Ramadan just started now I have to stand about for two hours at night every day

[Zeuxx]

The purpose of this universe is to impress God, so yes, you have to impress God.

you cannot impress an all knowing being retard

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

Shit i only have $$ rn not $$$

I don’t even have $ rn.

 

[L1mbal]

I don’t even have $ rn.

Dude my fucking sleep schedule is ruined, ill go to sleep at 8pm tommorow

 

[Deleted member 341301]

I’m atheist/agnosticish for reference and my family is Muslim, but this will still be forced upon me as my family thinks I’m Muslim since I DEFINETELY don’t have the balls to tell them.

If I believed in god I’d understand, but for gods sake standing around just listening to some guy yap in Arabic when I can’t understand it (neither can my family Jfl) just seems so retarded.

May atheism spread further and further, if science wills it

based, religions are so cope, thinking they'll make it into the 'afterlife' jfl

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

Same with Moroccans, man. This is exactly why having knowledge of your faith is so crucial, to avoid falling into these traps. Culture itself isn't forbidden in Islam, not as long as it doesn't go against Islamic teachings. But unfortunately, what we're seeing now is the complete opposite. And ignorance can only be erased by knowledge.

Precisely. You can keep your culture as long as it doesn’t clash with Islam. There are plenty of cultural aspects that don’t go against Islam, but there are also some that do go against Islam. It’s those ones that we need to get rid of, ideally. I think the ignorance is only going to grow. I think it is only getting worse by the decade.

 

[L1mbal]

Precisely. You can keep your culture as long as it doesn’t clash with Islam. There are plenty of cultural aspects that don’t go against Islam, but there are also some that do go against Islam. It’s those ones that we need to get rid of, ideally. I think the ignorance is only going to grow. I think it is only getting worse by the decade.

Look at what i just came across
fucking retards

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

Dude my fucking sleep schedule is ruined, ill go to sleep at 8pm tommorow

Why? Why not right now? I’ll be sleeping in 6 hours. I’ve been up for 34 hours now.

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

View attachment 4672521
Look at what i just came across
fucking retards

Should be way browner XD.

 

[L1mbal]

Why? Why not right now? I’ll be sleeping in 6 hours. I’ve been up for 34 hours now.

I need to study and im procrastinating and its 4 30 am and i need to go to school at 7 am

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

I need to study and im procrastinating and its 4 30 am and i need to go to school at 7 am

Jeez, dude. Don’t compromise on your sleep, especially when you’re younger.

 

[L1mbal]

Jeez, dude. Don’t compromise on your sleep, especially when you’re younger.

I dont, that's why i sleep 10 plus hours every day, i slept 10 yesterday, 10 the day before and 12 the day before that, im sleeping like a baby

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

I dont, that's why i sleep 10 plus hours every day, i slept 10 yesterday, 10 the day before and 12 the day before that, im sleeping like a baby

Oh okay. So your sleeping schedule’s just way off. Gotcha. Ok I’m gonna bounce now. Talk to you tomorrow bhaijaan.

 

[L1mbal]

Oh okay. So your sleeping schedule’s just way off. Gotcha. Ok I’m gonna bounce now. Talk to you tomorrow bhaijaan.

Okayy, wish me luck tho, ill have to stay between ltbs in school with 0 hours of sleep and give an exam,bbye

 

[emeraldglass]

“By human standards” this is supposedly the guy who is all good, I can’t imagine an ALL GOOD meaning NO EVIL being would send its creations into an ETERNAL torture, let alone making it more painful than earthly pains, and you can’t even do the “discipline” because there is no coming back out of this, there is no lesson learning to use this with, there is no second chance where you remember burning in hell and you say well I don’t wanna go there again better pray!

Even with deity standards this is retarded to believe and pray in. Atleast with Jesus brahs you just need to be a good person, the prayers aren’t necessary and are FOR YOU

You say an all good being cannot send someone to eternal punishment. This is because you are defining "good" as "nice" or "permissive." In reality, true goodness includes justice. A good judge does not let a unrepentant serial killer go free just because he loves him. That would be a failure of justice, which is evil.

You say there is no chance to "learn a lesson" after Hell. That's the point. This life is the test. You have a lifetime of chances, breaths, heartbeats, sunsets, and the call to prayer, to recognize your creator. Imagine a student who refuses to study all semester and then complains that the final exam is unfair because there's no second chance after it. The semester was the chance. Hell is the final result of a life spent ignoring the evidence, not an arbitrary punishment for a technicality.

It's funny that you say in Christianity you "just need to be a good person." Who defines "good"? You? Your feelings? Society? That changes with the wind. In your worldview, good is just a subjective opinion. In Islam, good is defined by the one who created us and knows what is best for us.

Jesus has never said "just be good." He said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). He required obedience. The idea that you can ignore god's commands and just be good by your own standard is a modern invention, not the teaching of any prophet.

You said prayers are for you. Exactly. That's the whole point. You just argued against yourself. Worship and prayer are designed by our creator to keep us grounded, grateful, and connected to our purpose. It would be the same like saying, why does a car need fuel? It's just for the car's benefit, not the fuel station's. You have to see that a car that refuses fuel will break down. Just like a soul that refuses prayer will break down. It's not about glazing god bro, it's about aligning your engine with its purpose.

What i see that you are doing, is you are judging the concept of an eternal, perfect god by your limited, human, emotional standards. A truly all good god must be all just and all wise. To wish for a god who overlooks evil and has no standards is not to wish for a god at all, but for a cosmic butler who exists to serve your feelings.

 

[emeraldglass]

Klopt. De meeste mensen doen het morgen, en ik ook. Ik was vandaag gewoon aan het drinken op straat, ze dachten sowieso van “tfoe check die pajeet kafir drinken voor m’n gezicht,” had er totaal niet aan gedacht dat de ramadan werkelijk was begonnen voor anderen. XD Zelfs mijn mentor docent zei Ramadan mubarak tegen mij, en diegene is niet eens gelovig.

Niemand heeft het recht om jou daarop aan te spreken, bhai. Je moet ook nooit zomaar aan iemand vragen waarom hij of zij niet vast, zonder de achtergrond te kennen. Misschien is die persoon wel ziek, ongesteld, of in een uitzonderlijke situatie zoals reizen.

Hoe gaat het trouwens met stage?

 

[alwazzab]

How can the universe exist if some God did not create it?

How can a simulation exist if the creator's were not created by different creators?

When it comes down to the real facts, a being much beyond your comprehension created this universe.

The fact you are aware tells you that something incredible and very powerful looms through these stars.

This is called “gods of the gaps” and its a fallacy. Neither you nor I know what created the universe. We cannot attribute it directly to god, thats a fallacy.

You say an all good being cannot send someone to eternal punishment. This is because you are defining "good" as "nice" or "permissive." In reality, true Goodness includes Justice. A good judge does not let a unrepentant serial killer go free just because he loves him. That would be a failure of justice, which is evil.

where is the justice in punishing a finite crime through indefinite punishment? You also fail to acknowledge that the doctrinal belief makes it so that a believing serial killer, that is, one who believes in Islam and the final prophet, would go to heaven. Where is the justice in that? You also fail to aknowledge that god is omnipotent and he is, islamically, all good by nature. Therefore by necessity, evil can not exist, but evil does exist. God is punishing his lack of omnipotence as an all good diety.

You say there is no chance to "learn a lesson" after Hell. That's the point. This life is the test. You have a lifetime of chances, breaths, heartbeats, sunsets, and the call to prayer, to recognize your creator. Imagine a student who refuses to study all semester and then complains that the final exam is unfair because there's no second chance after it. The semester was the chance. Hell is the final result of a life spent ignoring the evidence, not an arbitrary punishment for a technicality.

This life is precisely equivalent to 0% of the afterlife as the afterlife is infinite, its unquantifiable. God uses that as a judgement on whetheryou deserve to enter heaven, or hell of which he created you knowing you would enter.

Ignoring what evidence exactly? God hasnt shown himself nor given me anything tangible as certain proof of his existence. What god would do this and send his creation to eternal damnation thereafter?

It's funny that you say in Christianity you "just need to be a good person." Who defines "good"? You? Your feelings? Society? That changes with the wind. In your worldview, good is just a subjective opinion. In Islam, good is defined by the One who created us and knows what is best for us.

Before the abrahamic faiths, society was still ordained under laws. An understanding of morality, although through relativism, has always been present.

Jesus has never said "just be good." He said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). He required obedience. The idea that you can ignore god's commands and just be good by your own standard is a modern invention, not the teaching of any prophet.

Not relevant to my takeaway here. Athiesm rejects christianity.

You said prayers are for you. Exactly. That's the whole point. You just argued against yourself. Worship and prayer are designed by our creator to keep us grounded, grateful, and connected to our purpose. It would be the same like saying, Why does a car need fuel? It's just for the car's benefit, not the fuel station's. You have to see that a car that refuses fuel will break down. Just like a soul that refuses prayer will break down. It's not about glazing God bro, it's about aligning your engine with its purpose.

God knew my outcome, he knew whether I would enter heaven or hell as the all knowing being. Before I could conceive of my existence, meaning, before I was even a drop of sperm. For what sense is it to create me and tell me to worship him, under the threat of punishment, other than for egotistical purposes? God gets nothing from my worship, he knew I wouldnt worship, for what sense is it to create me then? To burn me for eternity?

What i see that You are doing is you are judging the concept of an eternal, perfect god by your limited, human, emotional standards. A truly all good god must be all Just and all wise. To wish for a god who overlooks evil and has no standards is not to wish for a god at all, but for a cosmic butler who exists to serve your feelings.

God does overlook all evil. Funnily enough, he didnt back then, back when he caused natural disasters and intervened against evil. God being unable to remove evil makes him either not omnipotent or not all good. That metaphor is funny… “cosmic butler”, god created me to be his earthly servant. So id agree there, being that he isnt a “cosmic butler” rather, he is a cosmic dictator

 

[emeraldglass]

where is the justice in punishing a finite crime through indefinite punishment?

Youre argument misunderstands the nature of sin in an Islamic framework. The punishment is not just for a finite crime but for an infinite rejection of a relationship with the creator. The crime is finite in its earthly duration, but the rejection is eternal if one dies upon it.

Example is a patient who refuses a life saving treatment for their entire life. Their death is not a punishment for the finite act of refusing the medicine, but the natural consequence of their eternal (lifelong) rejection of the cure. Just the same as that, Hell is the consequence for an eternal state of rejecting the truth, not a finite crime.

You also fail to acknowledge that the doctrinal belief makes it so that a believing serial killer, that is, one who believes in Islam and the final prophet, would go to heaven. Where is the justice in that?

You assume that belief is a magical incantation that erases all accountability without change, but this not Islamic.

True faith necessitates action and transformation. Faith is not just a mere intellectual assent. It is a conviction of the heart that must be proven by deeds. The Quran is filled with verses linking faith with righteous action. The very definition of a believer is one who has faith and does good deeds.

A serial killer who believes would be a walking contradiction.

A person who claims belief but continues in serial killing without remorse or change is, by Islamic definition, not a true believer. His faith is either non existent or so weak as to be meaningless. The Quran 2:8-10 speaks about those who say We believe but in their hearts they do not. Their punishment will be severe.

Therefore, the hypothetical believing serial killer entering paradise is a logical and theological impossibility in Islam.

You also fail to aknowledge that god is omnipotent and he is, islamically, all good by nature. Therefore by necessity, evil can not exist, but evil does exist. God is punishing his lack of omnipotence as an all good diety.

God is not just all powerful and all good, he is also all wise. An action can be good and wise even if it involves temporary suffering for a greater, ultimate good.

The existence of evil is not a failure of god's power or goodness, it is a necessary component of the test of this life. A test requires the possibility of failure (evil) to have meaning. If there were no evil, there would be no concept of good, no struggle, and no virtue like patience, courage, or forgiveness.

Let me give you an example:

A doctor who performs a painful amputation to save a patient's life is not evil. The temporary pain is a necessary means to a greater good (survival). We accept this from a human doctor because we trust their knowledge and intention. Then why not should we trust the wisdom of the all knowing creator, whose knowledge is infinite?

Moral evil (murder, rape, etc.) is a direct consequence of the free will god gave humans. For god to prevent all moral evil would be to negate that free will, turning us into puppets and defeating the very purpose of the test.

This life is precisely equivalent to 0% of the afterlife as the afterlife is infinite, its unquantifiable. God uses that as a judgement on whetheryou deserve to enter heaven, or hell of which he created you knowing you would enter.

Knowledge is not Causation my friend. God's foreknowledge of an event does not mean he causes it. If you watch a recorded football match, you know who will win, but your knowledge did not cause the outcome. The players choices did. The same is with god's eternal knowledge, his knowledge encompasses all choices, but those choices are genuinely ours.

A judge knows that a particular criminal, given his history and character, is almost certain to re offend. He knows this before the crime happens. Yet, when the criminal does re offend, the judge does not punish himself for "creating" the criminal. He punishes the criminal for his own choice to commit the crime. God's knowledge of our choices does not remove our responsibility for making them.

Ignoring what evidence exactly? God hasnt shown himself nor given me anything tangible as certain proof of his existence. What god would do this and send his creation to eternal damnation thereafter?

You're asking for tangible, certain proof, but what would actually count for you? If god literally appeared to everyone, there'd be no test. Faith would be replaced by force. The whole point of this life is that you have enough evidence to find him if you're sincerely looking, but not so much that you're compelled. That's what makes it a choice.

But let's be real bro, you say there's no evidence, but you're surrounded by it. Look at the universe. Something exists rather than nothing. You can't get something from nothing. The universe had a beginning. So something had to cause it. That cause has to be eternal, powerful beyond comprehension, and intelligent enough to design the insane complexity we see. A single cell has more information than all the libraries on earth. That's not random.

Look at yourself. You have consciousness, not just brain activity. You have a sense of right and wrong that you didn't invent. You call things evil, on what basis? If we're just matter, there's no objective evil. The fact that you feel outrage at injustice points to something beyond the material.

Look at history. Prophets came with messages, miracles, guidance. The quran was revealed 1400 years ago to an illiterate man in the desert. It contains scientific knowledge we only verified centuries later. It challenges anyone to find a contradiction and 1400 years later, no one has. It challenges anyone to produce a chapter like it, and no one has.

That's not no evidence. That's evidence piled on evidence. The question isn't whether evidence exists, it's whether you're willing to look at it honestly.

And about eternal damnation, if God gave you life, consciousness, countless blessings, prophets, scriptures, and your whole lifetime to figure it out, and you still reject him, what do you expect? If you ignore every sign and die rejecting your creator, the consequence is on you. Like I said earlier a judge who let's everyone off regardless of their choices isn't good, he's corrupt.

You're here right now, breathing, thinking, having this conversation. That's not nothing. Open your eyes.

Before the abrahamic faiths, society was still ordained under laws. An understanding of morality, although through relativism, has always been present.

You're right that societies always had laws and moral codes. But that actually proves my point, not yours.

Where did that universal sense of right and wrong come from? Every civilization across history, separated by oceans and centuries, somehow agreed that murder, betrayal, and injustice are wrong. They didn't all sit down and vote on it. That points to something built into us, what we in arabic call fitrah, the natural disposition.

And relativism is the problem, not the solution. If morality is just whatever society agrees on, then there's no real right or wrong. It's just opinion. Slavery was moral in some societies. The nazis had their own laws. On relativism, you can't say they were objectively wrong, you can only say I don't like it.

But you DO think they were wrong. Everyone does. That's because deep down, you know morality isn't just social agreement. It's real. And if it's real, it has to come from somewhere real. That somewhere is the one who created us all with that same inner compass.

So yes, societies had laws, but those laws are echoes of something deeper. They're not the source. They're evidence of the source.

God knew my outcome, he knew whether I would enter heaven or hell as the all knowing being. Before I could conceive of my existence, meaning, before I was even a drop of sperm. For what sense is it to create me and tell me to worship him, under the threat of punishment, other than for egotistical purposes? God gets nothing from my worship, he knew I wouldnt worship, for what sense is it to create me then? To burn me for eternity?

I already addressed part of this above. But let me respond to your other claims here.

the purpose of creating you wasn't to burn you.

You're assuming the end result was the goal from the start. That's like saying a parent had a child just to disown them if they mess up. No. The parent hopes for the best, raises them, gives them chances, and the child makes their own choices.

God gave you life. He gave you a functioning brain. He gave you the ability to question, to reason, to seek truth. He gave you countless blessings every single day. He sent messengers, scriptures, signs in the universe, and even that inner voice telling you right from wrong.

All of that was given to you before any final decision was made. If you choose to reject it all after all that, that's not god's fault. That's yours.

You said god gets nothing from your worship. You're absolutely right. He doesn't. He's self sufficient. He doesn't need you or me or anyone.

So why command worship? Because you need it.

Think of it like this: a doctor tells you to take medicine. Does the doctor benefit? No. You do. The medicine is for your health. Worship is for your soul. It keeps you grounded, grateful, connected to purpose. It's the manual for how humans are designed to function.

If you refuse to take the medicine and your health fails, you don't blame the doctor. You blame yourself.

Bottom line is that god knew what you'd choose, but he still gave you life, gave you chances, and is giving you this exact moment right now to think about it. Don't say this is a setup for failure, because this is clear mercy. The question you should be asking is not why he created you knowing you might reject him. The question is, with all this evidence and all these chances, why are you still rejecting him?

God does overlook all evil. Funnily enough, he didnt back then, back when he caused natural disasters and intervened against evil. God being unable to remove evil makes him either not omnipotent or not all good. That metaphor is funny… “cosmic butler”, god created me to be his earthly servant. So id agree there, being that he isnt a “cosmic butler” rather, he is a cosmic dictator

Brother, you're mixing up two different things.

First, you say God overlooks all evil but then say he caused natural disasters back then. Which one is it? You can't have both. The fact that god sometimes intervenes in history and sometimes doesn't, doesn't mean he's weak. It means he has a plan and a timeline.

This life is a test. If god zapped every evil person the second they did something wrong, there would be no test. Everyone would believe out of fear, not conviction. The whole point is that we have freedom to choose, and the consequences come later, either in this life or the next.

What about natural disasters. You're assuming they're evil. A tornado doesn't have intention. It's not moral evil like murder. It's a natural phenomenon in a world that's designed to function with certain laws. Those laws also allow you to be alive right now. If god stopped every natural process that could ever cause harm, the world couldn't function at all.

Now about the cosmic dictator thing.

A dictator takes from people for his own benefit. god doesn't benefit from your worship. He's self sufficient. Worship is for YOU. It's like saying a car manual is a dictator for telling you to use fuel. No, it's telling you how the machine works so it doesn't break down.

You exist because he gave you existence. Every breath, every heartbeat, every thought is a gift. Acknowledging the one who gave you everything isn't servitude. It's just honesty. It's like thanking someone who gave you life.

If a billionaire gave you a free mansion, free food, free everything for your whole life, and just asked you to say thank you and acknowledge him, would you call him a dictator? Or would you be ungrateful?

You're here, breathing, thinking, typing. You have consciousness, you have morals, you have questions about justice. All of that came from somewhere. You didn't create yourself. The one who gave you all that has the right to be acknowledged. This is not dictatorship. It's only basic gratitude.

So tell me, if you're his creation, living off his provisions every second, what exactly is dictatorial about him asking you to recognize him?

 

[Deleted member 6089]

Christianity is the truth

 

[sick kunt31]

bro my family is scary their agnostic/christian

like their Christian for the aesthetic

 

[alwazzab]

Youre argument misunderstands the nature of sin in an Islamic framework. The punishment is not just for a finite crime but for an infinite rejection of a relationship with the creator. The crime is finite in its earthly duration, but the rejection is eternal if one dies upon it.

what does this even mean? Infinite rejection of god? We are finite, our rejection is finite and based on a lack of conviction which is gods fault to blame as he does not express himself in certainty to his creation.

The crime is finite and whatever converts it into indefinite is not of our concern, rather its gods concern.

This does not justify hell conceptually.

Example is a patient who refuses a life saving treatment for their entire life. Their death is not a punishment for the finite act of refusing the medicine, but the natural consequence of their eternal (lifelong) rejection of the cure. Just the same as that, Hell is the consequence for an eternal state of rejecting the truth, not a finite crime.

But that is not what hell is.
Under my presumption, the man who did not take the recommended medicine will die, “a state of nothingness” persay. There is no active punishment here.

There is active punishment in hell.

Hell would be more analogous to this doctor patient example where the doctor is beating the patients lifeless corpse in a world where he can feel the pain eternally after death.

Thats what im arguing is unjust.

You assume that belief is a magical incantation that erases all accountability without change, but this not Islamic.

It is
The angel jibreel kicked dirt/mud into the mouth of pharoah so that he may not utter the shahada as he would have been forgiven. (Al tirmidhi 3107)

True faith necessitates action and transformation. Faith is not just a mere intellectual assent. It is a conviction of the heart that must be proven by deeds. The Quran is filled with verses linking faith with righteous action. The very definition of a believer is one who has faith and does good deeds.

Faith, yes, has to come from sincerity, but does not have to be followed by deeds.

Sahih bukhari 6464
Sahih muslim 2817

There is a hadith at the top of my head, sure you can find it somewhere, where good deeds will be placed on a scale, but nobody’s good deeds will be enough, and so only by the mercy of Allah would they enter paradise. Clearly, its centered around doctine.

A serial killer who believes would be a walking contradiction.

No he wouldnt, you cant throw your doctrinal beliefs out the window here.

A person who claims belief but continues in serial killing without remorse or change is, by Islamic definition, not a true believer. His faith is either non existent or so weak as to be meaningless. The Quran 2:8-10 speaks about those who say We believe but in their hearts they do not. Their punishment will be severe.

If his repentance is sincere then he is.

Therefore, the hypothetical believing serial killer entering paradise is a logical and theological impossibility in Islam.

No it isnt.

God is not just all powerful and all good, he is also all wise. An action can be good and wise even if it involves temporary suffering for a greater, ultimate good.

This is irrelevant. The relationship between all good and omnipotent yet evil still existing can not be excused by another name, he still carries the two characteristics in infinite capacity. God by necessity has to eliminate evil. In what ways is temporary suffering “wise?”

The existence of evil is not a failure of god's power or goodness, it is a necessary component of the test of this life. A test requires the possibility of failure (evil) to have meaning. If there were no evil, there would be no concept of good, no struggle, and no virtue like patience, courage, or forgiveness.

A tsunami killing 2000 people lets say is not a “test”. Why are we being tested? This is like being kidnapped, tied onto a chair and asked to fill out a test for this high paying job and if you fail the test a Mexican cartel member will skin you alive. You cant opt out of the test nor did you volunteer.

Let me give you an example:

A doctor who performs a painful amputation to save a patient's life is not evil. The temporary pain is a necessary means to a greater good (survival). We accept this from a human doctor because we trust their knowledge and intention. Then why not should we trust the wisdom of the all knowing creator, whose knowledge is infinite?

This analogy like your other one just doesnt match with Islam. An amputation to save someone’s life results in a good outcome. Allowing temporary evils doesnt.

Moral evil (murder, rape, etc.) is a direct consequence of the free will god gave humans. For god to prevent all moral evil would be to negate that free will, turning us into puppets and defeating the very purpose of the test.

is it free will when you are held metaphorically on gunpoint? Why create humans in the first place, with free will through their various temptations, differing psychologies, environments, etc if the result for many will be eternal flames?

Knowledge is not Causation my friend. God's foreknowledge of an event does not mean he causes it. If you watch a recorded football match, you know who will win, but your knowledge did not cause the outcome. The players choices did. The same is with god's eternal knowledge, his knowledge encompasses all choices, but those choices are genuinely ours.

God had foreknowledge of my destiny and chose to spring me into existence. God willingly created people knowing they would burn for eternity is my point.

One can choose to convert, repent, etc

And god would have known this before creating them

Some dont

And god knew this before creating them

For those people, god had the choice of retaining them as nonexistent or giving them eternal suffering. He chose the latter. Thats immoral

A judge knows that a particular criminal, given his history and character, is almost certain to re offend. He knows this before the crime happens. Yet, when the criminal does re offend, the judge does not punish himself for "creating" the criminal. He punishes the criminal for his own choice to commit the crime. God's knowledge of our choices does not remove our responsibility for making them.

Not my argument

My argument is more analogous to me deciding to create a robot knowing it would destroy the earth somehow (not programming it to do so), and still choosing to create it.

You're asking for tangible, certain proof, but what would actually count for you? If god literally appeared to everyone, there'd be no test.

So god would rather some burn for eternity rather than convince us all. Wasn't that the point of all revelation?

Faith would be replaced by force. The whole point of this life is that you have enough evidence to find him if you're sincerely looking, but not so much that you're compelled. That's what makes it a choice.

Your faith is forced. If there was no hell, no heaven, and god just wrote “yeah you will just go back to the state you were in before birth… thats all there is to it”

Would you still pray your 5 prayers?

But let's be real bro, you say there's no evidence, but you're surrounded by it. Look at the universe. Something exists rather than nothing. You can't get something from nothing. The universe had a beginning. So something had to cause it. That cause has to be eternal, powerful beyond comprehension, and intelligent enough to design the insane complexity we see. A single cell has more information than all the libraries on earth. That's not random.

Look at yourself. You have consciousness, not just brain activity. You have a sense of right and wrong that you didn't invent. You call things evil, on what basis? If we're just matter, there's no objective evil. The fact that you feel outrage at injustice points to something beyond the material.

Yada yada doo doo god of the gaps fallacy

Look at history. Prophets came with messages, miracles, guidance. The quran was revealed 1400 years ago to an illiterate man in the desert. It contains scientific knowledge we only verified centuries later. It challenges anyone to find a contradiction and 1400 years later, no one has. It challenges anyone to produce a chapter like it, and no one has.

By scientific knowledge you mean recycled ones already known and written about before the prophet mohammad?

“The Quran mentions seas being split between salty and fresh!!! How come an illiterate man knew this!”

Maybe because the world didnt comprise of only one man… you dont think anyone knew and communicated this…

That's not no evidence. That's evidence piled on evidence. The question isn't whether evidence exists, it's whether you're willing to look at it honestly.

And about eternal damnation, if God gave you life, consciousness, countless blessings, prophets, scriptures, and your whole lifetime to figure it out, and you still reject him, what do you expect? If you ignore every sign and die rejecting your creator, the consequence is on you. Like I said earlier a judge who let's everyone off regardless of their choices isn't good, he's corrupt.

Why would I have to figure it out? Im not here to solve his riddles. Im not ignoring signs, there just arnt any. A book written 1500 years ago, of which got the embryonic stages of development wrong is not a sign. Its a book.

You're here right now, breathing, thinking, having this conversation. That's not nothing. Open your eyes.

God of the gaps

You're right that societies always had laws and moral codes. But that actually proves my point, not yours.

No it doesnt, i specified “relativism”

Where did that universal sense of right and wrong come from? Every civilization across history, separated by oceans and centuries, somehow agreed that murder, betrayal, and injustice are wrong. They didn't all sit down and vote on it. That points to something built into us, what we in arabic call fitrah, the natural disposition.

Could be many things. Could be biological, cognitive (our logical reasoning) etc

God of the gaps

“If we dont know well it HAS TO BE GOD”

And relativism is the problem, not the solution. If morality is just whatever society agrees on, then there's no real right or wrong. It's just opinion. Slavery was moral in some societies. The nazis had their own laws. On relativism, you can't say they were objectively wrong, you can only say I don't like it.

Morality is relative

Slavery was indeed moral, atleast to your final prophet who didnt abolish it, yet regulated it.

Nazis were relatively moral to their shared community. If humans had an innate, shared objective moral compass, the gas chambers wouldnt have existed

But you DO think they were wrong. Everyone does. That's because deep down, you know morality isn't just social agreement. It's real. And if it's real, it has to come from somewhere real. That somewhere is the one who created us all with that same inner compass.

refer to the above

So yes, societies had laws, but those laws are echoes of something deeper. They're not the source. They're evidence of the source.

dont tell me im writing against a GPT prompt
“Echoes of something deeper”
Nooooo

the purpose of creating you wasn't to burn you.

My bad, it was to test me on an outcome already known, to then later burn me

You're assuming the end result was the goal from the start. That's like saying a parent had a child just to disown them if they mess up. No. The parent hopes for the best, raises them, gives them chances, and the child makes their own choices.

God gave you life. He gave you a functioning brain. He gave you the ability to question, to reason, to seek truth. He gave you countless blessings every single day. He sent messengers, scriptures, signs in the universe, and even that inner voice telling you right from wrong.

He did not send me a messenger, he sent his last one 1500 years ago

Cant seek truth to something that cant be measured

Scriptures are literally just books. He said she said

All of that was given to you before any final decision was made. If you choose to reject it all after all that, that's not god's fault. That's yours.

God knew my decision and my lack of conviction prior to my death and therefore creating me would make him just as guilty as I am.

You said god gets nothing from your worship. You're absolutely right. He doesn't. He's self sufficient. He doesn't need you or me or anyone.

So why command worship? Because you need it.

?
I dont NEED to pray 5 times a day dude for my own sake, rather you do so because of the punishment of the hereafter, which is in gods control.

Think of it like this: a doctor tells you to take medicine. Does the doctor benefit? No. You do. The medicine is for your health. Worship is for your soul. It keeps you grounded, grateful, connected to purpose. It's the manual for how humans are designed to function.

If reciting the same surah for for every rakaa, and one more for the first 2 in arabic keeps you grounded… go ahead

Cant imagine how it is for people who dont even fucking understand arabic. Just mumbling

Bottom line is that god knew what you'd choose, but he still gave you life, gave you chances, and is giving you this exact moment right now to think about it. Don't say this is a setup for failure, because this is clear mercy. The question you should be asking is not why he created you knowing you might reject him. The question is, with all this evidence and all these chances, why are you still rejecting him?

you have to concede that it would have been objectively better to not give a select population (which is the majority today) a “chance” because nonexistence would have been better than eternal suffering

Brother, you're mixing up two different things.

First, you say God overlooks all evil but then say he caused natural disasters back then. Which one is it? You can't have both. The fact that god sometimes intervenes in history and sometimes doesn't, doesn't mean he's weak. It means he has a plan and a timeline.

He overlooks evil today and intervened (that is if you believe scripture) back then. You literally used moral objectivism with the nazi and slavery example but god didn't intervene then. Last time he intervened islamically was when he sent invisible soldiers to battle in Hunayn…

This life is a test. If god zapped every evil person the second they did something wrong, there would be no test. Everyone would believe out of fear, not conviction. The whole point is that we have freedom to choose, and the consequences come later, either in this life or the next.

Nigga we are discussing eternal suffering

Burning and your burnt/melted parts being regenerated to be burnt again.

And God wants to put this on some vague “test”?

I dont give a shit whether they believe out of fear, better that than eternal fire.

What about natural disasters. You're assuming they're evil. A tornado doesn't have intention. It's not moral evil like murder. It's a natural phenomenon in a world that's designed to function with certain laws. Those laws also allow you to be alive right now. If god stopped every natural process that could ever cause harm, the world couldn't function at all.

Disease and natural disasters are evil as they result in pain and suffering. God could prevent this pain and suffering through for example human intuition, where we are warned, or other ways in which he can intervene without the “breaking” of active systems.

God, and this is extreme just so you understand what I mean by omnipotent, could literally move every person at risk to safety and back

Even human actions, such as murder, the concept of murder itself being evil objectively through gods moral compass would make him by nature HAVE TO stop it. Whether it “disrupts free will” is irrelevant.

Now about the cosmic dictator thing.

A dictator takes from people for his own benefit. god doesn't benefit from your worship. He's self sufficient. Worship is for YOU. It's like saying a car manual is a dictator for telling you to use fuel. No, it's telling you how the machine works so it doesn't break down.

You exist because he gave you existence. Every breath, every heartbeat, every thought is a gift. Acknowledging the one who gave you everything isn't servitude. It's just honesty. It's like thanking someone who gave you life.

If a billionaire gave you a free mansion, free food, free everything for your whole life, and just asked you to say thank you and acknowledge him, would you call him a dictator? Or would you be ungrateful?

You're here, breathing, thinking, typing. You have consciousness, you have morals, you have questions about justice. All of that came from somewhere. You didn't create yourself. The one who gave you all that has the right to be acknowledged. This is not dictatorship. It's only basic gratitude.

So tell me, if you're his creation, living off his provisions every second, what exactly is dictatorial about him asking you to recognize him?

Yada yada more god of the gaps

Gpt underperformed here. Upgrade to 4o nigga

 

[jervis]

View attachment 4672023


i predicted this conversation 4 years ago so I bought a Quran and a prayer mat for this occasion.

Niggers really cant comprehend that people can question concepts that they were expected not to.

I have a thread on why religion makes no sense, tied to the abrahamic faiths. Ill paste it here.

https://looksmax.org/threads/religion-is-nonsensical.1850191/

Owning a Quran doesn’t make you Muslim any more than owning a stethoscope makes you a surgeon. You never practiced. You never actually knew shit, nigga.


4 years stacking props for a debate you still haven’t won. Let ts sink in


Your whole thread is just the Problem of Evil repackaged like it’s some fresh revelation.. Scholars were cooking this exact conversation in the 9th century. Al Ghazali already dismantled your omniscience argument in the Ihya. Ibn Taymiyyah talked ab "eternal punishment for a finite crime" point by explaining the punishment isn’t measured by the length of the sin but it’s more like for the permanence of the rejection.


You didn’t leave Islam after some deep, rigorous study, nigga. respectfully, disrespectfully. You dipped after one imam couldn’t answer you at 14 and never bothered to go back. That ain't a refutation, it’s an anecdotal fallacy with extra steps jfl


And the free will angle? Qadar in Islam isn’t forced predetermination, iqlet It’s Allah’s foreknowledge of the choices YOU make freely. You’re conflating knowledge with compulsion. Your robot analogy only works if the robot actually has no will.. newsflash, it doesn’t apply.


You were adjacent to the faith, not in it. There’s a difference between growing up Muslim and actually understanding what you claim to have left, lmao. Hope you take a second to reflect on the clown route you took.

 

[Giden]

Tell them you got your period and they'll understand

 

[ihatereddit]

thank allah I wasnt born in a muslim family, I would insult mohammed and islam literally every day until I got beheaded by seething muslimcels jfl

 

[rawr]

@Grievous geniunly so glad im not muslim bro they gotta starve themselves and cant drink water and sheet for like a week i think

It's 30 days actually lol, its kinda brutal but sometimes its easy.

 

[rawr]

thank allah I wasnt born in a muslim family, I would insult mohammed and islam literally every day until I got beheaded by seething muslimcels jfl

Im muslim and i rly dont understand niggas that get so pressed over stuff like that lol

 

[NatureEnjoyer_]

Deathnic Spotted

 

[Bars]

Same. But I feel suicidal after every prayer idk what to do

 

[emeraldglass]

what does this even mean? Infinite rejection of god? We are finite, our rejection is finite and based on a lack of conviction which is gods fault to blame as he does not express himself in certainty to his creation.

You're essentially saying that if god doesn’t appear to you in a way that leaves you zero room to doubt, then any rejection you make is his fault, not yours. But that assumes that the only valid form of evidence is god literally standing in front of you. That’s a very narrow definition of evidence.

Quran constantly points to signs in the universe, in your own self, in the consistency of natural laws, in the precision of creation. It says, "We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth" (41:53). So the claim that god hasn’t expressed himself is not true. He has expressed himself through creation, through revelation, through prophets, and through the innate disposition (fitrah) that every human is born with.

The crime is finite and whatever converts it into indefinite is not of our concern, rather its gods concern.

That’s not how justice works in any meaningful sense. If a person is given a lifetime, decades of chances, warnings, reminders, and internal conviction and they still choose to reject and rebel, the duration of the rejection is not measured by the clock. It’s measured by the state of the soul at the point of death. If someone dies in a state of rejecting the truth after it has been made clear to them, that rejection is final. It’s not about a finite crime, it’s about an eternal stance.

The duration of the refusal doesn't matter, what matters is that it persisted until the end.

This does not justify hell conceptually.

The concept of hell in Islam is not just about punishment. It’s about justice. If there is no ultimate justice, then the evil that people do in this life would go unanswered if the victims die and the oppressors die and that’s it. That would be injustice. A good and just god must have a place where justice is served. Hell exists because evil exists, and because some people die in a state of rebellion after the truth has been made clear.

You're treating hell like it’s arbitrary. But in Islam, it’s the natural consequence of a life spent rejecting the one who gave you that life, after he gave you every chance to know him. You can think it's cruelty, but if you are rational you would see that it is actually accountability.

But that is not what hell is.

Under my presumption, the man who did not take the recommended medicine will die, “a state of nothingness” persay. There is no active punishment here.

There is active punishment in hell.

Hell would be more analogous to this doctor patient example where the doctor is beating the patients lifeless corpse in a world where he can feel the pain eternally after death.

Thats what im arguing is unjust.

The analogy works if we extend it correctly. The patient didn’t just die, they died of the disease they refused to treat. The disease itself is the consequence. In the same way, rejecting god and truth is a spiritual disease. If you die with that disease untreated, the natural consequence is separation from god’s mercy. Hell is that separation made real and conscious.

Second, you’re treating hell as if it’s arbitrary torture. But the quran describes it as a place where people are fully aware of why they are there. They admit, “If only we had listened and used our reason, we would not be among the companions of the blaze” (67:10). So it’s not god beating a corpse. It’s a conscious being experiencing the outcome of a lifetime of choices, fully aware that they had warnings, signs, and chances.

Third, your analogy assumes the doctor is cruel. But what if the doctor spent decades sending messages, offering treatment, sending reminders, and even sending specialists to the patient’s door? And the patient still refused, insulted the doctor, and rejected every attempt at help. At what point does the doctor’s patience become justice? If after all that, the patient dies of the disease, is the doctor cruel? No. The patient chose the disease over the cure.

Hell is not god’s first choice for anyone. Quran says, “Your Lord has prescribed mercy for Himself” (6:54). But mercy rejected becomes justice. You can’t have a meaningful concept of justice without consequences. If evil is never punished and good is never rewarded, then the world is ultimately meaningless. Hell exists because justice exists.

It is
The angel jibreel kicked dirt/mud into the mouth of pharoah so that he may not utter the shahada as he would have been forgiven. (Al tirmidhi 3107)

First, the quran itself is very clear about pharaoh’s repentance. In Surah Yunus (10:90-91), Allah says that when pharaoh was about to drown, he finally said he believed. And allah’s response was: "Now? And you had disobeyed before and were of the corrupters?" That’s a direct rejection. So the primary source, the quran tells us that pharaoh’s last minute declaration was not accepted.

Now, the hadith you mentioned does appear in tirmidhi. But you have to understand how scholars have dealt with it. Imam Zamakhshari, a major classical scholar, said clearly that the part about jibril fearing mercy reaching pharaoh is an addition by fabricators, and he called it a lie against allah and His angels . Imam razi and Imam nisaburi also raised serious objections, with nisaburi stating that the prevailing view among scholars is that this report is not authentic .

So you’re building an argument on a hadith that many major scholars have questioned or rejected. That’s not a solid foundation.

But even if we accept the narration, look at what it actually says. Jibril acted out of anger for allah against a tyrant who had spent his entire life oppressing people and claiming to be a god. And the quran already tells us his faith was worthless at that moment. So there’s no contradiction. The hadith doesn’t say allah would have forgiven him. It says jibril acted knowing that his faith wouldn’t benefit him anyway .

The bigger point here is that you’re treating the story of pharaoh as if it’s a general rule. It’s not. Pharaoh’s case is unique. He was a man who literally declared himself god. He had seen miracle after miracle and still rejected. By the time he spoke those words, he was already drowning, the death rattle was in his throat. And the prophet said clearly: “Allah accepts the repentance of his slave so long as the death rattle has not yet reached his throat”. Pharaoh’s repentance came after that point. That’s why it wasn’t accepted.

So no, islam does not teach that you can live a life of evil and then whisper a word at the end and it’s all erased. That’s a caricature. What islam teaches is that sincere repentance is accepted, but sincerity is judged by the one who knows what is in the hearts. And when a person only repents after seeing the punishment with their own eyes, you can not call that sincerity, it's clearly just survival instinct.

Faith, yes, has to come from sincerity, but does not have to be followed by deeds.

Sahih bukhari 6464
Sahih muslim 2817

There is a hadith at the top of my head, sure you can find it somewhere, where good deeds will be placed on a scale, but nobody’s good deeds will be enough, and so only by the mercy of Allah would they enter paradise. Clearly, its centered around doctine.

You’re absolutely right that there are authentic hadiths where the prophet said, "None of you will enter Paradise by his deeds alone." When asked, "Not even you, O Messenger of Allah?" he said, "Not even me, unless Allah envelops me in His mercy." But you have to read that hadith in full and in context. Immediately after that, the prophet said, "The most beloved deed to Allah is the most regular and constant one, even if it were little" . So the same hadith emphasizes deeds.

The key point you’re missing is that when the prophet said deeds alone aren’t enough, he wasn’t saying deeds are irrelevant. He was saying that even our best deeds are finite and imperfect, and they can never be payment for an infinite reward. That’s a statement about the nature of god’s grace and mercy. It’s not a dismissal of action.

Think of it this way. If a king offers you a palace, and you bring him a few coins as payment, he might say, Your coins alone could never buy this palace. I’m giving it to you out of my generosity. Does that mean the coins were useless? No. They were the condition. They showed your sincerity and your desire for the palace. But the palace itself is a gift.

That’s exactly the relationship between faith, deeds, and mercy in islam. Deeds are the proof of faith. They are the evidence that your belief is real. The quran never separates them. Over and over, it pairs them "Those who believe and do righteous deeds." You can’t find a single verse that says belief alone is enough, or deeds alone are enough. They go together.

No he wouldnt, you cant throw your doctrinal beliefs out the window here.

If his repentance is sincere then he is.

No it isnt.

Ofcourse sincere repentance is accepted. That’s the whole point of Islamic theology. The Quran says, “Say: O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins” (39:53). But that verse is for those who stop transgressing and turn back to God. It’s not a license to keep sinning while claiming belief.

The guy you’re describing, a serial killer who never repents, never stops, and dies on that, is not a muslim in any meaningful sense. He’s either a hypocrite or someone whose faith never reached his heart. Saying words doesn’t make someone a believer. The quran says the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of hell.

This is irrelevant. The relationship between all good and omnipotent yet evil still existing can not be excused by another name, he still carries the two characteristics in infinite capacity. God by necessity has to eliminate evil. In what ways is temporary suffering “wise?”

That's not an argument, it's just an assertion. Why does an all powerful and all good god have to eliminate evil immediately? According to whom? You're assuming that the only way a good god can act is the way you, a finite human with limited knowledge, think he should act. Where is the logic? Truly this is just arrogance but you dress it up as philosophy.

Also you saying that all wise doesn’t change anything. But that’s exactly where you’re wrong. If god is all wise, then he has reasons for allowing temporary suffering that you and I may not fully grasp. A child doesn’t understand why a vaccine hurts, but the parent allows it because they know the greater good. The pain is temporary yet the immunity is lasting.

You're asking the wrong questions, bro. Just like you saying how is this suffering wise? That's trying to cram god's infinite plan into your limited head. Better question should be "can short term pain serve something way bigger?" And the answer to that is, absolutely.

A surgery hurts, but it saves a life. A tough teacher grades hard, but it produces excellence. Hardship builds character, tests faith, exposes hypocrisy, and prepares souls for an eternal reward that makes every worldly pain seem like nothing.

A tsunami killing 2000 people lets say is not a “test”. Why are we being tested? This is like being kidnapped, tied onto a chair and asked to fill out a test for this high paying job and if you fail the test a Mexican cartel member will skin you alive. You cant opt out of the test nor did you volunteer.

The tsunami itself is a natural event. The test is for the survivors, the witnesses, the ones who watch and ask, why? The test is do you respond with despair and denial, or do you respond with patience, with charity, with faith? Do you help your neighbor? Do you rebuild? Do you turn to god or away from him?

Also, your analogy falls apart the moment you consider the fact that the kidnapper didn’t create you, sustain you, or give you everything you have, while god did. So the test isn’t arbitrary. It’s woven into the very fabric of a life that was handed to you freely, packed with countless blessings, warnings, and signs along the way.

You didn’t ask to be born, true. But now that you’re here, you’re accountable for what you do with the life and intellect you were given. This is called responsibility.

And the idea that you can’t opt out misses the point entirely. You can opt out by choosing disbelief, but that choice comes with consequences. And it's not a trap. That’s just how choices work. If I jump off a building, I don’t get to complain about gravity afterward.

So yes, the tsunami indeed is a test, for those who see it and still choose to believe in justice, mercy, and a wisdom beyond their own.

This analogy like your other one just doesnt match with Islam. An amputation to save someone’s life results in a good outcome. Allowing temporary evils doesnt.

You’re assuming the outcome isn’t good because you can’t see past this life.

You’re judging the surgery while the patient is still on the table. Ofcourse it looks painful. Ofcourse it seems cruel, if you ignore the fact that the patient survives and walks away healed.

You’re assuming the good outcome has to happen in this life. It doesn’t. The amputation saves a life. The trial here saves an eternity. You just can’t see the end result yet.

is it free will when you are held metaphorically on gunpoint? Why create humans in the first place, with free will through their various temptations, differing psychologies, environments, etc if the result for many will be eternal flames?

You’re not at gunpoint. You’re at a crossroads with a clear warning sign. The gunpoint analogy assumes god is forcing you into something. He’s not. He gave you life, freedom, and guidance, then told you the consequences. That’s not coercion rather it's clarity.

And why create humans at all? Because mercy, love, and justice mean nothing without beings who can choose to receive or reject them. A world without the possibility of hell would also be a world without the possibility of truly choosing good. You can’t have one without the other.

God had foreknowledge of my destiny and chose to spring me into existence. God willingly created people knowing they would burn for eternity is my point.

One can choose to convert, repent, etc

And god would have known this before creating them

Some dont

And god knew this before creating them

For those people, god had the choice of retaining them as nonexistent or giving them eternal suffering. He chose the latter. Thats immoral

You keep on confusing existence with punishment. God didn't create people for hell, he created them with free will, and they chose hell by their rejection of truth after it was made clear. Your argument assumes the end is the purpose, but the end is just the result.

If a parent knows a child will grow up to commit crimes, is it immoral to give them life? No, because life itself is a gift, and the choices are theirs. God's foreknowledge doesn't force anyone's hand, it simply sees what they freely choose.

You're blaming the creator for the choices of the created. That's just shifting responsibility.

Not my argument

My argument is more analogous to me deciding to create a robot knowing it would destroy the earth somehow (not programming it to do so), and still choosing to create it.

Your robot analogy fails because a robot has no free will. You programmed it, you’re responsible. Humans have free will. God didn’t program anyone to sin or reject him. He simply knew what they would freely choose, and still gave them the dignity of existence, the chance to live, and the opportunity to choose good.

If you create a being with real choice, you’re not responsible for the choices they make, they are. That’s the whole point of giving them free will in the first place.

So god would rather some burn for eternity rather than convince us all. Wasn't that the point of all revelation?

Revelation is god convincing us. The quran, the prophets, the signs in creation, these are all forms of proof. The question isn’t whether god convinced you. It’s whether you were sincerely open to being convinced.

If god appeared to everyone physically, there’d be no room for faith, no test, and no meaningful choice. The very fact that you're still asking shows you've already received the message, you just haven’t accepted it.

Your faith is forced. If there was no hell, no heaven, and god just wrote “yeah you will just go back to the state you were in before birth… thats all there is to it”

Would you still pray your 5 prayers?

If there was no heaven or hell, I’d still believe in god because he’s real, not because I’m scared or bargaining. But your question misses the point that belief isn’t a transaction. It’s a recognition of truth. I pray because he deserves worship, not because I’m trying to avoid punishment.

You're describing fear, not faith. And if your only reason not to rob a bank is fear of jail, you’re not moral, you’re just risk averse. True morality begins with knowing good is good, even when no one’s watching.

Yada yada doo doo god of the gaps fallacy

Calling it god of the gaps is just a slogan, not an argument. I'm not pointing to what we don't know, I'm pointing to what we do know. We know the universe began. We know something can't come from nothing. We know information and design require intelligence. These aren't gaps at all, they're conclusions.

If you have a better explanation for why there's something rather than nothing, or why you have moral intuition, or why the universe is comprehensible, I'm all ears. But dismissing the evidence with a buzzword doesn't make it disappear my friend.

By scientific knowledge you mean recycled ones already known and written about before the prophet mohammad?

“The Quran mentions seas being split between salty and fresh!!! How come an illiterate man knew this!”

Maybe because the world didnt comprise of only one man… you dont think anyone knew and communicated this…

If the scientific knowledge in the quran was already known, show me one single pre Islamic text that says the same thing in the same way. Not just a vague idea, but the exact descriptions found in the quran, like the expansion of the universe, the developmental stages of an embryo, or the barrier between seas.

You're assuming knowledge was widespread, but history doesn't back that up. Most of what you're calling recycled wasn't discovered or verified until centuries after the quran. So either the prophet had access to every lost scientific text from every civilization and perfectly selected only the ones that turned out to be true, or it came from somewhere else.

And even if we entratain this hypothesis of yours that some ideas were floating around. Who compiled them into one error free book in the middle of the desert? A man who couldn't read or write.

Why would I have to figure it out? Im not here to solve his riddles. Im not ignoring signs, there just arnt any. A book written 1500 years ago, of which got the embryonic stages of development wrong is not a sign. Its a book.

You say there are no signs, but yet you're standing in the middle of them. The universe exists. You exist. You have consciousness, morality, reason. They're realities pointing beyond themselves. You're just refusing to follow the trail.

And saying the quran got embryology wrong doesn't make it true, you'd have to actually demonstrate that. Every modern embryologist who's looked at the quranic descriptions, like Keith Moore, acknowledged they match modern science. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it.

As to why you'd have to figure it out. Because you're here. And being here comes with responsibility. If you were given a manual, you'd read it to avoid problems. The Quran is the manual for your soul.

God of the gaps

It says more about gaps in your foundation if buzzwords are what you have to rely on.

No it doesnt, i specified “relativism”

You said relativism as if that settles it, but relativism means moral truths change based on culture or individual preference. If that's true, then you have no ground to call anything objectively evil, not genocide, not rape, not even the very god or religion we are discussing here right now. You can only say I don't like it or my culture disapproves.

But you do call things evil. You do expect me to be outraged by injustice. That only makes sense if there's an objective moral standard. And objective morality requires an objective Moral Lawgiver.

So either you abandon your outrage, or you admit your worldview can't ground it.

Could be many things. Could be biological, cognitive (our logical reasoning) etc

God of the gaps

“If we dont know well it HAS TO BE GOD”

You say it "could be" biological or cognitive, but that's not an explanation, it's just a placeholder. Biology describes how moral instincts may have evolved, but it doesn't explain why we ought to follow them. Evolution only cares about survival, not truth. A lion doesn't feel guilty for killing a gazelle, so why do we?

Calling it god of the gaps doesn't work here. I'm not saying we don't know, so it's god. I'm saying the very fact that you have a moral sense, that you feel outrage at injustice, is itself evidence of something beyond mere matter. If we're just atoms, your outrage is just chemistry. But you don't treat it that way. You act as if right and wrong are real.

Not a gap but a whole picture.

Morality is relative

Slavery was indeed moral, atleast to your final prophet who didnt abolish it, yet regulated it.

Nazis were relatively moral to their shared community. If humans had an innate, shared objective moral compass, the gas chambers wouldnt have existed

refer to the above

You just admitted morality is relative, which means you have no basis to call slavery or the religion objectively wrong. You can only say you don't like it. So don't treat it as a moral stance, because it's just personal taste.

And your point about slavery in Islam actually backfires. Islam didn't invent slavery, it regulated it in a time when it was universal, and placed heavy restrictions that led to its gradual elimination. Anyone with a basic understanding of sociology knows that outright condemning or prohibiting something immediately often has a lower chance of working than changing it gradually. That’s exactly what Islam did with slavery. The prophet encouraged freeing slaves as an expiation for sins and promised paradise for it. Compare that to societies where slavery was absolute and slaves had no rights. Islam gave slaves legal standing, the right to purchase freedom, and dignity unknown in most of history.

So if morality is relative, you've lost the right to condemn anything, even this very topic. So if we use your framework we are done here. If it's objective, you need a foundation. You can't have it both ways.

dont tell me im writing against a GPT prompt
“Echoes of something deeper”
Nooooo

Not sure if you’re projecting or just sidestepping what I actually said with a weak excuse. English isn’t native for me, I picked it up from serious books and real media, not the half assed slang of the tiktok crowd. If my wording feels too elite for you, just ask my friend. And i’ll dial it back.

So just liek i said, the point is every society across history has had moral laws, and they didn't all invent them from scratch in a vacuum. They point to something built in. If you want to dismiss it because the metaphor sounds poetic, go ahead. But the question still stands, where does that universal sense of right and wrong actually come from?

My bad, it was to test me on an outcome already known, to then later burn me

If the outcome was already known, it was known to you too, through your choices. God's knowledge doesn't cancel your responsibility. You still chose. You still lived. You still rejected. The test wasn't for god to find out something He didn't know, it was for you to live out what you truly are.

Burning isn't the purpose. Justice is. And if you spend your whole life ignoring the truth, the end isn't a surprise, it's a consequence.

He did not send me a messenger, he sent his last one 1500 years ago

Cant seek truth to something that cant be measured

Scriptures are literally just books. He said she said

You didn't have to live in the 7th century to get the message. The prophet was sent for all of humanity until the end of time, and his message reached you through history, through translations, through muslims you've met, through discussions like this one. You're not missing the message, rather you're dismissing it.

When you are saying scriptures are just books it is like saying a blueprint is just paper. It's not about the paper, it's about what it contains. The quran claims to be from god and challenges you to find a contradiction or imitate a single chapter. That's not he said she said. There is an open challenge standing for 1400 years. Yet you haven't answered it, you just ignored it.

God knew my decision and my lack of conviction prior to my death and therefore creating me would make him just as guilty as I am.

Knowledge isn't causation. God's foreknowledge doesn't force your hand, it simply sees what you freely choose.

You're not guilty because god knew. You're guilty because you chose. And if you spent your whole life with blessings, signs, and chances, and still walked away, the responsibility is yours. Not His.

?
I dont NEED to pray 5 times a day dude for my own sake, rather you do so because of the punishment of the hereafter, which is in gods control.

You pray because you believe in the hereafter, and that belief itself is for your own good. The prayer grounds you, humbles you, reminds you of your purpose. If you only saw it as a transaction to avoid punishment, you've missed the point entirely.

But if we are being real, you're not praying because you don't believe in the punishment either. So your argument is circular. You're rejecting the cure, then complaining the prescription doesn't make sense.

If reciting the same surah for for every rakaa, and one more for the first 2 in arabic keeps you grounded… go ahead

Cant imagine how it is for people who dont even fucking understand arabic. Just mumbling

You don't need to understand arabic to feel the effect. The quran isn't just words, it's rhythm, presence, and barakah. Millions of non arab muslims cry in prayer without knowing the translation.

But if you really want to understand, the translation is there. The meaning is accessible. The question is, have you actually tried to understand, or are you just mocking what you haven't engaged with?

you have to concede that it would have been objectively better to not give a select population (which is the majority today) a “chance” because nonexistence would have been better than eternal suffering

You're assuming nonexistence is better than existence with risk. Yet this is not a fact but it's a preference. You're saying it would have been better for billions of people never to have been born, just because some might choose poorly. If you thought this was compassion, I'm sorry to disappoint you. It's not, it's simply arrogance.

Life is a gift. The fact that you can misuse a gift doesn't make the giver cruel. It makes you responsible. And the fact that you're still here, still thinking, still breathing, means the door isn't closed yet.

He overlooks evil today and intervened (that is if you believe scripture) back then. You literally used moral objectivism with the nazi and slavery example but god didn't intervene then. Last time he intervened islamically was when he sent invisible soldiers to battle in Hunayn…

You're asking why god doesn't intervene in every single act of evil. Why doesn't a teacher stop every minor disruption in class? Because the point isn't to control every move, it's to let the test unfold.

God intervened at key moments in history to send guidance, not to turn this world into a puppet show. The test requires that evil be possible, not that it be prevented at every turn. If god stopped every murder before it happened, there'd be no murderers and no one choosing evil. That defeats the whole point.

As for hunayn, that was a battle, not a global intervention. God's help came to protect the believers, not to erase human choice. The pattern is consistent, guidance and support, not overriding free will.

Nigga we are discussing eternal suffering

Burning and your burnt/melted parts being regenerated to be burnt again.

And God wants to put this on some vague “test”?

I dont give a shit whether they believe out of fear, better that than eternal fire.

Your anger is aimed at the wrong place. You're upset at the warning instead of the warning sign.

If someone's driving toward a cliff, you don't blame the signpost. You blame the driver for ignoring it. Hell is the consequence, not the goal. And the fact that you'd rather people believe out of fear than burn forever shows you do recognize that hell is that serious. So why aren't you taking the warning seriously?

Fear isn't the highest form of faith, but it's a start. And if fear of hell is what wakes someone up long enough to seek the truth, that's mercy and not cruelty. The problem isn't that god warns. The problem is that people don't listen.

Disease and natural disasters are evil as they result in pain and suffering. God could prevent this pain and suffering through for example human intuition, where we are warned, or other ways in which he can intervene without the “breaking” of active systems.

God, and this is extreme just so you understand what I mean by omnipotent, could literally move every person at risk to safety and back

Even human actions, such as murder, the concept of murder itself being evil objectively through gods moral compass would make him by nature HAVE TO stop it. Whether it “disrupts free will” is irrelevant.

You're describing a world where god overrides every harmful event and every human choice to prevent suffering. That's not a world of free will it's a world of puppets. If god stopped every murder before it happened, no one would ever choose evil, but no one would ever truly choose good either. You'd have obedience without intention, safety without virtue.

And natural disasters aren't evil like I said earlier, they're neutral events. The suffering they cause is real, but it's also part of a world that runs on consistent laws. Those same laws let you breathe, eat, and exist. If god rewrote physics every time someone might get hurt, the world would be chaos. You can't have a predictable universe and zero risk.

The fact that you expect god to constantly intervene while still demanding free will shows you want two contradictory things. That's not an argument against god. What you expect is just an impossible standard.

Yada yada more god of the gaps

Gpt underperformed here. Upgrade to 4o nigga

God of the gaps doesn't work when I'm not pointing to what we don't know, I'm pointing to what you already have. You have existence. You have consciousness. You have morality. You have questions about justice. Where are the gaps? They're realities you're experiencing right now.

If you want to call that gaps, no problem, but you still have to explain where it all came from. Dismissing the argument with a meme doesn't make it go away. It just means you don't have an answer.



Alright, now that I’ve answered you, I want to ask you something. If I’m correct in assuming you don’t believe in religion and identify as an atheist, then explain this to me, without using I don’t know or it just happened.

Why is there something rather than nothing? You exist. The universe exists. You can't get something from absolute nothing. So where did it all come from?

Where do the laws of physics come from? Not the matter, the laws. They're not physical. They can't be touched or seen, but everything follows them. Who wrote those rules?

Where does consciousness come from? You have thoughts, feelings, awareness. That's not just brain chemistry, you experience things. How does meat produce meaning?

Where does morality come from? You call things evil, god, rape, injustice. On what basis? If we're just matter, there's no objective right or wrong. Just preferences. So why do you act like some things are actually wrong?

Where does reason come from? You're using logic right now to argue with me. But if your brain evolved only to survive, not to find truth, why should I trust your reasoning? You could just be wired to believe things that help you survive, even if they're false.

You've spent all this time rejecting my answers. Now it's your turn. Give me yours, without falling back on we don't know yet or it just is.

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

How can the universe exist if some God did not create it?

How can a simulation exist if the creator's were not created by different creators?

When it comes down to the real facts, a being much beyond your comprehension created this universe.

The fact you are aware tells you that something incredible and very powerful looms through these stars.

designed universe = MY god proven

 

[alwazzab]

Not sure if you’re projecting or just sidestepping what I actually said with a weak excuse. English isn’t native for me, I picked it up from serious books and real media, not the half assed slang of the tiktok crowd. If my wording feels too elite for you, just ask my friend. And i’ll dial it back.

"Alright, now that I’ve answered you" you mean after GPT PBUH wrote your entire shit

gtfo my phone lil nigga

 

[alwazzab]

So tell me, if you're his creation, living off his provisions every second, what exactly is dictatorial about him asking you to recognize him?

Nigga your living off GPT SWT provisions

 

[emeraldglass]

"Alright, now that I’ve answered you" you mean after GPT PBUH wrote your entire shit
View attachment 4676300

Nigga your living off GPT SWT provisions
View attachment 4676325

gtfo my phone lil nigga

You ran my post through an AI detector? That's your move?

Since you want to play detective with faulty tools, here's a reality check for you:

TLDR: Those detectors are trash. 60% accuracy on a good day. They flag human writing as ai all the time, literally got students falsely accused of cheating. So your proof is basically a coin flip with a big mouth.

Here's the funny thing though, ai detectors work by scanning for patterns that look like ai. And what was ai trained on? Millions of human written texts. So all they're really doing is flagging writing that's too clear, too structured, too coherent.

So congrats, I guess? Your detector just told you my writing is above average. Thanks for the compliment.

Genuine question though, which detector did you use? And do you know its false positive rate? Or did you just Google 'check if text is AI' and take the first result as gospel?

Look, you disagree with my argument, cool, that's literally the point of a debate. Argue against what I actually said. But if you need to outsource your rebuttal to a broken algorithm because you can't engage with my points yourself, just say that.

 

[CFW432]

im not the most perfect or religiously practicing muslim, but ill never go full atheist. Like today i didnt even fast (even though i feel bad for not doing so )

Atheists are fucking reddittier fedora wearing soyboys.

 

[Zeuxx]

im not the most perfect or religiously practicing muslim, but ill never go full atheist.

Atheists are fucking reddittier fedora wearing soyboys.

nah brah we are high t sigmas.

 

[alwazzab]

You ran my post through an AI detector? That's your move?

Since you want to play detective with faulty tools, here's a reality check for you:
View attachment 4676413
View attachment 4676427View attachment 4676432

TLDR: Those detectors are trash. 60% accuracy on a good day. They flag human writing as ai all the time, literally got students falsely accused of cheating. So your proof is basically a coin flip with a big mouth.

Here's the funny thing though, ai detectors work by scanning for patterns that look like ai. And what was ai trained on? Millions of human written texts. So all they're really doing is flagging writing that's too clear, too structured, too coherent.

So congrats, I guess? Your detector just told you my writing is above average. Thanks for the compliment.

Genuine question though, which detector did you use? And do you know its false positive rate? Or did you just Google 'check if text is AI' and take the first result as gospel?

Look, you disagree with my argument, cool, that's literally the point of a debate. Argue against what I actually said. But if you need to outsource your rebuttal to a broken algorithm because you can't engage with my points yourself, just say that.

I wrote my rebuttal on the way home from the gym. Ran your shit through GPTzero and you got your whole text from GPT or another AI. Im not engaging with prompts.

You cant fucking engage in honest conversations faggot just be honest and make duaa to GPT SWT that you may gain intellect

Do not engage further nigger

 

[seif1xz]

Yeah I can relate, I left Islam when I was 15 and I was forced to larp as Muslim in front of my family for many years in order to avoid problems. Now I’m 24 and my mom is kinda old she doesn’t give a fuck about anything anymore and all my family and cousins left. It’s just me and my mom now. She’s lazy, doesn’t have energy anymore and stays in bed watching boomer brainrot most of the day so now I can easily smoke my cigs and drink water during ramadan without having to worry about anything, though I don’t eat any food until its maghrib in order to debloat. I like Ramadan for its debloating benefits when it comes to food.

 

[Zeuxx]

Wow

Yeah I can relate, I left Islam when I was 15 and I was forced to larp as Muslim in front of my family for many years in order to avoid problems. Now I’m 24 and my mom is kinda old she doesn’t give a fuck about anything anymore and all my family and cousins left. It’s just me and my mom now. She’s lazy, doesn’t have energy anymore and stays in bed watching boomer brainrot most of the day so now I can easily smoke my cigs and drink water during ramadan without having to worry about anything, though I don’t eat any food until its maghrib in order to debloat. I like Ramadan for its debloating benefits when it comes to food.

no offence dude ur life sounds depressing

 

[emeraldglass]

I wrote my rebuttal on the way home from the gym. Ran your shit through GPTzero and you got your whole text from GPT or another AI. Im not engaging with prompts.

You cant fucking engage in honest conversations faggot just be honest and make duaa to GPT SWT that you may gain intellect

Do not engage further nigger

Lmaoooo bro really cited GPTZero's own website as proof

'Studies show', yeah, their studies. Commissioned by them. About themselves. That's like asking Mcdonald's for a review of their own burgers and being shocked when they say best fries on earth.

Meanwhile, I posted actual third party research showing these detectors are trash. But sure, trust the company with a financial interest in convincing you their product works. That's not naive at all.

By the way, here are more studies that show GPTZero is unreliable:

AI detecting AI in academic writing: Why most AI detector findings are false

Artificial intelligence (AI) has expanded the possibilities of improving human-derived text and ideas, serving as a powerful tool to assist in languag…

www.sciencedirect.com

Leveraging Explainable AI for LLM Text Attribution: Differentiating Human-Written and Multiple LLMs-Generated Text

The development of Generative AI Large Language Models (LLMs) raised the alarm regarding identifying content produced through generative AI or humans. In one case, issues arise when students heavily rely on such tools in a manner that can affect the development of their writing or coding skills...

arxiv.org

GPTZero Review 2026: Is It A Reliable AI Detection Tool?

GPTZero review: verdict, accuracy, key features, Reddit buzz, case study, pros/cons, pricing, usage, video guide, future roadmap, FAQs & more.

www.allaboutai.com

GPTZero Flagged My Human Essay as 87% AI - Here's Why It's Wrong (2026 Tests)

GPTZero claims 99% accuracy but independent tests show 17% of AI text passes as human, and polished human writing gets flagged as AI. We tested it against ZeroGPT and Turnitin.

leaveit2ai.com

Despite AI's biases 'It is an arms race' Towards the Future

I spoke with two leading researchers in the field of generative AI to get their perspective on the ethics and future of AI technology.

www.shoutoutuk.org

Here's the thing though, even if we pretend for a second that I did use AI (which I didn't), so what?

You're still attacking the messenger instead of the message. Everything I wrote stands on its own. Every fact, every point, every argument, it's still there. Still unanswered by you. You haven't engaged with a single thing I actually said. You just ran it through a broken algorithm and decided that means you don't have to think.

This is a surrender.

The moment the ground gets hot under your feet, you look for the nearest exit. You can't opt out, bro. You've got nothing left to say. No counter arguments, no facts, no substance, just slurs and a screenshot from a company marketing page.

If your worldview, whether it's atheism or whatever you're running with was actually defensible, you'd be able to defend it regardeless of Ai or not. You'd have arguments. You'd have facts. You'd have something.

But you don't. You have a 60% accurate robot and a tantrum.

Come back when you're ready to actually talk about the topic. Until then, ciao.

 

[alwazzab]

Lmaoooo bro really cited GPTZero's own website as proof

'Studies show', yeah, their studies. Commissioned by them. About themselves. That's like asking Mcdonald's for a review of their own burgers and being shocked when they say best fries on earth.

Meanwhile, I posted actual third party research showing these detectors are trash. But sure, trust the company with a financial interest in convincing you their product works. That's not naive at all.

By the way, here are more studies that show GPTZero is unreliable:

AI detecting AI in academic writing: Why most AI detector findings are false

Artificial intelligence (AI) has expanded the possibilities of improving human-derived text and ideas, serving as a powerful tool to assist in languag…

www.sciencedirect.com

Leveraging Explainable AI for LLM Text Attribution: Differentiating Human-Written and Multiple LLMs-Generated Text

The development of Generative AI Large Language Models (LLMs) raised the alarm regarding identifying content produced through generative AI or humans. In one case, issues arise when students heavily rely on such tools in a manner that can affect the development of their writing or coding skills...

arxiv.org

GPTZero Review 2026: Is It A Reliable AI Detection Tool?

GPTZero review: verdict, accuracy, key features, Reddit buzz, case study, pros/cons, pricing, usage, video guide, future roadmap, FAQs & more.

www.allaboutai.com

GPTZero Flagged My Human Essay as 87% AI - Here's Why It's Wrong (2026 Tests)

GPTZero claims 99% accuracy but independent tests show 17% of AI text passes as human, and polished human writing gets flagged as AI. We tested it against ZeroGPT and Turnitin.

leaveit2ai.com

Despite AI's biases 'It is an arms race' Towards the Future

I spoke with two leading researchers in the field of generative AI to get their perspective on the ethics and future of AI technology.

www.shoutoutuk.org

Here's the thing though, even if we pretend for a second that I did use AI (which I didn't), so what?

You're still attacking the messenger instead of the message. Everything I wrote stands on its own. Every fact, every point, every argument, it's still there. Still unanswered by you. You haven't engaged with a single thing I actually said. You just ran it through a broken algorithm and decided that means you don't have to think.

This is a surrender.

The moment the ground gets hot under your feet, you look for the nearest exit. You can't opt out, bro. You've got nothing left to say. No counter arguments, no facts, no substance, just slurs and a screenshot from a company marketing page.

If your worldview, whether it's atheism or whatever you're running with was actually defensible, you'd be able to defend it regardeless of Ai or not. You'd have arguments. You'd have facts. You'd have something.

But you don't. You have a 60% accurate robot and a tantrum.

Come back when you're ready to actually talk about the topic. Until then, ciao.

Not a single quark nigger 90% AI doesnt show up for just anybody

You got 0% human writing twice

”and even if I did use AI so what”

It means you are unable to have a discussion. I could discuss with chatgpt if I wanted to.

Im ”opting out” from debating a computer. Not you.

Do not engage fucktard

Editing after I did skim through it. The fucking sources you stated claim it has a 17% false positive. Thats 83% accuracy. You did not get double false positives at a whopping 90% and 0% human writing twice. Holy fuck

Again do not engage you are fucking mentally deficient

Thank sam altman PBUH for chatgpt SWT or you wouldnt have even replied to my first thread. You clearly lack the intellect to do so.

 

[emeraldglass]

Not a single quark nigger 90% AI doesnt show up for just anybody

You got 0% human writing twice

”and even if I did use AI so what”

It means you are unable to have a discussion. I could discuss with chatgpt if I wanted to.

Im ”opting out” from debating a computer. Not you.

Do not engage fucktard

Editing after I did skim through it. The fucking sources you stated claim it has a 17% false positive. Thats 83% accuracy. You did not get double false positives at a whopping 90% and 0% human writing twice. Holy fuck

Again do not engage you are fucking mentally deficient

Thank sam altman PBUH for chatgpt SWT or you wouldnt have even replied to my first thread. You clearly lack the intellect to do so.

Let’s take a step back for a second. And let me try to break it down in a way that isn’t too technical, too perfect, or too elitist for you.

First of all, an AI detector is not evidence of anything. Not from a logical standpoint, not from an academic standpoint, and not from a real-world standpoint. And this is something that the sources you’ve cited yourself agree on: that there are false positives. The minute a method can produce false positives on human-written text, it ceases to be evidence of anything particular to any one individual. That’s just basic logic.

Just because it has an 83% accuracy rate doesn’t mean it’s good. And probability doesn’t equal certainty. That’s not how evidence works in any place that actually matters.

And what you keep on missing is that the studies don’t just say it’s imperfect in theory. They actually show how human-written text gets picked up as ai when it’s not. And in one of them, the text was picked up as ai even though it was written well before the existence of ai tools like chatgpt.

If you are writing in a clean, organized, refined manner, such as the sort of english people are taught to write in school, particularly academic english, these detectors are much more likely to pick it out. And when you consider the admitted error rate, it’s even worse. The errors aren’t randomly distributed, they tend to congregate around particular styles of writing.

And as I said, you avoiding the point that, even if, purely hypothetically, the text was written with AI, the arguments wouldn’t go away. They don’t magically become false because of who or what wrote them. If an argument is bad, you say where. If it’s false, you say why. Which you aren’t doing.

Rather, you use a tool and conclude that you don’t have to respond anymore.

You keep saying you’re opting out of debating a computer, but that’s just a dodge of the points. Because if you had a good point, you could defend it regardless of whether the opposing argument was written by hand, keyboard, voice, or copied from a book.

You didn’t answer the questions you were asked, or respond to the arguments or defend your worldview.

You just looking for a way out.

And doing 90% ai again and again doesn’t alter any of that. Probability isn’t authorship. A pattern recognizer isn’t evidence of authorship.

So we’re on the same page regarding where this debate is:

Nothing from what I’ve said has been responded to.
Nothing has been disproven.
And nothing regarding your position has been supported.

If you’d like to continue to hide behind your detector, that’s your decision. But don’t claim that’s a victory. If you’d like to continue to debate the subject, you already know where the arguments are.


Also, there’s something you said earlier in this debate that undermines your entire position, and I don’t think you’ve caught it yet.

You said morality is relative.

If that’s the case, then your assertions about Allah being unjust or Islam being bad are, by your own standards, simply opinions. Not facts, not objective refutations. Simply your own personal moral system colliding with another one.

Which is to say, the discussion could have ended right there. You can’t say islam is morally wrong in any absolute way if you don’t think there’s such a thing as absolute morality to begin with.

The only reason I even took the time to respond to your other points was out of courtesy, not because your point had any basis in reality that you thought it did.

And the hypocrisy is, this is true for your outrage over ai as well. If morality and standards are relative, then your distaste for the use of ai is simply that, a preference. Not some objective standard that makes an argument invalid.

You can’t play both sides of the fence depending on what you want to happen in a given conversation. You are not being consistent, you are simply choosing tools based on what will get you out of this conversation.

So again, either morality is relative, in which case your condemnation of islam is simply a matter of opinion or you believe in objective moral standards, in which case you actually have to explain where those standards come from.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[alwazzab]

Let’s take a step back for a second. And let me try to break it down in a way that isn’t too technical, too perfect, or too elitist for you.

First of all, an AI detector is not evidence of anything. Not from a logical standpoint, not from an academic standpoint, and not from a real-world standpoint. And this is something that the sources you’ve cited yourself agree on: that there are false positives. The minute a method can produce false positives on human-written text, it ceases to be evidence of anything particular to any one individual. That’s just basic logic.

Just because it has an 83% accuracy rate doesn’t mean it’s good. And probability doesn’t equal certainty. That’s not how evidence works in any place that actually matters.

And what you keep on missing is that the studies don’t just say it’s imperfect in theory. They actually show how human-written text gets picked up as ai when it’s not. And in one of them, the text was picked up as ai even though it was written well before the existence of ai tools like chatgpt.

If you are writing in a clean, organized, refined manner, such as the sort of english people are taught to write in school, particularly academic english, these detectors are much more likely to pick it out. And when you consider the admitted error rate, it’s even worse. The errors aren’t randomly distributed, they tend to congregate around particular styles of writing.

And as I said, you avoiding the point that, even if, purely hypothetically, the text was written with AI, the arguments wouldn’t go away. They don’t magically become false because of who or what wrote them. If an argument is bad, you say where. If it’s false, you say why. Which you aren’t doing.

Rather, you use a tool and conclude that you don’t have to respond anymore.

You keep saying you’re opting out of debating a computer, but that’s just a dodge of the points. Because if you had a good point, you could defend it regardless of whether the opposing argument was written by hand, keyboard, voice, or copied from a book.

You didn’t answer the questions you were asked, or respond to the arguments or defend your worldview.

You just looking for a way out.

And doing 90% ai again and again doesn’t alter any of that. Probability isn’t authorship. A pattern recognizer isn’t evidence of authorship.

So we’re on the same page regarding where this debate is:

Nothing from what I’ve said has been responded to.
Nothing has been disproven.
And nothing regarding your position has been supported.

If you’d like to continue to hide behind your detector, that’s your decision. But don’t claim that’s a victory. If you’d like to continue to debate the subject, you already know where the arguments are.


Also, there’s something you said earlier in this debate that undermines your entire position, and I don’t think you’ve caught it yet.

You said morality is relative.

If that’s the case, then your assertions about Allah being unjust or Islam being bad are, by your own standards, simply opinions. Not facts, not objective refutations. Simply your own personal moral system colliding with another one.

Which is to say, the discussion could have ended right there. You can’t say islam is morally wrong in any absolute way if you don’t think there’s such a thing as absolute morality to begin with.

The only reason I even took the time to respond to your other points was out of courtesy, not because your point had any basis in reality that you thought it did.

And the hypocrisy is, this is true for your outrage over ai as well. If morality and standards are relative, then your distaste for the use of ai is simply that, a preference. Not some objective standard that makes an argument invalid.

You can’t play both sides of the fence depending on what you want to happen in a given conversation. You are not being consistent, you are simply choosing tools based on what will get you out of this conversation.

So again, either morality is relative, in which case your condemnation of islam is simply a matter of opinion or you believe in objective moral standards, in which case you actually have to explain where those standards come from.

You can’t have it both ways.

Did not read

Will not engage

You should be embarrassed of yourself

How you are still persisting is crazy to me

 

[emeraldglass]

Did not read

Will not engage

You should be embarrassed of yourself

How you are still persisting is crazy to me

That’s okay.

Just to make sure it’s clear for any reader:
you didn't refute anything, haven’t answered any questions, and haven’t addressed the contradiction in your own stance. You decided not to respond after it was pointed out.

That’s your prerogative. But it’s also a concession.

I’m done here.

 

[alwazzab]

That’s okay.

Just to make sure it’s clear for any reader:
you didn't refute anything, haven’t answered any questions, and haven’t addressed the contradiction in your own stance. You decided not to respond after it was pointed out.

That’s your prerogative. But it’s also a concession.

I’m done here.

Not a concession. You were dishonest from the start. I do not debate people absent integrity.

Its borderline statistically impossible to hit 0% human writing and over 80% pure AI copy and paste twice. Not when the AI checker is self proclaimed to be 91-99% accurate, with independent studies showing 83% accuracy meaning 17% false positives. It is still statistically improbable that you sat there and engaged honestly. You are lying

I used no AI. You were dishonest and a coward not to admit this even now.

If I wanted to debate an AI, I have gpt installed on my phone. Im not wasting my time on YOU.

An AI will never concede in a debate, it will not lead to any conclusion, and itll not be YOU conversing with ME.

To even entertain your persistence in arguing with me, your understanding on moral relativism is shit. Where did I concede that things have to be objectively immoral? Objectively distasteful? Its subject to individual differences. Where did I concede that my take on Islam is nothing but an opinion? We cannot measure it. There can be no certainty around the existence of god, therefore it follows that there can be no certainty around the absence of one.

It is a matter of opinion that being punished for a finite crime indefinitely is immoral. If you believe the opposite so be it. You are cucked by your own creator as per our modern, subjective understanding.

Do not engage. I will not be responding. I felt the need to here because this is a laughable understanding of relativism. You (chatgpt) say above ”if objective morality doesnt exist how can you assert slavery was immoral”… your own fucking prophet didnt see it as immoral. You/GPT used this argument clearly because you do believe its immoral. See the flaw? See how morality is subject to individual/group/societal changes and differences?

I will be ignoring any further reply

Fuck you retarded nigger

 

[emeraldglass]

Not a concession. You were dishonest from the start. I do not debate people absent integrity.

Its borderline statistically impossible to hit 0% human writing and over 80% pure AI copy and paste twice. Not when the AI checker is self proclaimed to be 91-99% accurate, with independent studies showing 83% accuracy meaning 17% false positives. It is still statistically improbable that you sat there and engaged honestly. You are lying

I used no AI. You were dishonest and a coward not to admit this even now.

If I wanted to debate an AI, I have gpt installed on my phone. Im not wasting my time on YOU.

An AI will never concede in a debate, it will not lead to any conclusion, and itll not be YOU conversing with ME.

To even entertain your persistence in arguing with me, your understanding on moral relativism is shit. Where did I concede that things have to be objectively immoral? Objectively distasteful? Its subject to individual differences. Where did I concede that my take on Islam is nothing but an opinion? We cannot measure it. There can be no certainty around the existence of god, therefore it follows that there can be no certainty around the absence of one.

It is a matter of opinion that being punished for a finite crime indefinitely is immoral. If you believe the opposite so be it. You are cucked by your own creator as per our modern, subjective understanding.

Do not engage. I will not be responding. I felt the need to here because this is a laughable understanding of relativism. You (chatgpt) say above ”if objective morality doesnt exist how can you assert slavery was immoral”… your own fucking prophet didnt see it as immoral. You/GPT used this argument clearly because you do believe its immoral. See the flaw? See how morality is subject to individual/group/societal changes and differences?

I will be ignoring any further reply

Fuck you retarded nigger

Look, I already covered your slavery point earlier. Keep repeating yourself as if it will work. I showed you how Islam didn’t invent slavery, but rather regulated it to limit it, which eventually lead to its abolishement.

And the bigger problem here is that the moment I call you out on supporting your beliefs with anything other than your opinion, your entire argument falls apart like sand in water. You have nothing to stand on. Every point you make is based on the premise that god is unfair, but you haven’t put a single underlying premise forward. Nothing.

All of your alleged insights are simply opinions. They’re the same things that thousands of muslims have already refuted thousands of times before, and I’ve just done it again here. You haven’t brought a single original idea to the table. You haven’t engaged with the material. You’ve simply shouted, sworn, and relied on a detector.

 

[Hihi21]

I’m atheist/agnosticish for reference and my family is Muslim, but this will still be forced upon me as my family thinks I’m Muslim since I DEFINETELY don’t have the balls to tell them.

If I believed in god I’d understand, but for gods sake standing around just listening to some guy yap in Arabic when I can’t understand it (neither can my family Jfl) just seems so retarded.

May atheism spread further and further, if science wills it

I feel u. Christian but I hate going to church holy shit I had to stand listening to them singing in Spanish and preaching in Spanish like shit doesn’t go in one ear on to the other. It’s so fucking boring.

 

[alwazzab]

Look, I already covered your slavery point earlier. Keep repeating yourself as if it will work. I showed you how Islam didn’t invent slavery, but rather regulated it to limit it, which eventually lead to its abolishement.

And the bigger problem here is that the moment I call you out on supporting your beliefs with anything other than your opinion, your entire argument falls apart like sand in water. You have nothing to stand on. Every point you make is based on the premise that god is unfair, but you haven’t put a single underlying premise forward. Nothing.

All of your alleged insights are simply opinions. They’re the same things that thousands of muslims have already refuted thousands of times before, and I’ve just done it again here. You haven’t brought a single original idea to the table. You haven’t engaged with the material. You’ve simply shouted, sworn, and relied on a detector.

Holy fuck I keep having to reply to you because you are so fucking stupid. If hitler killed 3 million jews by regulating the amount of people that go to the camps, would that make him against the killing of jews? If Israel regulated the amount of bombs that fall on children’s head would that make them unsupportive of killing babies? Holy shit stop fucking replying

If I told you ”hey man im flying to pakistan to marry this 9 year old, what do you think? Instinctually, you would be utterly disgusted. Your prophet did that though. See nigger? Society changes retard and morality are subjective to time, place, environment, etc.

Your ”objective truth” is not objective in my presumption. I concede for arguments sake to make criticism on the religion, but you do not understand what that means. To me, a book telling you something, which YOU and ONLY YOU in this conversation believe is universal, is no different than a law book derived from subjective societal differences and beliefs. You stand on equal footing as mine you fucking retard.

Do not reply unless you have measurable, quantifiable, certain proof of gods existence. This means do not reply at all BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. I do not want to hear it. You have faith which is no different than me having an opinion.

 

[infrassss]

It's gonna be a long month

 

[emeraldglass]

Holy fuck I keep having to reply to you because you are so fucking stupid. If hitler killed 3 million jews by regulating the amount of people that go to the camps, would that make him against the killing of jews? Holy shit stop fucking replying

Your ”objective truth” is not objective in my presumption. I concede for arguments sake to make criticism on the religion, but you do not understand what that means. To me, a book telling you something, which YOU and ONLY YOU in this conversation believe is universal, is no different than a law book derived from subjective societal differences and beliefs. You stand on equal footing as mine you fucking retard.

Do not reply unless you have measurable, quantifiable, certain proof of gods existence. This means do not reply at all BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. I do not want to hear it. You have faith which is no different than me having an opinion.

It’s funny you tell me not to answer, and yet you answer yourself. That alone speaks volumes.

The Hitler comparison you’ve made isn’t a good one, and you know that. The intentional creation of genocide is evil. Slavery, though, was something Islam entered into and then steadily limited, discouraged, and gave moral credit for bringing to a close. You aren’t making a point at all.

Regarding your asking for proof of god which can be measured and counted, that is only asking for something for the sake of it. You’re putting standards used by the natural sciences on a question of what is beyond nature, and then saying you’ve won when it doesn’t work. This is an exit condition you set in advance.

And what’s even more funny is, you keep saying morals are what people decide, but you talk as if your being angry about something is a real moral thing. You judge Islam, slavery, punishment, and even using AI, as if they should be important even if you didn’t like them. According to your framework, they aren’t, they’re only what an opinion of you. Your contradiction is still unanswered.

I have already dealt with what you said about slavery before. You didn’t refute it, you just escalated emotionally. And as soon as you are asked to truly support what you believe, it all falls apart into insults and impossible demands.

You haven’t brought anything new. Everything you’ve said is standard Reddit atheist material, points that have been refuted numerous times by Muslims long before me, and again here by me.

I’m done engaging. Not because you asked, but because you’ve shown there’s nothing left to engage with.

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

It’s funny you tell me not to answer, and yet you answer yourself. That alone speaks volumes.

The Hitler comparison you’ve made isn’t a good one, and you know that. The intentional creation of genocide is evil. Slavery, though, was something Islam entered into and then steadily limited, discouraged, and gave moral credit for bringing to a close. You aren’t making a point at all.

Regarding your asking for proof of god which can be measured and counted, that is only asking for something for the sake of it. You’re putting standards used by the natural sciences on a question of what is beyond nature, and then saying you’ve won when it doesn’t work. This is an exit condition you set in advance.

And what’s even more funny is, you keep saying morals are what people decide, but you talk as if your being angry about something is a real moral thing. You judge Islam, slavery, punishment, and even using AI, as if they should be important even if you didn’t like them. According to your framework, they aren’t, they’re only what an opinion of you. Your contradiction is still unanswered.

I have already dealt with what you said about slavery before. You didn’t refute it, you just escalated emotionally. And as soon as you are asked to truly support what you believe, it all falls apart into insults and impossible demands.

You haven’t brought anything new. Everything you’ve said is standard Reddit atheist material, points that have been refuted numerous times by Muslims long before me, and again here by me.

I’m done engaging. Not because you asked, but because you’ve shown there’s nothing left to engage with.

not even the most evil people on earth deserve eternal torture. especially when the quran threatens and describes in vivid detail the torment that awaits in jahannam. if islam is so obviously true then why threaten people with having their skin slowly peeled off, and then regenerated again to be repeated? is that not utterly sick and depraved? and without irony it says “and Allah is the most merciful of those who show mercy”

really? that’s what you call mercy?

and i assume you’re going to jump onto the “but it’s justice” argument

no. burning people and pouring boiling water down their throats is not justice, it’s torture. trying to reframe barbaric, primitive threats as “divine wisdom” is an insult to the very idea of justice. no one deserves eternal torture

and who says people will remain kafirs forever? people converted and swap beliefs all the time. who is to say that if someone was given 500 years or 1000 years that they wouldn’t change at all? even the most reprehensible people have grown and become pious

if this life is a test, then it must be the most unfair, cruel and unjust test of all time. nothing can compare to it

btw it’s funny how islam prohibits gambling because of high risk, yet existence is literally the biggest risk ever. there is no bigger risk than eternal torment, and if any sane person had the choice of existence, knowing they risked permanent torture, then im sure they wouldn’t take it. would you?

 

[alwazzab]

The Hitler comparison you’ve made isn’t a good one, and you know that. The intentional creation of genocide is evil. Slavery, though, was something Islam entered into and then steadily limited, discouraged, and gave moral credit for bringing to a close. You aren’t making a point at all.

LMAO what a fucking retard. Okay buddy mind telling me what happened to the people of lut? God is evil then by your own objective basis if the intentional creation of genocide is evil.

You brought up nazism and slavery. Not me. Why are you saying its not a good comparison? you fucking stated it. orrr wasss it GPT you dirty nigger. The fact stands that the prophet practiced slavery. The prophet did not fucking abolish it. You implied that its wrong

I quote: "And relativism is the problem, not the solution. If morality is just whatever society agrees on, then there's no real right or wrong. It's just opinion. Slavery was moral in some societies. The nazis had their own laws. On relativism, you can't say they were objectively wrong, you can only say I don't like it."

Proof from your saviour GPT SWT

Regulation means jack shit. He either practiced it or abolished it. He practiced it

Regarding your asking for proof of god which can be measured and counted, that is only asking for something for the sake of it. You’re putting standards used by the natural sciences on a question of what is beyond nature, and then saying you’ve won when it doesn’t work. This is an exit condition you set in advance.

What a smart god brooooooo!!! doesnt give us any evidence yet we better believe or else!

Therefore, you do not stand in any footing above mine. My opinion carries as much weight as what the quran says until you can prove, quantify and measure gods existance.

And what’s even more funny is, you keep saying morals are what people decide, but you talk as if your being angry about something is a real moral thing. You judge Islam, slavery, punishment, and even using AI, as if they should be important even if you didn’t like them. According to your framework, they aren’t, they’re only what an opinion of you. Your contradiction is still unanswered.

"still unanswered by you"

do you even read my fucking replies?
"Where did I concede that things have to be objectively immoral? Objectively distasteful? Its subject to individual differences. Where did I concede that my take on Islam is nothing but an opinion? We cannot measure it. There can be no certainty around the existence of god, therefore it follows that there can be no certainty around the absence of one.

It is a matter of opinion that being punished for a finite crime indefinitely is immoral. If you believe the opposite so be it. You are cucked by your own creator as per our modern, subjective understanding."

There is no contradiction. You are not fucking reading what I am writing.

I have already dealt with what you said about slavery before. You didn’t refute it, you just escalated emotionally. And as soon as you are asked to truly support what you believe, it all falls apart into insults and impossible demands.

You said he regulated it... That means NOTHING. He allowed it and was an active participant in it. You/your AI slave claimed before that it is objectively immoral and I cant proclaim its immoral because I dont believe in objective morality. That implies that it is objectively immoral, big slip up.

You haven’t brought anything new. Everything you’ve said is standard Reddit atheist material, points that have been refuted numerous times by Muslims long before me, and again here by me.

"muhh reddit athiest" so how come you had to use GPT nigger???? refuted by you or by GPT nigger???

I’m done engaging. Not because you asked, but because you’ve shown there’s nothing left to engage with.

You never engaged fucktard, GPT did.

Ill restate, Do not reply unless you have measurable, quantifiable, certain proof of gods existence. This means do not reply at all BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. I do not want to hear it. You have faith which is no different than me having an opinion.