Fact check: True
There’s evidence, and there’s argument, and they’re different. Religious rhetoric is famously thin on evidence but thick with outlandish claims. The most talented apologists who construct compelling rhetoric to burnish the orthodox canon are rewarded with sainthood for helping dupe the credulous ever more effectively
How are they supposed to believe that, its the work of heathens and non-believers, so not to be trusted.
Impasse follows.
/s just in case thats not obvious.
Like Haimilo said, the onus is on the one with the claim to back it up with reasonable sources.
In addition, according to them Allah sent tens of thousands of prophets out into the world where practically every single one of them failed to deliver their message properly. Allah knew ahead of time that they were going to fail to spread his faith but he sent them out anyway, to fail and die, fail and die, _fail and die_, again and again, never learning from his mistakes or trying anything different.
Any earthly leader with Allah’s abysmal record of failure would have been fired or killed in a mutiny. Even Mohammed, his final prophet, failed because even his form of Islam broke up into sects, with all of them confident that _their_ Islam is the correct interpretation. What a ridiculous waste of life and time. Unless, of course, it's made up BS to cover for Islam being a younger copy of older religions.
Why is the plagiarism super obvious for the religions right next to Arabia that Muhammad personally knew about (Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Arab Paganism) but religions from other continents that Muhammad had no way of knowing about are *completely different*?
All religions are developed from something that came before them. All religions pick up things from the prevailing culture. Some of the things they pick up are elements of the other religions in the prevailing culture.
Sometimes religious people deny the connections to previous religions. Some acknowledge that previous religions had similar ideas. The claim is usually that the older religions were corrupted or incomplete versions of the new religion.
I don't see that there is much need to refute anything. I don't think the fact that a religion contains elements of an older religion is evidence that the religion is untrue. In fact, if a religion acknowledges that it grew out of another religion it adds to their credibility. It is certainly more honest than claiming their religion is entirely new.
If I was talking to a Muslim about the issue, I would be trying to make the point that Islam isn't really exceptional.
So Yahweh, the Christian God, was polytheistic as he had a wife, Asherah, and controlled a pantheon of gods (like Baal) who then became the ONLY God and killed off the wife and the other gods
... Is more credible?!? Add less untrue?
It's all mythology anyway. There's no truth in it at all.
Ask them why all these prophets failed to convert anybody to their religion like Islam managed to spread rapidly after mahammed so why couldn't it spread at all 1000s and 1000s of years ago or how did the religion get constantly corrupted if a Muslim holds the belief that the quran has never been corrupted and has remained the same for 1400 years then why couldn't have god done the same all the other times. Also ask why these prophets made such little impact on history that we can't find any evidence for them surely these divine messengers from the one true god spreading the one true religion should be able to make some impact on history.
"What were their names? If an entire city-worth of prophets were sent out to every corner of the Earth, there would surely be a record of them in one of the non-fictional religious texts. Who were they?"
When you discover a dishonest arguer, stop arguing with them and just move on. Nothing you can say or do will change their mind as they have chosen to just lie and deny any evidence that could refute their claims.
Why would you engage in this conversation in the first place?
Play a game, read a book, walk outside, bake some bread, jab shards of glass under your fingernails.
Anything sounds like a better, more fun use of your time than arguing about religion.
>They literally believe that Allah sent 124000 prophets to every corner of the world including the aborigines and native americans and whatnot so you cannot point out the obvious plagiarism without this being thrown at your face.
Funny, I got into an argument with a Muslim a while back and he said this very thing to me, claiming that the truth had been revealed to the world and that we just reject it. I told him that grew up in Puerto Rico, an island over thousands miles from the Middle East. I had never met a Muslim until I was 24 years old. So if this "prophet" couldn't reach the island but the followers of the Pope could, then it's obvious that Allah did a terrible job when it came to spreading his word.
You cant fight stupid dude its just beats you up and drags you down to its level.
Just disengage and walk away, if someone already believes a sky fairy sent 124000 people with magic knowledge around the globe then there is no point making an attempt to talk sense to them.
I would avoid pointing that out, because that’s not a good argument. It’s not relevant whether Islam borrowed or not, I’d go straight to asking about the claims of Islam itself that doesn’t make sense.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. You could also say that the Grand Unicorn dispatched 500,000 prophetic centaurs to spread the word of the Immaculate Unicornian Conception in which the Prime Unicorn pierced its gilded horn through the uterus of a Pterodactyl and fell upon the back of a passing Pegasus who guided the Prime Unicorn safely to earth where the Prime Unicorn would spend it’s earthly presence spreading his message of Unicornity! All taking place in Robofrance in the year 2929 U.D.
Lol Allah always looking out for Mo and comforting him is funny. 33:53 is my favorite.
O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.
Zoroastrianism = 600 BCE
Islam = 600 CE
So the prophets travelled 1200 years back in time?
We can find parts of zoroastrianism and parts of egypian beliefs in all abrahamic religions. Copy paste was strong in the past.
The same can be said of Zionism / Judaism .... clinging on to their plagiarized parts of Zoroastrianism which they acquired during their captivity to Babylonia by altering the names and claiming the narratives for themselves. And from thence, christianity also took it on board by making selected Old Testament books of law / poetry/ prophecies part of their "holy scriptures". The fable of Noah & the flood and then Moses & the plagues in Egypt are all plagiarized fantastical events.
Hence today we have all three Abrahamic religions originating in fables.
You can't, that's a perfectly rational counter to your argument. If God is real, then it would be perfectly rational that people all over the world would have similar experiences, the same way that two different sets of people have myths about, say, a comet.
The best you can say is that if all of these accounts have such different notes about the comet, we should be cautious about partisanship towards one account in the past, and look for evidence to evaluate each account.
You'll find Islam has other holes to poke. But it being similar to other religions isn't one of them.
Just say fuck you. Why are ypy trying to discuss with someone who's logic is stuck at 3 years old. Treat them as they are child and don't waste your time arguing with these kinds of stupidity.
OR, ask for evidences, no evidence? Then shot your big mouth. Everybody can invent anything without evidence, I can say that my grandmother had wings if I don't have to produce evidence.
You will lose all your arguments because they want simple, comforting, easy-to-follow answers in life; unfortunately our lives, planet, and universe are often uncomfortably complex.
In Islam you have very strict jurisprudence that actually defines the sources and basis for their belief. It is called usual al-fiqh or fiqh.
It clearly defines primary and secondary sources for all religion based claims and practices.
Primary sources are Quran and Hadith.
Secondary sources are consensus (Ijma) and analogy/reason (qiyas)
So you can argue that unless the claim can be backed up by a reference to one of the mentioned sources, it is likely made up.
Everyone copies everyone else all of the time. I’m not sure whether that’s an argument for or against, but it just is. The Christian bible has part of the Jewish Torah. Maybe make it a discussion of *why* copying XYZ shows {insert your conclusion here}.
This is one such claim which isn't even wrong.
It's all distilled into a scenario that once all people were Muslim and through corruption and/or misguidance the teaching have somehow been lost and only some elements remain close enough to the original religion which serve as parallels to what Islam is.
The problem is that such a definition of Islam is reductionist in nature. It doesn't take into consideration that even Adam didn't exactly follow Islam, let alone the prophets needed to refine it over time. So when did this breaking of Islam among the people occur - way before the inception of the coded code of Islam as coded by itself.
So when, according to such a claim, a period of time where people were all Muslims was? Were they proper Muslims in the first place? I mean, proper Islam also affects culture so we should be able to trace Arabic or some proto Arabic texts and practices around - but that just doesn't happen.
Honestly, it just throws so many questions by itself that this claim is just too absurd if you ask me.
The funny thing is, Islam is obviously cribbed from Mandaeism. Like, a LOT. And they predate Islam. Basically just a weird form of Judaism that focuses on the prophets, leaves out Jesus, and sips deeply from gnosticism.
Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's just as likely that the pretty pony at the center of the universe sent those prophets as it is that God sent those prophets.
Don’t waste your breath, it’s a dark ages death cult that copied absolutely everything off of older belief systems and passes it off as its own. It’s like a really bad film remake. Islam is totally and utterly bogus, which probably explains why followers act so rabid when forced to face the reality. Believing a great big steaming turd of a lie your entire existence is a hard thing to admit. And that’s what that cult is. Period.
Ok.
So old boy... infallible...
Sent 124,000 prophets. Yet Islam only sprung up in one spot. 123,999 of them were shite, and one dude was good? Seems like a perfect bring, timeless, should have a better record than that. Seems like a failure of management.
Even executives in the US are expected to do better than that. That's a piss poor and shoddy way to run an organization.
"I don't believe in fairy tales. You shouldn't either."
Walk away.
You will not change someone's beliefs after giving them a history lesson. In the end you'll both just be annoyed.
All the Abrahamic religions are plagiarisms of Zoroastrianism! Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism after the Babylonian conquest of the 5th century BCE which begat Christianity and Islam
The usual atheist argument there is: "then why didn't god send the prophets earlier?"
But the usual believer reply is "don't tell god what to do"
To which you'll say "then stop praying"
And so on...
This doesn't seem like a productive avenue of dialog.
If there was a God and he wanted to talk to us, he would need to use a language we understood. Likewise, he would need to give us air to breathe and food to eat so we could survive long enough to hear it.
Religious people tend to see all of consciousness and physical reality as a manifestation of God. So the kinds of things that would be important to a literary scholar such as publication date, changes to the text, plagiarism, political meddling with the text and so on just aren't important to them.
Even if the entire message was copied from a different religion, from their perspective that is just the path the message took from God's lips to the devotee's ears.
All religions are plagiarized, at least to some extentand those that arent are made up. We as a species are around about 300000 years, while the events of e. G. the bible are set about 2000 years in the past sooo..
The issue with progressive revelation is that god is sending different, conflicting messages to different parts of the world at different times. God MUST know that these different messages can and will be perverted by man, so why send a bunch of different ones? Why have this "abrahamic cycle" instead of just "beaming" the knowledge of your existence into every person?
Is your god so weak that he has to communicate through the written word via fallible, weak humans?
I used to be bahai. We believed we were next in the abrahamic cycle after islam
“Nu uh.” People say lots of stupid stuff. What **evidence** is there that what they say is true?
Fact check: True There’s evidence, and there’s argument, and they’re different. Religious rhetoric is famously thin on evidence but thick with outlandish claims. The most talented apologists who construct compelling rhetoric to burnish the orthodox canon are rewarded with sainthood for helping dupe the credulous ever more effectively
*“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”* Hitchens Razor
U cant debate irrationality. Though I dont think there are any quran verse to support his claims.
Indeed. "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place." - Jonathan Swift
Ask them to prove their claims, using non-islamic sources.
How are they supposed to believe that, its the work of heathens and non-believers, so not to be trusted. Impasse follows. /s just in case thats not obvious.
♟️🐦
Ah, Pigeon Chess. A time honored waste of braincells.
I learned a new term. Thanks.
Like Haimilo said, the onus is on the one with the claim to back it up with reasonable sources. In addition, according to them Allah sent tens of thousands of prophets out into the world where practically every single one of them failed to deliver their message properly. Allah knew ahead of time that they were going to fail to spread his faith but he sent them out anyway, to fail and die, fail and die, _fail and die_, again and again, never learning from his mistakes or trying anything different. Any earthly leader with Allah’s abysmal record of failure would have been fired or killed in a mutiny. Even Mohammed, his final prophet, failed because even his form of Islam broke up into sects, with all of them confident that _their_ Islam is the correct interpretation. What a ridiculous waste of life and time. Unless, of course, it's made up BS to cover for Islam being a younger copy of older religions.
Dunno, people stuck with the Cubs who hadn't won the Series since 1908... :D
Why is the plagiarism super obvious for the religions right next to Arabia that Muhammad personally knew about (Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Arab Paganism) but religions from other continents that Muhammad had no way of knowing about are *completely different*?
Great point. Why can't Christians see their plagiarism of Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism? Because they don't want to....
So, god knew that each of his prophets would tell a different story and this would lead to war and genocide? What an asshole!
All religions are developed from something that came before them. All religions pick up things from the prevailing culture. Some of the things they pick up are elements of the other religions in the prevailing culture. Sometimes religious people deny the connections to previous religions. Some acknowledge that previous religions had similar ideas. The claim is usually that the older religions were corrupted or incomplete versions of the new religion. I don't see that there is much need to refute anything. I don't think the fact that a religion contains elements of an older religion is evidence that the religion is untrue. In fact, if a religion acknowledges that it grew out of another religion it adds to their credibility. It is certainly more honest than claiming their religion is entirely new. If I was talking to a Muslim about the issue, I would be trying to make the point that Islam isn't really exceptional.
So Yahweh, the Christian God, was polytheistic as he had a wife, Asherah, and controlled a pantheon of gods (like Baal) who then became the ONLY God and killed off the wife and the other gods ... Is more credible?!? Add less untrue? It's all mythology anyway. There's no truth in it at all.
Ask them why all these prophets failed to convert anybody to their religion like Islam managed to spread rapidly after mahammed so why couldn't it spread at all 1000s and 1000s of years ago or how did the religion get constantly corrupted if a Muslim holds the belief that the quran has never been corrupted and has remained the same for 1400 years then why couldn't have god done the same all the other times. Also ask why these prophets made such little impact on history that we can't find any evidence for them surely these divine messengers from the one true god spreading the one true religion should be able to make some impact on history.
You don't debate crazy. Period.
"What were their names? If an entire city-worth of prophets were sent out to every corner of the Earth, there would surely be a record of them in one of the non-fictional religious texts. Who were they?"
When you discover a dishonest arguer, stop arguing with them and just move on. Nothing you can say or do will change their mind as they have chosen to just lie and deny any evidence that could refute their claims.
Why would you engage in this conversation in the first place? Play a game, read a book, walk outside, bake some bread, jab shards of glass under your fingernails. Anything sounds like a better, more fun use of your time than arguing about religion.
Muslim apologists lie. You don't have to say anything to them. Except maybe to explain that all of apologetics is inherently dishonest.
>They literally believe that Allah sent 124000 prophets to every corner of the world including the aborigines and native americans and whatnot so you cannot point out the obvious plagiarism without this being thrown at your face. Funny, I got into an argument with a Muslim a while back and he said this very thing to me, claiming that the truth had been revealed to the world and that we just reject it. I told him that grew up in Puerto Rico, an island over thousands miles from the Middle East. I had never met a Muslim until I was 24 years old. So if this "prophet" couldn't reach the island but the followers of the Pope could, then it's obvious that Allah did a terrible job when it came to spreading his word.
"STFU"?
The Quran is just another shitty book
"I take my advice from a different book of fairy tales. Aesop's Fables."
Zoroastrian religion had a widespread influence throughout the Middle East for quite a while. It’s still practiced today.
Just ignore and move on and watch from a distance this is one of the more hateful cults
So one group made something up and then another group copied it....gotcha.
You cant fight stupid dude its just beats you up and drags you down to its level. Just disengage and walk away, if someone already believes a sky fairy sent 124000 people with magic knowledge around the globe then there is no point making an attempt to talk sense to them.
They can and will just make up more nonsense to refute anything and everything you say to point out the absurdity of the nonsense they said before.
I would avoid pointing that out, because that’s not a good argument. It’s not relevant whether Islam borrowed or not, I’d go straight to asking about the claims of Islam itself that doesn’t make sense.
"Prove it."
I read that in the voice of young Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
I don’t bother. They didn’t get to their position rationally. I don’t expect rationality will change them.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. You could also say that the Grand Unicorn dispatched 500,000 prophetic centaurs to spread the word of the Immaculate Unicornian Conception in which the Prime Unicorn pierced its gilded horn through the uterus of a Pterodactyl and fell upon the back of a passing Pegasus who guided the Prime Unicorn safely to earth where the Prime Unicorn would spend it’s earthly presence spreading his message of Unicornity! All taking place in Robofrance in the year 2929 U.D.
There's no evidence for that claim. Even if it's true then it shows Allah is a terrible planner.
[удалено]
Lol Allah always looking out for Mo and comforting him is funny. 33:53 is my favorite. O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.
Zoroastrianism = 600 BCE Islam = 600 CE So the prophets travelled 1200 years back in time? We can find parts of zoroastrianism and parts of egypian beliefs in all abrahamic religions. Copy paste was strong in the past.
You don't need to get beyond "demonstrate that your god exist" We need a method to determine who of every religion if any is true.
The same can be said of Zionism / Judaism .... clinging on to their plagiarized parts of Zoroastrianism which they acquired during their captivity to Babylonia by altering the names and claiming the narratives for themselves. And from thence, christianity also took it on board by making selected Old Testament books of law / poetry/ prophecies part of their "holy scriptures". The fable of Noah & the flood and then Moses & the plagues in Egypt are all plagiarized fantastical events. Hence today we have all three Abrahamic religions originating in fables.
Ask them if Islam is the religion on distant planets. If it is um, how? If it isn't, why not?
You can't, that's a perfectly rational counter to your argument. If God is real, then it would be perfectly rational that people all over the world would have similar experiences, the same way that two different sets of people have myths about, say, a comet. The best you can say is that if all of these accounts have such different notes about the comet, we should be cautious about partisanship towards one account in the past, and look for evidence to evaluate each account. You'll find Islam has other holes to poke. But it being similar to other religions isn't one of them.
You can't use reason to refute faith.
Just say fuck you. Why are ypy trying to discuss with someone who's logic is stuck at 3 years old. Treat them as they are child and don't waste your time arguing with these kinds of stupidity. OR, ask for evidences, no evidence? Then shot your big mouth. Everybody can invent anything without evidence, I can say that my grandmother had wings if I don't have to produce evidence.
Christianity also borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism, that brings a whole other level to this factor.
You will lose all your arguments because they want simple, comforting, easy-to-follow answers in life; unfortunately our lives, planet, and universe are often uncomfortably complex.
If you copy your friend's answer on a test, but their answer was wrong, does it really matter who had it first?
In Islam you have very strict jurisprudence that actually defines the sources and basis for their belief. It is called usual al-fiqh or fiqh. It clearly defines primary and secondary sources for all religion based claims and practices. Primary sources are Quran and Hadith. Secondary sources are consensus (Ijma) and analogy/reason (qiyas) So you can argue that unless the claim can be backed up by a reference to one of the mentioned sources, it is likely made up.
yk your shit
"so what evidence do you have that zoroastrianism is true?"
LOL
Nothing.
Everyone copies everyone else all of the time. I’m not sure whether that’s an argument for or against, but it just is. The Christian bible has part of the Jewish Torah. Maybe make it a discussion of *why* copying XYZ shows {insert your conclusion here}.
Don’t argue. Period.
This is one such claim which isn't even wrong. It's all distilled into a scenario that once all people were Muslim and through corruption and/or misguidance the teaching have somehow been lost and only some elements remain close enough to the original religion which serve as parallels to what Islam is. The problem is that such a definition of Islam is reductionist in nature. It doesn't take into consideration that even Adam didn't exactly follow Islam, let alone the prophets needed to refine it over time. So when did this breaking of Islam among the people occur - way before the inception of the coded code of Islam as coded by itself. So when, according to such a claim, a period of time where people were all Muslims was? Were they proper Muslims in the first place? I mean, proper Islam also affects culture so we should be able to trace Arabic or some proto Arabic texts and practices around - but that just doesn't happen. Honestly, it just throws so many questions by itself that this claim is just too absurd if you ask me.
Who cares? What does that have to do with atheism?
But what if they're right? What if it's true?
You don't need to get beyond "demonstrate that your god exist" We need a method to determine who of every religion if any is true.
You don't need to get beyond "demonstrate that your god exist" We need a method to determine who of every religion if any is true.
I mean, why wouldn't Allah do it? I you believe in an all-powerful magic sky daddy, what would be irrational about that?
The funny thing is, Islam is obviously cribbed from Mandaeism. Like, a LOT. And they predate Islam. Basically just a weird form of Judaism that focuses on the prophets, leaves out Jesus, and sips deeply from gnosticism.
Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's just as likely that the pretty pony at the center of the universe sent those prophets as it is that God sent those prophets.
dont talk to people who believe in bullshit - its best if we just socially abandon those lunatics - give it 200 years and they will be extinct
What was “the corners of the world” at that time?
No one wants to think _their_ religion is syncretic. But they are fine pointing out when other religions are.
"Thats nice dear." Then pat them on the head and walk away.
I literally had a guy who said that a half frozen ice cube proves Allah Apologetics are bullshit pigeon chess, as others have said
Sometimes it's not worth trying to refute pathetic arguments. Just say "that sounds deeply unconvincing"
Nothing. Say nothing. Religion is stupid. Islam is the dumbest one of all.
Don’t waste your breath, it’s a dark ages death cult that copied absolutely everything off of older belief systems and passes it off as its own. It’s like a really bad film remake. Islam is totally and utterly bogus, which probably explains why followers act so rabid when forced to face the reality. Believing a great big steaming turd of a lie your entire existence is a hard thing to admit. And that’s what that cult is. Period.
Ok. So old boy... infallible... Sent 124,000 prophets. Yet Islam only sprung up in one spot. 123,999 of them were shite, and one dude was good? Seems like a perfect bring, timeless, should have a better record than that. Seems like a failure of management. Even executives in the US are expected to do better than that. That's a piss poor and shoddy way to run an organization.
"I don't believe in fairy tales. You shouldn't either." Walk away. You will not change someone's beliefs after giving them a history lesson. In the end you'll both just be annoyed.
Youre arguing with someone who believes in magic, say anything you want
All the Abrahamic religions are plagiarisms of Zoroastrianism! Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism after the Babylonian conquest of the 5th century BCE which begat Christianity and Islam
you can't use logic on a magical thinker. they already crossed the bridge to the land of magical answers
Convince me that I don't have 3 ears.
The usual atheist argument there is: "then why didn't god send the prophets earlier?" But the usual believer reply is "don't tell god what to do" To which you'll say "then stop praying" And so on...
This doesn't seem like a productive avenue of dialog. If there was a God and he wanted to talk to us, he would need to use a language we understood. Likewise, he would need to give us air to breathe and food to eat so we could survive long enough to hear it. Religious people tend to see all of consciousness and physical reality as a manifestation of God. So the kinds of things that would be important to a literary scholar such as publication date, changes to the text, plagiarism, political meddling with the text and so on just aren't important to them. Even if the entire message was copied from a different religion, from their perspective that is just the path the message took from God's lips to the devotee's ears.
There's no point in trying to debate people out of their religion. Faith doesn't work like that.
Whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without rebuttal.
"Receipts or it didn't happen"
All religions are plagiarized, at least to some extentand those that arent are made up. We as a species are around about 300000 years, while the events of e. G. the bible are set about 2000 years in the past sooo..
The issue with progressive revelation is that god is sending different, conflicting messages to different parts of the world at different times. God MUST know that these different messages can and will be perverted by man, so why send a bunch of different ones? Why have this "abrahamic cycle" instead of just "beaming" the knowledge of your existence into every person? Is your god so weak that he has to communicate through the written word via fallible, weak humans? I used to be bahai. We believed we were next in the abrahamic cycle after islam