|
|
If you say that the comments from academics are
opinions and Islam is just based on opinions then why did you accept
my challenge? You obviously are stating your own opinions too e.g.
"you are just fooling yourself. There is nothing special in
these sentences." So if we apply your logic then there is no
point in discussion? Right? |
I accepted your challenge and asked you to give me
logical and objective proofs. I did not agree to listen to logical
fallacies. Yes if I say anything without backing it up with logical
proofs, then I would be erring too.
Many people think I am a great debater. I don’t
want to feign false modesty here. It is true that I always win in any
debate on any subject with any person. This has made some people think
that I am a great scholar. I wish I could agree with that too but I am
afraid that is not true. I know no more than an average guy in the street.
(provided that is not a street in an Islamic country. There I am a philosopher.)
So how can I win in every debate even though I admit to my ignorance? Aha!
I have a secret. Once you
learn this secret, you become undefeatable too. You can debate on any
subject, with any person and win every time. That is how powerful it
is. What people would do to learn this secret?
How much would you pay if someone teaches you this secret? Shall I
tell you what that secret is? I am going to give it away for free. I know
people don’t appreciate things that are free. It’s too bad because
this one is priceless. Put all your university qualifications on one plate
of the balance and this secret on the other plate. It weighs more.
Despite that it is very simple. I can summarize it in
one sentence. That is how great truths are often. They are awfully simple
and yet immensely powerful. The secret is, never say anything that you
can’t defend logically. That is all. This is the secret of debating
with anyone, on any subject and winning every time. Even if you are an
eight grade student, if you use this secret as your strategy in debating,
you become invincible.
Once you adopt this as your strategy, you’ll be
surprised how little you can say. But that little will always make you
win. You don’t need too many weak arguments. That is like having too
many weak spots. Paradoxically, the more you claim, the more you expose your
vulnerabilities and the weaker becomes your position. All you need is one
or two logical and unbeatable arguments. This will make you invincible.
Why I am giving my secret away? It is because you
won’t be able to use it against me. Since I am using it, I am invincible
already. If you used it too, we both become invincible. This means we
would stop being opponents. There would be no more disagreements between
you and I. Since you have already made sure that whatever you say is
logical and can be proven, I won't be able to disagree with you. If I do,
I would be going against logic and would become vulnerable. If we both use
this strategy, we would end up agreeing with each other. If everyone uses
this strategy, we would reach
a universal consensus.
This does not mean that everyone would start thinking
alike. We would still disagree but these disagreements would be knowledge
based and debatable. That is how scientists disagree on a scientific
theory. Eventually truth will come out. Today's disagreements are faith
based. They are not debatable. Therefore there can never be a consensus
unless one group starts killing others and tries to impose their understanding
on others as Muslims do. This won't be discovery of the truth but the
imposition of falsehood. Truth does not need any physical force to support
it. Truth is powerful on its own. It is falsehood that needs force to make
itself accepted.
If we use this strategy, all these spurious
ideologies that can’t stand the probing of logic will vanish because no
one would want to present a postulate that he can’t defend logically.
Fideism will end and rationalism will rule. Most of the miseries of
mankind are caused by fideism. Fideism is blind belief in postulates that
cannot be proven through scientific reasoning and logic. While rationality
can lead us to only one path and unite all of us, fideism can be infinite.
Truth is only one, but falsehoods are many.
Logical arguments never clash. Logic is one. It can't
have contradictions within itself. It is the ignorance and irrationality
that clashes with either logic or other forms of ignorance and
irrationalities.
|
Please tell me how M. Zammit, Neal Robinson, H.
Gibb, J. Schact etc are paid by the Saudis? Actually dont bother.
Its just your opinion. |
They either knew they were lying and said these
things because they benefited financially as Bucaille
and Moore did or like Gandhi they have spoken out of ignorance.
Everyone can err, even intelligent people.
|
You also state "I have not yet presented
my argument against the Quran". Im intrigued. How can someone
who has admitted in having to knowledge attempt to state their case
on that area? Please explain. Unless you are going to use the likes
of Noldeke and other Orientalists. If you do I will not be as
arrogant as you by rejecting them as opinions. I have
refutations for those outdated works. Bring them on. |
I have refuted the Quran on many occasions, but not
in this debate with you. No Sir, I am not going to rely on the opinions to
show the fallacy of the Quran. I will show it in a way that anyone can see
with their own eyes.
|
You said "will quote verses of the Quran
and would show why they are flawed" Ok Mr Sina. If you have no
idea about Classical Arabic or linguistics then how are you going to
do this? You have contradicted yourself. |
When it is my turn I will show you how. Now it is
your turn to explain that long list and prove why the Quran is inimitable.
|
So now you state that people who recite poetry
or who are poets suffer from Epilepsy. Interesting. I will leave it
as that. |
That is not what I said. Hypergraphia and tendency to
end the sentences rhythmically while writing prose can be symptoms of
Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Mario F. Mendez, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of
Neurology and Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA School of
Medicine writes:
“Some epileptic patients write profusely about their thoughts and
feelings. This hypergraphia may occur as part of the Geschwind
syndrome, a controversial personality disorder characterized by
circumstantiality, viscosity or "stickiness" in social
interactions, an intense preoccupation
with moral or philosophical issues, and irritability or ease to
anger. This report describes a
unique patient who developed an irrepressible urge to write in
rhyme concomitant with the onset of a seizure disorder."
If Muhammad was suffering from TLE, then that
explains his penchant for rhyme. Can writing in rhymes alone be the proof
that one suffers from this mental disorder? No. Other symptoms must also
be present. In Muhammad other symptoms were also present as I have shown
in this
article.
|
This also shows that you have failed to read
the link. What Quranic commentators have said (Muslim/NonMuslims/Atheist
etc) is that the Quran is a style of its own, which has not been
imitated by the ones who were best placed to challenge the Quran.
Please see this: |
You seem not to be able to get rid of this logical
fallacy. I said this enough that opinions are not proof. You can’t use
them as substitute to logical arguments. First you must give the proof and
then if you want you can add these opinions as spices. However, spices are
not the main course.
< back
next >
|
