they never ever want to admit this s***

"w-we dont need religions for morality, we're good enough on our own"

most laws + rules coincide with major religion's laws + rules

dumbass niggas

lol

!dream Jesus fighting Godzilla

During the early 1900s anti religious societies brought things like eugenics, totalitarianism, and nazism. Morals are important and if you take away God, there is no absolute moral truth

Which Surah won you over?
Was it Al-Anfal?

yup, shouts out to @Yoshi

bro aint even mention maoism

atheists love these threads cuz they can get their shots off at religious people while simultaneously saying they don't care about religion

This is just an empty insult lol don’t even know what you’re trynna say anymore. I’m sure you have great assumptions on what led me to convert

if you think my comparison of Islam to Christianity was a bad philosophical argument feel free to present another lol.

don’t get me started now

they all say the same tired old stupid s*** s*** each time too

"religion is fake"

"god is made up"

"religion is only good for morality"

"books written a thousand years ago"

like yeah bro you certainly are enlightened

I didn’t want to trigger the fake communists here lol

Huh? Why did you @ me?

my guy your entire premise for why the Bible isn't reliable is because it cannot be f***ing traced next time formulate a better argument

im genuinely happy that you found a religion that you can practice and fits your worldview etc. and i don't even think Christianity is perfect and the one true way regardless (im an adherent of Advaita rather + perennialist) but there's better arguments you could hang your hat on against Christianity versus the reliability of the scriptures of all things

ye dont worry bro i be scared too

You see it as a bad argument but centuries of scholarship on the opposite end don’t

For the reasons you outlined to defend the ambiguity surrounding the consistency of the Bible’s complete complied form — they’re again all moot when we’re comparing it to Islam where I don’t have to take any or nearly as much reliance on trusting that these ancient manuscripts for Bible 1) compiled in good faith 2) unaltered significantly in phrasing, order, or form. The Quran doesn’t have these challenges and that’s the whole point. Any defense you try to put up for Christianity there, which you already did — is weak when we have an alternative religion we’re comparing it to that has actual evidence/linkage.

Imo no credible historian is brushing aside the translation arguement lol ESPECIALLY as a Muslim and someone who also has a Assyrian mother (whose family SPEAKS Aramaic) the translation of a Semitic lanagauge to hundreds of unrelated family of languages will cause significant issues.

Which again is another comparison point of Islam to Christianity — you cannot interpret the Quran accurately in English even with translation, meanwhile the Bible a book whose roots share the same of arabic (Aramaic) followers have no problem this huge risk.

The fact of itself that nearly 99% Christians basically can’t read and interpret the Bible in its ancient lanagauge of Aramaic is extremely concerning.

Curious on your thoughts on Nietzsche critiques against christianity

alright well you're just repeating yourself and im kinda tired of going in circles so you got it my bro, i just went over this entire thing about falsifiability having nothing to do with veracity, the limits of empiricism etc. and you just reintroduced the same exact argument in essentially different wording

you even trying to go as far as to s***ting on Christians for not being able to read an entirely different language should show you the amount of semantics and pedanticism you're engaging in (this is also completely disregarding the entire content in the Bible pertaining to literalism v contextualism ala, which books are supposed to be taken as 100% true versus symbolic or literal) in order to discredit something that basically no one else does unless they have some sort of agenda (which those scholars do)

i advise you to read up on scientism and epistemology

Scientism and Secularism by J.P. Moreland is a great one, otherwise God bless and good luck on your journey

have never read any Nietzsche and i certainly don't plan on doing so

You have jump through hoops to defend the ambiguity of Bible when I’m asking for you to provide comparative arguments against the Quran, within the Bible’s favor. There is no better fundamental basis for the validity of a document than having a direct link of source to author to final document.

This above is again all irrelevant because the benchmark is the other religion we’re comparing it to. You’re trying to present an argument here to support the degree of validity that we can attest to the Bible based on the historical assessment methods you’ve described.

This still pales in comparison and leaves much larger margin for error/risk compared to what I mentioned with Islam. You’re not presenting me with new information with regards to epistemology and different principles of that field. It’s just a defense for Christianity when the argument I was engaging with is Christianity versus Islam. You cannot in good faith argue to me that the Bible is more verifiable in its origins versus the Quran (from original primary source/author to document). The principles of historical contextual a***ysis at best help defend the Bible’s validity from being completely null, but that’s all it is — a defense. It does little to help strengthen its case against Islam.

You really chose to ignore the main point here because honestly the only wat this discussion was gonna be fruitful was if you could tell me how the Bible’s validity despite all of this was greater than the Qurans.

Best wishes to you all the same.

!dream Muhammad riding a flying donkey to heaven

AI produced The legendary mythical Buraq!!!!!

wasn't expecting the wings to come outta his ass tho

René Descartes Gang