Ask About Islam

[KWED]

You need to lighten up.

Why was that addressed to me and not Isa?

 

[Sheldon]

So you just deny and label fallacies and say unproven? And think that's a proper way to refute an argument?

Pointing that an argument is fallacious is a sound response, yes, and I didn't deny anything, you are offering unevidenced claims in your argument, and vague claims that you don't attempt to define accurately at that, and again pointing that out most definitely a sound response in a debate.

I posted a detailed post so if you want more details go to that one.

Link it and I will take a look.

And you attack premises and also say it's invalid argument.

If they contain known common logical fallacies, and they are unevidenced assumptions, then yes, I would point this out, and any premise to an argument containing such a known logical fallacy would be invalid by definition.

You got to settle down and just see the argument first. Then tell me where you disagree and why.

I have no idea what you mean by "You got to settle down and just see the argument first", but I've just explained twice why your argument is flawed, and that it demonstrably is a subjective argument, and not objective evidence, which I also took some time to explain. So that's a baffling response, you don't seem to have directly addressed anything I said?

 

[KWED]

A person can say "persevering" is a virtue, and you can "baseless assumption", somethings can't be reduced further. All my premises can't be reduced further, but they are manifestly clear and obvious facts.

So if a serial killer is persevering in pursuing his next victim, it's a virtue?

 

[KWED]

It has to apply or it's an illusion and just made up.

"Who we are" is kinda an illusion constructed from ideas and expectations and experience. Who you think you are may not be who others think you are.

 

[Sheldon]

Putting the premises together:

(1) We are a perception.
Well we certainly perceive ourselves and each other if that's what you mean?

(2) That value we perceive ourselves is not accurate to who we are.
What do you mean by value here, it makes no sense?

(3) We have an accurate value to who we are.
Not only is that an unevidenced subjective assumption, but it directly contradicts your 2nd premise, How can you both not have an accurate perception of yourself and claim to know it exists?

(4) The accurate value to who we are, can only be seen and assigned by God (Perfect judge and assessor to who we are).
Two unevidenced assumptions, the first that we have an "accurate value to who we are", whatever the hell that means, I have asked already, and the second a begging the question fallacy, that makes an unevidenced assumption about the deity you're arguing for.

Therefore God exists.

The subjective assumption at the end is simply hilarious sorry. I could replace the word god in your argument with just about anything, like wizard or magician and it would lose nothing, that alone should indicate how valid it is, but the fact you make assumptions and use known logical fallacies is a slam dunk.

 

[Link]

The subjective assumption at the end is simply hilarious sorry. I could replace the word god in your argument with just about anything, like wizard or magician and it would lose nothing, that alone should indicate how valid it is, but the fact you make assumptions and use known logical fallacies is a slam dunk.

There is the longer explanation. Again, you are being silly, and just denying things that have elaboration with no good reason.

 

[Link]

"Who we are" is kinda an illusion constructed from ideas and expectations and experience. Who you think you are may not be who others think you are.

It is an estimate but yes, it's not the reality of who we are (the idea we have about ourselves). The true reality of who we are is in God's vision. Without that, we would be total illusion with no basis to estimating.

 

[Birdnest]

So, let's break that down. It states that being tortured to death is a fitting punishment for two things.
1. Fighting against god and his messenger.
2. Committing fasad.

Let's look at the first one. God does not exist in any physical form. It is not possible to physically wage war against him. Therefore the Quran must be referring to the idea of him, his message. This is confirmed in Ibn Kathir's tafsir where he explains... "`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief".
So according to one of Islam's most renowned and respected classical scholars, being tortured to death is an appropriate punishment for the kind of arguments I post on this forum.

The word yuhaariboona, which is also translated as 'waging war' means hiraabah - banditry. In such a case if the criminal kills someone and steals something, the prescribed punishment for that is crucifixion.

 

[Sheldon]

There is the longer explanation.

I addressed what was offered.

Again, you are being silly, and just denying things that have elaboration with no good reason.

I did offer reasoned explanation, and not denial, and you have simply ignored them.

 

[Sheldon]

(1) We are a perception.
(2) That value we perceive ourselves is not accurate to who we are.
(3) We have an accurate value to who we are.
(4) The accurate value to who we are, can only be seen and assigned by a mermaid(Perfect judge and assessor to who we are).

Therefore mermaids exists.

Look, you've just argued mermaids into existence.

 

[Sheldon]

Surely you can see the irony in this argument.

No, I genuinely don't believe he can, amazingly.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Ok well the first part seems pretty circular to be honest. However can you demonstrate any objective that a soul exists?

A person who eats bacon might have an obscured soul.
They become like a pig, and live for their next "fix" of bacon.

Ask @Link . He can tell you all about the bacon factor.

So no then, you can't demonstrate any objective evidence that a soul exists, can't even muster the effort to try, quelle surprise.

You seem far more obsessed with bacon than those who eat it, I'm not surprised at that though, this kind of superstitious based abstinence is bound to lead to exactly this kind of bizarre cognitive dissonance. Once you accept and believe in absurdities, like pigs being unclean animals and their meat dangerous to eat, then it is bound to happen I suppose.

 

[Link]

You asked for clarification, I offered it again, and unsurprisingly you won't address it. Stick to making sweeping unevidenced claims on YouTube perhaps.



So I gave two expansive responses, the second at your request, with specific and detailed explanations of why your video was subjective irrational nonsense, and you wave it away a second time, with nothing but a bare denial, in a single sentence response, while claim I am being silly.

You just quote premises and say they are unsupported without addressing their bigger elaborated versions.

 

[Sheldon]

Our understanding is imperfect. I'm saying, we have to know we accurately exist to even have an imperfect understanding of who we are.

You see that that is just a subjective opinion though right? I've emboldened and underlined the salient indicator.

The accurate existence is in God's vision.

So you keep claiming, not what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support that claim?

Without that, we are not even guessing at what we are, because there is no reality to who we are in this case. It would be subjectively made up and an illusion.

Either way what we perceive ourselves to be, is necessarily real to us, if it is inaccurate, and you have not even tried to demonstrate evidence that this is the case, that doesn't in any way represent objective evidence that a deity exists, or should exist.

 

[Link]

Sheldon, you should take a philosophy class. There's always summarized version (premises - conclusion) and the elaboration. If you want to attack a premise, you don't go to summarized version, but address the elaborated version of that premise. Otherwise, you can't have a meaningful dialogue.

 

[England my lionheart]

People who pretend that they know the contents of my brain better than I do rank right between used car salesmen and mediums in seances

No women on this earth is equal to a man. They are created differently. I would say that things are equitable. Each have their own things to do. When they both commit a major sin, they both get punished the same. Men are, in Islam, supposed to take care of the women. They have their responsibilities like work, bring home the money, provide for the family etc. So this is what it is meant by a degree over women. In saying that, if a Muslim women is to work, her money is her money. She does not have to give him anything. It's HER money. For thinking, women and men are both intelligent. Islam does not discriminate against a women's education. Actually, women are advised to gain knowledge. They are allowed many things in Islam that were there way before the west had it...like voting, women's rights, work etc. They were all there over 1400 years ago whereas the west had to fight for their rights.

Women have their roles and men have their roles. In Islam, the most important thing is to worship Allah. If you follow this, inshallah (God willing) you will have a good marriage.

But where is the equality in praying separately or for some not even being able to dance together.

You are right about women in the west fighting for equality and I think it’s made it more precious,in ww1&2 women played a massive part in bringing about that equality,we’re not quite there yet but we’ve moved on from 1400 years ago,have you?.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So the "soul" is not independent of the physical brain?

Clearly, while we are alive, the two depend on one another.
That does not stop the concepts being distinct from each other.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So if someone who eats bacon becomes like a pig, is someone who eats poultry a bit of a chicken, and a person who eats lamb is like a sheep?

Pretty much, yes.
My son is a vegan, so he is like vegetation.

 

[Birdnest]

But where is the equality in praying separately or for some not even being able to dance together.

Doesn't inequality mean one party has what the other one doesn't?

 

[England my lionheart]

Doesn't inequality mean one party has what the other one doesn't?

Certainly,the man has so much more in this case “what your right hand possesses” means you dictate everything imo.