islam is true. quran 10:94 addresses muhammad rhetorically and points to people familiar with earlier revelation as confirmation that revelation and prophets existed before him. the quran also presents itself as confirming earlier revelation while acting as a criterion over it.


also, Allah preserving his word doesnt automatically mean every manuscript copied by humans would remain unchanged. in islam, the explicit promise of preservation is applied to the quran, while the quran itself criticizes some people for hiding, misquoting or altering earlier scripture.


the gnostic gospel point doesnt prove copying either. many apocryphal christian traditions date back to the second century and circulated in both written and oral forms before the quran. similarities alone dont prove direct copying from one specific source. to prove that, you would have to show muhammad had access to that exact text and rule out shared oral traditions or earlier common sources.


so you can argue these parallels support a human origin, but saying they unequivocally prove islam is false goes much further than the evidence supports.

 

[MROK1231]

It's dumb to believe in islam if you are going to pick an abrahamic faith Christianity is the correct one, with the most historical evidence, the islamic dilemma proves its fake

both dog shit

 

[TheWigger]

both dog shit

disagree

 

[MROK1231]

disagree

elaborate

 

[TheWigger]

elaborate

i think islam is a barberic religion that doesnt produce fruitful societies, whilst christianity long term has lead to virtues such as mercy, compassion and forgiveness to be emphasised in a society stopping slavery, recognising universal human dignity etc

 

[MROK1231]

i think islam is a barberic religion that doesnt produce fruitful societies, whilst christianity long term has lead to virtues such as mercy, compassion and forgiveness to be emphasised in a society stopping slavery, recognising universal human dignity etc

ahhahah christianity with mercy forgiveness then explain this Deuteronomy 20:16–17:
1 Samuel 15:3:

 

[Bars]

thank you so much, dajjal (SWT)

 

[MROK1231]

i think islam is a barberic religion that doesnt produce fruitful societies, whilst christianity long term has lead to virtues such as mercy, compassion and forgiveness to be emphasised in a society stopping slavery, recognising universal human dignity etc

you arent any better than muslims both barberic religions if you do research and not be biased the only reason people are still religious now adays is emotinally driven

 

[Anatole]

It's dumb to believe in islam if you are going to pick an abrahamic faith Christianity is the correct one, with the most historical evidence, the islamic dilemma proves its fake

No religion make sense anyways. Your "evidence" isn't proof at all and any theory could be made with it's associated "evidence" that don't prove anything

 

[TheWigger]

Dumbest arguement
that argument mixes several different claims together. the quran doesnt simply say use the bible we have today to test whether islam is true. quran 10:94 addresses muhammad rhetorically and points to people familiar with earlier revelation as confirmation that revelation and prophets existed before him. the quran also presents itself as confirming earlier revelation while acting as a criterion over it.


also, Allah preserving his word doesnt automatically mean every manuscript copied by humans would remain unchanged. in islam, the explicit promise of preservation is applied to the quran, while the quran itself criticizes some people for hiding, misquoting or altering earlier scripture.


the gnostic gospel point doesnt prove copying either. many apocryphal christian traditions date back to the second century and circulated in both written and oral forms before the quran. similarities alone dont prove direct copying from one specific source. to prove that, you would have to show muhammad had access to that exact text and rule out shared oral traditions or earlier common sources.


so you can argue these parallels support a human origin, but saying they unequivocally prove islam is false goes much further than the evidence supports.

I guess unequivocally is strong because it definitely is possible that the manuscripts were lost and the ones that were found (dead sea scrolls) contradict islam because they are forgeries but it is highly unlikely and more likely that islam retroactively changed the understanding of past scripture once contradictions with the quran were found and then scholars also interpret the preserving his word thing in order to fit this narrative. "you would have to show muhammad had access to that exact text". not necessarily oral traditions could of spread from that gnostic gospel to saudi

 

[TheWigger]

No religion make sense anyways. Your "evidence" isn't proof at all and any theory could be made with it's associated "evidence" that don't prove anything

I agree somewhat with the second bit whilst i think strong philosophical argument can be made for God's existance (Transcendental Argument), i dont think you can point to any specific religion using scientific arguments

you arent any better than muslims both barberic religions if you do research and not be biased the only reason people are still religious now adays is emotinally driven

Disagree even if in the past christian society had bad elements overtime they rectified and improved those elements, we see moral development occur

 

[Demirs]

I guess unequivocally is strong because it definitely is possible that the manuscripts were lost and the ones that were found (dead sea scrolls) contradict islam because they are forgeries but it is highly unlikely and more likely that islam retroactively changed the understanding of past scripture once contradictions with the quran were found and then scholars also interpret the preserving his word thing in order to fit this narrative. "you would have to show muhammad had access to that exact text". not necessarily oral traditions could of spread from that gnostic gospel to saudi

oral transmission is possible, so youre right that muhammad wouldnt need access to the exact manuscript. but that only gives a possible route for a story to reach arabia, it doesnt prove the quran copied one specific gospel. the same stories could have circulated through several written and oral jewish christian traditions, and scholars generally place the quran within that wider late antique religious environment.

the dead sea scrolls dont settle the issue either. they mainly contain hebrew biblical texts, other jewish religious writings and documents from the second temple period. they are not manuscripts of the original injil given to jesus, so they cannot directly prove what the quran means by the injil.


also, muslim views on tahrif were never completely uniform. some classical scholars argued that earlier scriptures were textually altered, others argued that the text was mainly misinterpreted, and some accepted both forms. so saying scholars simply invented one explanation after discovering contradictions is too simplistic.

you can still argue that the quran reworked stories already circulating in late antiquity and that a human explanation seems more likely to you. thats a valid historical argument. but it is still a probability argument, not something that unequivocally proves islam false.

 

[MROK1231]

I agree somewhat with the second bit whilst i think strong philosophical argument can be made for God's existance (Transcendental Argument), i dont think you can point to any specific religion using scientific arguments

Disagree even if in the past christian society had bad elements overtime they rectified and improved those elements, we see moral development occur

the culture in europe and america is secular not christian thats why we see development

 

[Demirs]

I guess unequivocally is strong because it definitely is possible that the manuscripts were lost and the ones that were found (dead sea scrolls) contradict islam because they are forgeries but it is highly unlikely and more likely that islam retroactively changed the understanding of past scripture once contradictions with the quran were found and then scholars also interpret the preserving his word thing in order to fit this narrative. "you would have to show muhammad had access to that exact text". not necessarily oral traditions could of spread from that gnostic gospel to saudi

oral transmission is possible, so youre right that muhammad wouldnt need access to the exact manuscript. but that only gives a possible route for a story to reach arabia, it doesnt prove the quran copied one specific gospel. the same stories could have circulated through several written and oral jewish christian traditions, and scholars generally place the quran within that wider late antique religious environment.

the dead sea scrolls dont settle the issue either. they mainly contain hebrew biblical texts, other jewish religious writings and documents from the second temple period. they are not manuscripts of the original injil given to jesus, so they cannot directly prove what the quran means by the injil.


also, muslim views on tahrif were never completely uniform. some classical scholars argued that earlier scriptures were textually altered, others argued that the text was mainly misinterpreted, and some accepted both forms. so saying scholars simply invented one explanation after discovering contradictions is too simplistic.

you can still argue that the quran reworked stories already circulating in late antiquity and that a human explanation seems more likely to you. thats a valid historical argument. but it is still a probability argument, not something that unequivocally proves islam false.

 

[Demirs]

I guess unequivocally is strong because it definitely is possible that the manuscripts were lost and the ones that were found (dead sea scrolls) contradict islam because they are forgeries but it is highly unlikely and more likely that islam retroactively changed the understanding of past scripture once contradictions with the quran were found and then scholars also interpret the preserving his word thing in order to fit this narrative. "you would have to show muhammad had access to that exact text". not necessarily oral traditions could of spread from that gnostic gospel to saudi

oral transmission is possible, so youre right that muhammad wouldnt need access to the exact manuscript. but that only gives a possible route for a story to reach arabia, it doesnt prove the quran copied one specific gospel. the same stories could have circulated through several written and oral jewish christian traditions, and scholars generally place the quran within that wider late antique religious environment.

the dead sea scrolls dont settle the issue either. they mainly contain hebrew biblical texts, other jewish religious writings and documents from the second temple period. they are not manuscripts of the original injil given to jesus, so they cannot directly prove what the quran means by the injil.


also, muslim views on tahrif were never completely uniform. some classical scholars argued that earlier scriptures were textually altered, others argued that the text was mainly misinterpreted, and some accepted both forms. so saying scholars simply invented one explanation after discovering contradictions is too simplistic.

you can still argue that the quran reworked stories already circulating in late antiquity and that a human explanation seems more likely to you. thats a valid historical argument. but it is still a probability argument, not something that unequivocally proves islam false.

 

[TheWigger]

the culture in europe and america is secular not christian thats why we see development

secular culture has been highly influenced by christianity even the gay degeneraye stuff is a perversion of Christian values of love and equality

 

[recessedinfras1]

god has helped me thru so many battles he never let me alone, i’d be dumb not to believe in him.

thank you so much, dajjal (SWT)

getting dumber i see

 

[MROK1231]

secular culture has been highly influenced by christianity even the gay degeneraye stuff is a perversion of Christian values of love and equality

no secular culture has not be influenced by religion the defination of secular is that it isnt connected to religion i dont disagree with both islam and christianity with how they see the lgbt community

 

[Anatole]

I agree somewhat with the second bit whilst i think strong philosophical argument can be made for God's existance (Transcendental Argument), i dont think you can point to any specific religion using scientific arguments

Disagree even if in the past christian society had bad elements overtime they rectified and improved those elements, we see moral development occur

Truly I don't care about past events and shit because she were using this to make people slaves. It still kinda is nowadays but not on the same level.

What I do think is that it's inherently impossible to make any claim about there being a god or not.
Truly we will never know for sure since the god would apparently transcend reality itself.
If one day, a god that is indeed part of this reality came showing undeniable proof of it's existence, then I would agree to say it's true.

For now, all there is is evidence on both sides.
Everyone is battling with evidence/counter arguments but none of these constitute real proof

 

[TheWigger]

no secular culture has not be influenced by religion the defination of secular is that it isnt connected to religion i dont disagree with both islam and christianity with how they see the lgbt community

what are you talking about secular society is influenced culturally by religion it just doesn't defer to religion as dogma it is allowed to deviate from religion when they choose, seperation of church and state doesnt mean that people of the state arent influenced by the church

 

[coomerndiaye]

allah strike this nigga down

 

[MROK1231]

what are you talking about secular society is influenced culturally by religion it just doesn't defer to religion as dogma it is allowed to deviate from religion when they choose, seperation of church and state doesnt mean that people of the state arent influenced by the church

by state you mean some people and secular society means no ties to religious the influence of religion is effecting people and some people have high power in the goverment yes that is true but still soceity is secular even if some people of power are religious

 

[TheWigger]

Truly I don't care about past events and shit because she were using this to make people slaves. It still kinda is nowadays but not on the same level.

What I do think is that it's inherently impossible to make any claim about there being a god or not.
Truly we will never know for sure since the god would apparently transcend reality itself.
If one day, a god that is indeed part of this reality came showing undeniable proof of it's existence, then I would agree to say it's true.

For now, all there is is evidence on both sides.
Everyone is battling with evidence/counter arguments but none of these constitute real proof

i think the transcendental argument is a great philosophical argument but yh there isnt any scientific proof but science in itself cant be validated without philosophy because science assumes a lot of foundational things such as the validity of logic and uniformity etc. So we can treat philosophical arguments in an equal importance imo.

 

[Anatole]

i think the transcendental argument is a great philosophical argument but yh there isnt any scientific proof but science in itself cant be validated without philosophy because science assumes a lot of foundational things such as the validity of logic and uniformity etc. So we can treat philosophical arguments in an equal importance imo.

Love it, intelligent, I agree