this atheist told that God was childish tyrannical and etc while at the same time he dont realize he is the one who acting childish and complaining about God when he even dont believe in God...this is atheism....acting solely on emotional and pure irrational
@@Theresia66Is this another way of saying what if? We are not comparing a hypothetical bad answer to 'I don't kmow', we are contrasting the rational and logical position of a belief in an independent Creator of the universe to "maybe it's randomness out of nothing...or the multiverse or *a shoulder shrug*". The second part is a very bad set of answers.
Believing something without proof is irrational. You all believe a crazy warl0rd pdfile who claimed he met Gabriel in a cave, despite initially believing that he met a demon.
Imagine the arrogance at calling God tyrannical, evil, petty and child like. Ya Rabb guide him to repentance, he doesn’t know what he has done. None is more merciful and forgiving than Allah.
The chart was so eye-opening that he steered the conversation back to philosophy.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 This guy is so funny. If commanded not to drink "water," he would have said, "Hey guys, let's change the name of that liquid from water to tiki!" Then he would say, "We have been commanded not to drink water, but drink as much tiki as you want." It reminds me of As Sahab as Sabt and those commanded to slaughter the baqarah.
So here's the thing, where does it say that the Creator needs the creation's approval? If you think Him unworthy, it is of no consequence. He has given us the freedom in this world to deny Him, but we will still face Him. Best to be on His good side. 'When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' - Arthur Conan Doyle. Is it not impossible for matter to be created out of nothingness?
One thing to believe in higher power and another is claiming to have a definite answer as to the nature of that power. Look up the cargo tribe phenomenon.
This is a deep subject but briefly QUR'AN 17:103-104 we said after we drowned pharoah to the children of ISREAL live in the land of Egypt (with Moses till you die ) ( except tribe of Jews as the fought AGAINST the other 10 tribes of Israel constantly and ran away please see rest of Qur'an for context to this ) Jews were pagens worshippers Quran 44:57-58 when we introduced son of Mary they ( Jews) immediately neglected averted from him saying is OUR GOD'S ( many) better than he they worshipped the cow BECOUSE it was the Egyptian god Hathor Qur'an 7:137 we completed our favour upon the children of ISREAL ( IN EGYPT) ( the favour cannot be fulfilled unless the injeel jesus is sent to the children of isreal with moses Q7 : 129) 💕✅ brief examples Q28:5 Q28:6 Q7:137 Q2:61 Q26:59 Q44:24-28 our sources copied the history from Jewish sources ISREAL canan of today isn't Jerusalem Soliman or David was in Egypt
I think what Any was trying to get across for most of the video was that both theists and atheists do not have an objective framework for morality. And the way he came to this conclusion is that even if we were to hypothetically accept that theists did in fact receive their moral rulings from God. And therefore it is in fact objective, the important distinction here is that while the text is from God and is objective, the understanding of the text is NOT from God, it is from our own, therefore it is mostly subjective, it might not be YOUR understanding, but it is someone's understanding, a scholar or otherwise. So, understanding the objective text subjectively, renders the claim that your claim that moral framework is objective, invalid. And one can't deny that there's some sense in that, EXCEPT That this assumes that every ruling in the text can be interpreted in multiple ways, so YES, this can be true for rulings that can be interpreted in multiple ways, but it does not work for those that are clear cut, and are not in any way subject to interpretation The way I see philosophers of theology put this argument is a little different, their assertion is not that you are or are not following objective morality, you very much could be following a subjective morality framework when using your subjective interpretation of the text. BUT, their claim is. Objective morality CANNOT EXIST, in the absence of God, whether we know this morality, follow it, or not! That's a completely another issue. So their conclusion is: if you believe morality MUST be objective, then that's evidence for God. Because you have no foundation for objective morality in the absence of God. And I find formulating the argument from morality in this way is more compelling.
But what the thiest guy( themuslimlantern) Said in the video was that God is the one that decides what objectevily right and wrong cuz he is all knowing. He Said We dont interpet the words of God(Quran) the way We want. We have profet Mohamed and his companians that is the exemple for us and We just follow what they did. Cuz they were there when the revalation happened. So this is not interpretation therefore it cant be subjective.
@@Muftimotivate I've watched this video twice and I do agree with both you and Muhammed Ali, but what you said is not 100% accurate, if it was, there would not have been any controversy in Islamic laws and rulings. You will often read in books of jurisprudence or fatwas, there are multiple opinions and multiple interpretations for the same verse, and different scholars have different opinions, and also different companions of the prophet have different opinions on the exact same issue. So saying it's entirely objective is not 100% accurate, but yes, one could say for the most part it is objective. I will give you an example, is masturbation immoral in Islam? You might say yes! It is, and use the verse "And they who guard their private parts, Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed" And when you do that, you did not either return to the text, or return to the understanding of the prophet, what you did is follow the opinion of a scholar who deducted from this verse that masturbation is immoral. Some other scholars (Like Ibn Hazm) might state that masturbation is actually not immoral, or prohibited and he could even go as far as to say it's beneficial. So to claim that Muslims follow an objective moral framework where there's no room for subjective interpretation is not an accurate representation of the situation
The Muslim Lantern simply says that the Quran's command and probihition is clear. So it's need no interpretation or even can be interpreted in any other way
@@obadaal-kateb9186 And the way to solve differing interpretation is already taught to us too. When it is about aqidah, It is clear cut. when it is about halal and haram, stay away from the haram and be safe by leaving the syubhat. There is also ruling on follow the majority of ulama. When it is not about halal haram, like fadhaailil amal, you can interpret it, the wrong interpretation will get 1 reward, and the correct will get 2 reward
@@baitlord2932 You say all these things and I understand what you mean, but you fail the main point! The moment it is subject to interpretation, either by one, or a 1000, you've crossed from objective to subjective, you say we were taught how to interpret it. Yes you do! You give the best interpretation given the specific context! But that's again subjective!! If it was not subjective, how do you explain the differences between scholars for Quranic or prophetic text. Those differences all come from the simple fact that at some level you have to employ your opinion in interpreting the text. You can't just deny that! If it was as clear cut as you claim it to be we would not have found differences between reputable scholars in either jurisprudence or exegesis
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 พฤศจิกายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wPd7VFfWHIA/mqdefault.jpg)
this atheist told that God was childish tyrannical and etc while at the same time he dont realize he is the one who acting childish and complaining about God when he even dont believe in God...this is atheism....acting solely on emotional and pure irrational
They are very emotion based they dont think in reality. They are unsure of everything. The only thing they know is What if?
@@Muftimotivatesometimes it is better to admit you don't know something instead of holding on tightly to a bad answer
@@Theresia66Is this another way of saying what if? We are not comparing a hypothetical bad answer to 'I don't kmow', we are contrasting the rational and logical position of a belief in an independent Creator of the universe to "maybe it's randomness out of nothing...or the multiverse or *a shoulder shrug*". The second part is a very bad set of answers.
Believing something without proof is irrational. You all believe a crazy warl0rd pdfile who claimed he met Gabriel in a cave, despite initially believing that he met a demon.
@@Theresia66 true but i am talking about doubting your own experiences and what you see with your own eyes.
Imagine the arrogance at calling God tyrannical, evil, petty and child like. Ya Rabb guide him to repentance, he doesn’t know what he has done. None is more merciful and forgiving than Allah.
The chart was so eye-opening that he steered the conversation back to philosophy.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 This guy is so funny. If commanded not to drink "water," he would have said, "Hey guys, let's change the name of that liquid from water to tiki!" Then he would say, "We have been commanded not to drink water, but drink as much tiki as you want." It reminds me of As Sahab as Sabt and those commanded to slaughter the baqarah.
So here's the thing, where does it say that the Creator needs the creation's approval? If you think Him unworthy, it is of no consequence. He has given us the freedom in this world to deny Him, but we will still face Him. Best to be on His good side.
'When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' - Arthur Conan Doyle. Is it not impossible for matter to be created out of nothingness?
god only exists in your head , most religions are corporate entities , business ... lol religious people are thick as shit
God invited u to test his authority and authenticity
Atleast This guy is honest one 👍👍
Astuckfurallah !!
*Astigfirallah
Subhanallah Alhamdulillah Allahuakbar
One thing to believe in higher power and another is claiming to have a definite answer as to the nature of that power.
Look up the cargo tribe phenomenon.
This is a deep subject but briefly QUR'AN 17:103-104 we said after we drowned pharoah to the children of ISREAL live in the land of Egypt (with Moses till you die )
( except tribe of Jews as the fought AGAINST the other 10 tribes of Israel constantly and ran away please see rest of Qur'an for context to this )
Jews were pagens worshippers
Quran 44:57-58 when we introduced son of Mary they ( Jews) immediately neglected averted from him saying is OUR GOD'S ( many) better than he they worshipped the cow BECOUSE it was the Egyptian god Hathor
Qur'an 7:137 we completed our favour upon the children of ISREAL ( IN EGYPT) ( the favour cannot be fulfilled unless the injeel jesus is sent to the children of isreal with moses Q7 : 129) 💕✅ brief examples Q28:5 Q28:6 Q7:137 Q2:61 Q26:59 Q44:24-28 our sources copied the history from Jewish sources ISREAL canan of today isn't Jerusalem Soliman or David was in Egypt
I think what Any was trying to get across for most of the video was that both theists and atheists do not have an objective framework for morality. And the way he came to this conclusion is that even if we were to hypothetically accept that theists did in fact receive their moral rulings from God. And therefore it is in fact objective, the important distinction here is that while the text is from God and is objective, the understanding of the text is NOT from God, it is from our own, therefore it is mostly subjective, it might not be YOUR understanding, but it is someone's understanding, a scholar or otherwise. So, understanding the objective text subjectively, renders the claim that your claim that moral framework is objective, invalid.
And one can't deny that there's some sense in that, EXCEPT That this assumes that every ruling in the text can be interpreted in multiple ways, so YES, this can be true for rulings that can be interpreted in multiple ways, but it does not work for those that are clear cut, and are not in any way subject to interpretation
The way I see philosophers of theology put this argument is a little different, their assertion is not that you are or are not following objective morality, you very much could be following a subjective morality framework when using your subjective interpretation of the text. BUT, their claim is. Objective morality CANNOT EXIST, in the absence of God, whether we know this morality, follow it, or not! That's a completely another issue. So their conclusion is: if you believe morality MUST be objective, then that's evidence for God. Because you have no foundation for objective morality in the absence of God.
And I find formulating the argument from morality in this way is more compelling.
But what the thiest guy( themuslimlantern) Said in the video was that God is the one that decides what objectevily right and wrong cuz he is all knowing. He Said We dont interpet the words of God(Quran) the way We want. We have profet Mohamed and his companians that is the exemple for us and We just follow what they did. Cuz they were there when the revalation happened. So this is not interpretation therefore it cant be subjective.
@@Muftimotivate I've watched this video twice and I do agree with both you and Muhammed Ali, but what you said is not 100% accurate, if it was, there would not have been any controversy in Islamic laws and rulings.
You will often read in books of jurisprudence or fatwas, there are multiple opinions and multiple interpretations for the same verse, and different scholars have different opinions, and also different companions of the prophet have different opinions on the exact same issue. So saying it's entirely objective is not 100% accurate, but yes, one could say for the most part it is objective.
I will give you an example, is masturbation immoral in Islam? You might say yes! It is, and use the verse "And they who guard their private parts, Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed"
And when you do that, you did not either return to the text, or return to the understanding of the prophet, what you did is follow the opinion of a scholar who deducted from this verse that masturbation is immoral. Some other scholars (Like Ibn Hazm) might state that masturbation is actually not immoral, or prohibited and he could even go as far as to say it's beneficial.
So to claim that Muslims follow an objective moral framework where there's no room for subjective interpretation is not an accurate representation of the situation
The Muslim Lantern simply says that the Quran's command and probihition is clear. So it's need no interpretation or even can be interpreted in any other way
@@obadaal-kateb9186 And the way to solve differing interpretation is already taught to us too. When it is about aqidah, It is clear cut. when it is about halal and haram, stay away from the haram and be safe by leaving the syubhat. There is also ruling on follow the majority of ulama. When it is not about halal haram, like fadhaailil amal, you can interpret it, the wrong interpretation will get 1 reward, and the correct will get 2 reward
@@baitlord2932 You say all these things and I understand what you mean, but you fail the main point! The moment it is subject to interpretation, either by one, or a 1000, you've crossed from objective to subjective, you say we were taught how to interpret it. Yes you do! You give the best interpretation given the specific context! But that's again subjective!!
If it was not subjective, how do you explain the differences between scholars for Quranic or prophetic text. Those differences all come from the simple fact that at some level you have to employ your opinion in interpreting the text. You can't just deny that! If it was as clear cut as you claim it to be we would not have found differences between reputable scholars in either jurisprudence or exegesis