CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
Smarmy sycophancy will get you nowhere in your failed attempt to promote fallacious theism.
LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GODMy first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. . . Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives.
No, for a person to say, "There is no God" he would need to define the myriad variations of everybody's personal subjective claim towards their own personal God, which is not what this is about and would be a pointless exercise.
If a human being is told by another human being, "There is a God", yet the person making the assertion cannot provide a reasonable definition of what they actually mean in terms of tangible characteristics nor, for that matter, any evidence or reasoning to support their claim, requiring the employment of logical fallacy such as special pleading, then the person who is being told, "There is a God", is correct to reject that assertion on the basis that it is clearly groundless and utterly lacking in any objective substance.
This does not require the person being told, "There is a God" to have to derive anything themselves about this 'God' other than the fact the assertion being made towards the existence of said entity is grossly flawed.
Remember, I no more need to disprove your assertion, "There is a God" any more than I need to disprove somebody else's assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn flying around Saturn". You are the one making the claim towards something, that the basis for your claim is devoid of reason and substance means I can simply dismiss it.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"
QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.
If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
So who created your 'Creator'? You will, no doubt, want to respond along the lines of how your 'Creator' didn't need to be created because, well, 'God'. Does it ever occur to you that your argument is absurd in that, on the one hand, you want to claim that everything has to have a creator except for the one thing you claim does not, a thing which you are applying arbitrary characteristics to because, as we know, that is all you can do when it comes to fictional characters.
Your 'logic' is grossly flawed.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?
Dude, you already had this claim torn apart in the 'Miracles of . . .' thread which was rapidly closed because the absurd notion that there are statements in that book concerning scientific facts which, allegedly, could not have been known at the time it was written, was exposed for being the absurdity it is.
There is nothing in that book which indicates it is anything other than a book written from the imagination of man.
Stop trying to kid yourself that it is, or at least limit yourself to claiming such only when you are in the company of equally intellectually dishonest people who are as desperate as yourself to believe such bollocks.
this depends on where one comes by this definition, as there seem to be plenty of variations and debate on how exactly to define it. Most of the ones I've come across state that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of deity, not this other definiton you've set out.
Fuck's sake, so what do you think is the process which serves to demonstrate the atheist lack of belief in the existence of a deity? Yes, that's right, it is the process of rejecting the theist assertion, "There is a God" on the basis it is intellectually dishonest and utterly unsound.
Most of the people I know who express a 'lack of belief in the existence of an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn', do so on the basis of what? Yes, that's right, through the process of rejecting the invisible-pink-unicornist assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn", on the basis of it being equally unsound an assertion to make!
Do they or don't they believe in deity. This is an almost binary question,
I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
Beyond the fact that you've set out a generally horseshit definition and seemed to think you were speaking from the mountaintop (pun intended), I treated you with respect and expect the same in return.
Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Waaaaa!
Way to rebut my valid points there, real solid reasoning and counter-argument. Sure showed me.
Oh, one small thing, I guess you know nothing of the 'tone complaint' dishonest argument. Learn it. Avoid using it. Otherwise you simply look like you're doing the one thing you are doing, which is to avoid having to actually answer the content of what I am saying, by complaining about how I am saying it.
The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent's argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. It is an ad hominem attack, used as a derailment, silencing tactic or by a concern troll.
The tone argument in practice is almost always dishonest. It is generally used by a tone troll against opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.
