Sunday, February 5, 2012

Tracts Needed for College Campuses

Greetings. There are some local interfaith dialogues going on over the next few months (send me an email if you'd like to attend). I've talked to some of the Muslims there, and, not surprisingly, they all believe that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved (because that's what their leaders tell them to believe). Of course, the Muslim sources prove conclusively that this belief is sheer nonsense. Entire chapters of the Qur'an were lost, not to mention large sections of chapters, individual verses, phrases, words, etc.

Since Muslim leaders refuse to tell Muslim students the truth, that task now falls to us. I think we need to make an extra effort this year to ensure that the next generation of Muslims doesn't share the delusions of the previous generation. So here's what I propose. I'm going to put together a tract on the preservation of the Qur'an (we did this a few years ago, but I've got more info to include now). Then I'm going to print 5,000 or 10,000 copies. I only need a few hundred for the interfaith dialogues, but it's much cheaper to print in bulk, and I know plenty of people who can distribute the rest. I will add the PDF file of the tract to the "Quran" tab above, so that anyone can print copies and distribute them in their area. If I can work it out with a Christian ministry that has some storage space, I'd also like to set it up so that people who would like high quality glossy printing can order bundles of the tract and just pay for shipping.

In short, let's all work together to dispel a myth this year. Students deserve to hear the truth, and they're just not hearing it now. Both Muslims and non-Muslims need this information. (I'd personally love to see non-Muslim students carrying copies of the tract in their backpacks or wallets, ready to refute the claim of perfect preservation whenever it is made.)

Assuming the same deal from last year is still in effect, I can get 5,000 copies printed for $295, or 10,000 for $495. The tracts are pretty heavy, so I'm guessing around $50 for shipping. I'm the poorest apologist you've ever known, so I'll need some help covering the costs. Anyone who wants to chip in can do so here:



If we get more than we need, I'll probably use what's left over to purchase some bulk copies of Keith Small's excellent short book "Holy Books Have a History" (which discusses both the Bible and the Qur'an) for distribution at the dialogues.

On a related note, after Sam and I finish the book we're working on, I might start putting together tracts on all of the major issues for Christian-Muslim dialogue. That way, when Muslims bring up a topic, non-Muslims can simply print out the relevant tract, and they've got all the arguments and evidence they'll need.

59 comments:

Derek Adams said...

Yo David, Good luck on the debates/dialogues, wish I could be there, Muslims need to taken apart on this and I wasn't happy with Nabeels last performance no offense.

If you manage to record them post them up. Will you be?

Finally I have updated an article responding to many of Zawadi's claims:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/quranic-preservation-errors-made-by.html

I specifically recommend the sections where I quote Muslim Scholars on the lost Qiraats, and the relationship between the Ahruf and Qiraat as these sections are damning.

Lets not have a repeat of Nabeel or allow someone like Zawadi to come across well again. This argument needs to be shredded.

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Kim said...

Thank you, we will refute it altogether.

Neverrepayevilwithevil said...

I totally agree with this idea. Any tool we can use to enlighten muslims about the fallacy of their religion is always welcome. Unlike the muslims, we do not have a Saudi Arabia funding us, we must pool all our resources together to defeat this scourge on humanity. Those who think for themselves can not follow islam.

le_vrai_olaf said...

Nice work David, you should do it in French also ! :)

Are you aware of the researches of the French priest Edouard Marie Gallez ? He did a very impressive "thesis" or "PhD equivalent" work on the pre-islamic religions (the Nazarene, who converted the Arabs to their religion, a messianic and deviant form of judaïsm), on the way they defined islam, and on their remaining traces in the quran.

Title is "Le Messie et son Prophète/the Messiah and his Prophet". Two books were published in 2005, and they really blast islam's mythology (and the very core of islam !). A revolution in islamology ...

Don't know if they are any translations of these two books in english, but anyhow, you should definitely give them a look.

cornholio said...

One of my friends, a fellow ACT for America member, was kicked out of his church for disagreeing w/the muslime propaganda being taught to his church in an "inter-faith" muslime outreach program. He noted that the muslime outreach program was a one-way street -- muslimes lying to his congregation about Islam, while no one from his church was ever allowed to speak at the muslime liars mosque.

Andish said...

The Islamic deception is pretty remarkable.

simple_truth said...

Kim said...

"
Thank you, we will refute it altogether.
"

For most Muslims, that means that they will offer a reply--not that the reply actually addresses the issue or shows facts that deny the accuracy of the information.

Search 4 Truth said...

No Kim we will. Nana nanana. LOL!You havent been able to do it yet. And if we use Islamic doctrine, does that mean your going to refute Islam? LOL!

Deleting said...

Kim said, "Thank you, we will refute it altogether."

How can you refute something that you won't read? Post another youtube video?

Kim said...

@simple truth

For most Christians, that means that they will offer a reply--not that the reply actually addresses the issue or shows facts that deny the accuracy of the information.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dave,


What's your email?

D335 said...

@Kim
hi kim long time no see.

Why not put an entry to the previous posts?
-on the Islamic honor killing subject.
-on the turkish christian boy getting beaten
-bla2...

it requires your islamic "moderate" input and strong rebuttal!

Don't worry, I don't think muslim attacks will cease anytime soon, so you can be sure it'll give us a lot more stuff to discuss.

Matlin said...

David, you may be the poorest apologist but you are very rich in Spirit. May our Lord bless you abundantly. You are doing such a great work that you don’t even realize how much that worth it, lots of people from all around the world are blessed by you and your team.

simple_truth said...

Kim said...

"@simple truth

For most Christians, that means that they will offer a reply--not that the reply actually addresses the issue or shows facts that deny the accuracy of the information.
"

I should have expected this of you. You forget it is the Muslim who thinks that their religion somehow replaces earlier religions of which have documentation to disprove your religion. I think that you don't really have any grounds to stand upon since Islamic sources that are considered authentic (hadiths, sunnah, and sira), do point to evidence that some of the Qur'an is missing and that some of the Shahaba witness to it via authentic hadiths.

Here is a logical implication for you: if the Qu'ran is missing verses, that may explain why the Qu'ran claims for itself that it has complete instruction so that all can understand but it doesn't live up to the challenge. Those missing verses would then be needed to make complete sense of it. The main reason for this view is that such necessary things as to how many prayers to perform and the 5 pillars aren't either explained or not detailed. Therefore, the hadiths, sira, and sunnah are needed to fill in the gaps. Also, consider that there are many things a Muslim is instructed to practice that are only found outside of the Qu'ran:

- regarding of dogs as unclean animals
- circumcision
- stoning of adulterers
- prohibition of menstruating women from praying or entering a mosque
- regarding dogs as unclean animals.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I wonder if Kim believes in Santa Claus.

teriadams said...

First of all, I appreciate the way you've set up your donations for the project. Sometimes when people are collecting money, it is unclear to me how much money they need and there is no way to see how much is left to be raised for the project.

That said, I would caution you about sending out these tracts for the asking. I predict that if you have covered the printing and the person making the request only has to pay shipping, it would be quite possible for Muslims to take advantage of you and get you to send them these tracts, which they would dump. So I hope you will somehow be vetting the people requesting the tracts.

Unknown said...

24 “When the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and not finding any, it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ 25 And when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. 26 Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.” Luke 11:24-26

There is no point in destroying a muslims faith in Mohamed and the Qur'an if you don't replace it with faith in Jesus Christ.

WhatsUpDoc said...

A suggestion: There should be an option for withdrawal every month from credit card.

simple_truth said...

Unknown said...

"
24 “When the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and not finding any, it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ 25 And when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. 26 Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.” Luke 11:24-26

There is no point in destroying a muslims faith in Mohamed and the Qur'an if you don't replace it with faith in Jesus Christ.
"
That verse is not appropriate in describing a Muslim's condition because it is about satan.

Although, I would like to see them become Christians, the reality is that probably a majority of them won't. For the sake of humanity, it would be far better for them to at least renounce Islam and choose some other way of life if they don't accept Christ. The goal would be first to get them to see the error of Islam. What happens next is out of our hands. Only the Spirit can draw them. All we can do is to try to persuade them to leave Islam and pray that our witnessing to them draws them to Christ.

minoria said...

Hello Derek,

I am impressed by your blog,it gives me ideas for new articles.

I am now debating skeptics about Christianity and it is give because they have given me new arguments.

It is good.One stated the Book of Mormon has more evidence than the resurrection of Jesus.

It sounds convincing if one doesn't know the fact that 3 of those who signed a document saying they saw the golden plates of the Book of Mormon with their own eyes later retracted it,but 2 returned.Here are the details:

http://www.bible.ca/mor-witness-book.htm

curly said...

@Minora,
I add you about mormon. Mormon claimed Holy Bible is perfect match and no contract to the book of Mormon! It is false.

Kangaroo said...

Oh snap! More lies, misinformation by a few bigoted laymen missionaries.

Derek Adams said...

Minoria, let me know where I can access your articles. And I'm glad it gives you ideas, especially since I haven't spent to much time on Atheism or Christianity.

I'm familiar with Mormonism, and ironically the Islamic sources also state that Aisha never saw Gabriel, nor did Khadija (while the Prophet did). So the exact same situation exists in Islam, the eye witnesses are reported to have not seen what Mohammed himself had seen right in front of them.

Derek Adams said...

Unknown said: "There is no point in destroying a muslims faith in Mohamed and the Qur'an if you don't replace it with faith in Jesus Christ"

Your ignorance is astonishing. Try watching the news sometime and see if Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Atheists, Agnostic etc are calling for Sharia Law, Supporting Terrorism and prohibiting Free Speech. Is there any Buddhist or Jewish country stoning women to death or funding terror cells and brainwashing?

But since you don't give a *** about this world and this earth you are only interested in paradise, ironically just like the Muslims.

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Deleting said...

Simple Truth said, "For most Muslims, that means that they will offer a reply--not that the reply actually addresses the issue or shows facts that deny the accuracy of the information."

And then Kim said, "For most Christians, that means that they will offer a reply--not that the reply actually addresses the issue or shows facts that deny the accuracy of the information."

Kim, I'm sincere when I say this is really adolescent behavior. Only a child mocks in this way. Not an adult.
Grow up.

Derek Adams said...

Kangaroo said: " Oh snap! More lies, misinformation by a few bigoted laymen missionaries."

Kangaroo you still haven't corrected the last set of lies you came out with in the last post, let alone accusing others of lying. For Shame.

simple_truth said...

Kangaroo said...

"
Oh snap! More lies, misinformation by a few bigoted laymen missionaries.
"
You don't have a very good track record of backing up your claims. It all seems so hollow.

From the looks of things around here, the real bigots are the ones continually calling others bigots. Ummm.... that appears to be you, Kim, and Osama.

If you are going to use a word, why not use it appropriately rather than throwing it around whenever you don't like something stated, specifically about your religion.

Whether you notice it or not, you are doing exactly what Muslims have historically done--raise objections to Islam being scrutinized in any way, even if the scrutiny is warranted. From several years of reading and observation, I have concluded that Muslims are very fragile, just like their religion, when it comes to facing adversity and criticism. Always, I do mean ALWAYS, Muslims pretend that the criticism is unwarranted and their religion is beyond reproach. Your fragile religion has to be defended at all costs because it can't stand without silencing the critics. You know it in your heart too but are either too prideful and arrogant to confess or that you are so caught up in it that you have lost your ability to show any integrity in facing it. Muslims (and you in particular, Kangaroo) know that your religion has some major problems and will fall apart and people will leave it in droves if they weren't intimidated in their pursuit of truth. Just like you, Kangaroo, they are left in darkness because Islam tries very hard to silence any dissenters.

If Islam is really the true revelation, then it should have no problems with being examined and scrutinized like Christianity has been since its inception. Only in non-intimidating environments can truth be sought openly and freely. Islam doesn't afford this environment. Do you every wonder why? I know. It's because, Islam lacks truthfulness and heavly censors its adherents just like any other cultic system does. Islam imprisons the brain to various degrees depending upon the the amount of the brainswashing and its tolerance for dissent, which is not very much unless one lives where freedom of thought and dissent is encouraged and not punished.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Kangaroo,

I know you believe in magic circles for example the illusion/delusion your caught in.

But I'm wondering about your god and how is it that you claim he is a god in spite of him being the Greatest deciever?

If I told you I was an honest guy but the greatest thief would you trust me with your personal belongings?

Unknown said...

@Derek Adams

Your ignorance is astonishing. Try watching the news sometime and see if Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Atheists, Agnostic etc are calling for Sharia Law, Supporting Terrorism and prohibiting Free Speech. Is there any Buddhist or Jewish country stoning women to death or funding terror cells and brainwashing?

I certainly don't believe that all religions and cultures are equal.


But since you don't give a *** about this world and this earth you are only interested in paradise, ironically just like the Muslims.


I do care about this world but I try to keep things in perspective.

I support the work that David and Sam are doing and I certainly get the impression that they care more about eternity than this world as well.

My hope is that David would either include the gospel message on these tracks or make a companion track that presents the gospel to Muslims. He is very knowledgeable about Islam and is in a position to present the gospel in a way that makes sense to Muslims.

Kangaroo said...

My life isn't spent going around annoying Christians about their religion lol.

And it's extremely sad that one has to spend their life annoying other faiths constantly since he/she is insecure about their own faith.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Derek,

Checked out your blog it's pretty interesting.

I see your familiar with vantillians. However, you should always be skeptical about your skepticism.


Just wanted to see if you would be ever interested in an exchange.

I was thinking maybe some where along the lines of your "non-God belief".


Let me know.

David Wood said...

Unknown said: "My hope is that David would either include the gospel message on these tracks or make a companion track that presents the gospel to Muslims."

Let me guess, something like: "So the Qur'an, contrary to Muslim belief, hasn't been perfectly preserved. Now repent and believe in Jesus. Just say the following prayer . . ."

No, there most certainly won't be a gospel message in a tract about the preservation of the Qur'an. Totally different issues.

I find it interesting that so many Christians invent rules such as "Whenever you discuss anything with a non-Christian, you must end with a gospel message," and "Nothing matters at all apart from preaching the Gospel." If anything, these views make Christians look bad, because it gives the impression that we can't focus on a topic for more than five minutes without changing the topic.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Kangaroo I'm really happy that you finally came out and said it i.e. atheism is a religion.


It's actually Islam that feels threatened by others especially Christianity


Try reading some Voice of the Martys and Barnabas aid newsletters or even this blog.

You can even go sign up they will send them to you for free here are the links:

http://www.persecution.com/

http://barnabasfund.org/

Deleting said...

David said, "I find it interesting that so many Christians invent rules such as "Whenever you discuss anything with a non-Christian, you must end with a gospel message," and "Nothing matters at all apart from preaching the Gospel." If anything, these views make Christians look bad, because it gives the impression that we can't focus on a topic for more than five minutes without changing the topic."


Excuse me David but I disagree. Usama Dakdok, who is also a christian apologist, begans his educational seminar, which you can find online with the gospel.


Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is what Jesus commanded. It's not a 'christian rule'.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I wonder if there are any prophecies about Santa Clause in the koran.

Maybe it got lost or someone forgot it but I'm pretty convinced Santa Clause was in there somewhere or maybe still is.


The thing is I can be arbitrary too just like when muslims feel the need to smuggle their prophet into the bible.



Maybe someone can help locate the prohecy about Santa Claus in the koran.




I really would appreciate it.



Thanks.

David Wood said...

Deleting,

Horrible misuse of scripture. According to you, Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations (which I agree with completely), means that Christians must end every conversation with a gospel message (which is a ridiculous rule). Is that your interpretation? If so, let's check your consistency.

Are you telling us that Jesus and the Apostles ended every conversation with a gospel message? If they didn't, would you say that they sinned by omitting the gospel message? (This is what happens when people invent rules.)

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I say just hand them a track with surah 3:54 on it and them ask them "why should I believe in Islam?"

That would be really interesting.

Deleting said...

i wasn't twisting scripture or trying to bend it.

Your comment made it sound like your tract was more important than the gospel message itself.

With your tract they may question Islam and leave it, but does renouncing islam make them saved?

No. They're just going to hell as agnostics or some other religion.
You still haven't done them any favors if you haven't shared the gospel with them.

Now, I didn't say beat them over the head with it, but you should share with them at some point in the course of your friendship or relationship with them.

Funny how you accuse me of scripture twisting when I quoted straight from the text in it's entirety.

You twisted my words to make me out to be the bad guy when I'm taking Jesus at his word.

David Wood said...

Deleting,

Yes, you quoted the scripture. But you obviously gave it a meaning not found in the text. "Make disciples of all nations" does not entail "End every discussion of any topic with a gospel message." That's just silly. Should I end this comment with a gospel message?

Again, did Jesus and his followers obey your rule? Did they end every conversation with a gospel message or not? If not, do you condemn them for not following your rule?

Interestingly, you change your claim from "David must end his tract with a gospel message" to "David should share the gospel at some point in the relationship." Big difference. I wouldn't disagree with the latter claim, but it has nothing to do with a tract on the preservation of the Qur'an.

You seem to share the common delusion that if someone doesn't convert to Christianity, all else is meaningless. The implication is that, if I don't insert a gospel message into a tract, the poor Muslim will never get a chance to hear it! Tell me, realistically, what kind of gospel message could I insert into the end of a tract that a Muslim hasn't heard dozens of times?

And I should ask if you really believe that everything is meaningless unless a Muslim accepts the Gospel. If the Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Center had left Islam, but not accepted Christianity, would you say that the 3000 lives saved are irrelevant, because the Muslims didn't convert?

I have no clue where you're getting the idea that if I don't include a gospel message in a tract that has nothing to do with the gospel, I'm somehow declaring that my tract is more important than the gospel. That is a horrendous misrepresentation. You don't usually end your comments with a gospel message. Are you telling us that your comments are more important than the Gospel? What if a Muslim reads one of your comments, but nothing else, and he didn't even get a gospel message?

Do you really see how silly this is, and how inconsistent you're being?

I actually find it insulting to the gospel to tack it on as an afterthought. The gospel requires more thought and discussion than a short paragraph at the end of an unrelated pamphlet. Indeed, Muslims have so many misconceptions about the Gospel, that they won't even understand a short paragraph without significant explanation. Hence, if I want to talk about the Gospel, I will talk about the Gospel. The Gospel isn't an appendix.

Unknown said...

Let me guess, something like: "So the Qur'an, contrary to Muslim belief, hasn't been perfectly preserved. Now repent and believe in Jesus. Just say the following prayer . . ."

I was thinking of something more along the lines of a companion track that compares the preservation of the Bible vs the Qur'an. It seems Muslims believe the Qur'an is perfectly preserved and that the Bible is hopelessly corrupt. You can tear down each myth in each track an point them toward the gospel.


No, there most certainly won't be a gospel message in a tract about the preservation of the Qur'an. Totally different issues.


Fair enough, I wasn't sure if it would work on the same track either.

I find it interesting that so many Christians invent rules such as "Whenever you discuss anything with a non-Christian, you must end with a gospel message," and "Nothing matters at all apart from preaching the Gospel." If anything, these views make Christians look bad, because it gives the impression that we can't focus on a topic for more than five minutes without changing the topic.


Im not trying to impose any rules on you. Sorry if I came across that way. I think you do a great job and I support the work you are doing.

Ultimately, the goal should be evangelism but there are different approaches. If you don't think presenting the gospel in some form with a companion track would be effective than I'll trust your judgement.

Unknown said...

@Deleting

Never get involved in a land war in Asia and never get into a debate with David Wood.

Deleting said...

David, Chill.

Here's my original comments again:

The first one: David said, "I find it interesting that so many Christians invent rules such as "Whenever you discuss anything with a non-Christian, you must end with a gospel message," and "Nothing matters at all apart from preaching the Gospel." If anything, these views make Christians look bad, because it gives the impression that we can't focus on a topic for more than five minutes without changing the topic."


Excuse me David but I disagree. Usama Dakdok, who is also a christian apologist, begans his educational seminar, which you can find online with the gospel.


Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is what Jesus commanded. It's not a 'christian rule'."


Then you came in screaming inconsistancy. My original point was the gospel needs to be included in your presentation. A lot of people feel like it is. I didn't give any hint of legalism there. All i did was try to explaim my position because apparently you didn't understand what I meant.

I see now you don't care what I meant. You want to be 'right'

In my second comment (I'm not posting it all. David's rant is large to deal with and there's only so many words.)

"Your comment made it sound like your tract was more important than the gospel message itself. "

This, David, was what I was getting at when you said in your first rant:

"If so, let's check your consistency.

Are you telling us that Jesus and the Apostles ended every conversation with a gospel message? If they didn't, would you say that they sinned by omitting the gospel message?"

As for the rest of it, dude I'm letting it go. My point was simple: the gospel is important to your tract. I didn't try to carve some legalism in there.
And I didn't go on a rant like you did to defend how umimportant to your tract it is or make claims of inccnsistancy like you did nor did I appeal to emotion bringing up 9/11 like you did.

Derek Adams said...

Hezekiah I honestly thought you were an Atheist since you always ask the Muslim "why do you believe in magic beings, do you believe in santa claus etc". Although I should have caught on from your name.

But if you are a pressupositionalist and want to talk please read all my articles relating to TAG, and then feel free to rebut them. Since I've already responded to TAG, maybe you can address my response in these articles:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/are-miracles-evidence-of-god-eddie.html

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/best-argument-for-gods-existance.html

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/answering-muslims-debate-will-real.html

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Derek,

Great. It should be interesting I noticed your familiar with Anton Thorn. I have read some of his stuff.

Do you consider yourself an "objectivist"?

I'm usually over At Dawson Bethrick's ( "the great Objectivist")blog causing trouble(lolololololo). Are you familiar with his writings?

Anyway at the end of the day atheist are all the same no matter what philosophy they claim to hold to.


I'll check those links out and take it from there.

Derek Adams said...

While I've heard of him, I haven't become a regular at his blog. Although I use to visit Leblanc's site often.

Am I an objectivist? I lean that way. I would question "objective meaning", but not objective morality, objective laws of logic, and objective science.

By the way at the end of the day economists are all the same whether they are socialists, captialists, no matter what system they hold to.

Yeah and at the end of the day Christians are all the same no matter what doctrine they hold to they all believe in imaginary fairy tales.

Of course I am just joking around but unfortunately I suspect you were not.

I assume you made your statement for two reasons firstly in your world view Atheists are sinners all bound to hell unless Jesus saves them and in this sense it matters not what philosophy we have and second, all atheists ought to logically be nihilists since you think Atheists cannot account for logic, meaning, science and morality.

"Objectively" speaking none of these claims are true.

Firstly surely if communism matters, if rationality matters, then it does matter what philosophy people hold to, as the implications of such philosophies have tremendous implications in the lives of others which is why we have all assembled together at blogs like this. So the first reason is redundant and also places less effort on this world and more concern for the after world. We should be concerned about here and now and not just the fact that you think Atheists will burn.


Second morality and meaning are accounted for by several scientific theories including evolution.

And Science itself is accounted for by methodological naturalism, which is a branch of philosophy like empiricism and rationalism, and the laws of logic responsible for sound philosophy are axiomatic in nature and need no accounting for.

In fact to argue that laws need accounting for would be self refuting on several fronts. First, God's nature itself is like a law it is supposedly an unchanging constant, account for that I say. why is it unchanging, how is it immutable? Therefore it's clear that Laws don't need accounting for, rather other things are accounted for by Laws.

Anyway, I better quit now while I'm ahead. Getting to carried away.

Let me know when your ready.

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Andish said...

I'll reiterate what someone else said: make sure you don't send bundles to Muslims that will just trash them.

Andish said...

Deleting... Because of what Islam believes I would rather them agnostic than Muslims. At least with agnosticism, or even atheism for that matter, they don't have these radical views of others that don't believe the same thing. Agnostics don't think Christians should be killed in sight or believe rocks will them Jews are hiding behind.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Great. Derek has decided to carry the convo over here.

By the way I left some comments on your blog just in case.

Derek said: "Let me know when your ready."

I'm always ready( how striking that just happens to be the title of Dr.bahnsen's book) anyway I hope your ready to go the distance.

Derek said: "Yeah and at the end of the day Christians are all the same no matter what doctrine they hold to they all believe in imaginary fairy tales."


Hate to do this but "you toooo" evolution i.e. fairy tales.


Derek: "I assume you made your statement for two reasons firstly in your world view Atheists are sinners all bound to hell unless Jesus saves them and in this sense it matters not what philosophy we have and second, all atheists ought to logically be nihilists since you think Atheists cannot account for logic, meaning, science and morality."


That's right, Derek, welcome to my world.

What do you base logic on is it reality?

If so how do you harmonize something that doesn't change(logic) to something that does changes(reality)?

Honestly, you as an atheist living in a so called Godless universe how do you know what's good and evil?

How does morality come from immorality?

What's wrong with atheists burning in hell?


In a Godless universe anything goes it's the might makes right universe. In other words the strongest survive and the weak perish. There is nothing you can do about it.


The problem is by removing God out of the picture you make things worst. In other words removing God does not solve the problem of evil.


Who's gonna avenge all the atrocities committed in life?

Who's gonna avenge all the wrongs?


Are you derek?



Hell is Good.


Repent and live,Derek, repent and live.




Cont.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Derek,

Said: "And Science itself is accounted for by methodological naturalism, which is a branch of philosophy like empiricism and rationalism, and the laws of logic responsible for sound philosophy are axiomatic in nature and need no accounting for.



Ok then as a naturalist how do you justify belief in abstractions for example logic?




Derek said: "In fact to argue that laws need accounting for would be self refuting on several fronts. First, God's nature itself is like a law it is supposedly an unchanging constant, account for that I say. why is it unchanging, how is it immutable? Therefore it's clear that Laws don't need accounting for, rather other things are accounted for by Laws."



But could you be wrong?


Starting points don't need to be accounted for then we will never get started.


I start with the Christian God how about you?

Is it logic, reality what is it?

It's actually a simple question why is nature uniform?

Claiming that's it's axiomatic is to beg the question.

It's only a complicated way of saying "it's just the way it is"




Let me stop I'm getting carried away.

David Wood said...

Careful. You guys are blurring the line between methodological naturalism (which is simply a procedure in scientific investigation and makes no positive claims about reality) and metaphysical naturalism (a philosophical position declaring that the natural world is all there is).

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

David,

Said: "Careful. You guys are blurring the line between methodological naturalism (which is simply a procedure in scientific investigation and makes no positive claims about reality) and metaphysical naturalism (a philosophical position declaring that the natural world is all there is)."

Thanks Dave.


So, Derek is the natural world all there is?

If so how do you know?

Derek Adams said...

Sorry David, didn't mean to intend it like that.

Hezekiah, I have responded to all your comments on the following links:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/are-miracles-evidence-of-god-eddie.html

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/best-argument-for-gods-existance.html

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/answering-muslims-debate-will-real.html

You can respond. But if you wish we can redirect the conversation to one location to here or somewhere else, but we'll try to make it all in one spot.

Derek Adams said...

Okay now to address Hezekiah's comments here:

TAG (Laws of Logic)

"What do you base logic on is it reality? If so how do you harmonize something that doesn't change(logic) to something that does changes(reality)? (and in second post:) Is it logic, reality what is it?"

I don't accept several premises here. "What do I base logic on?" makes logic look like a singular "thing" or "object". I don't base logic on a written document, or a car, or a tree root. The laws of logic are not based on a brain or mind either, rather what we have are descriptions of self evident rules of reality.

By reality I take it you mean: "what is real" and "what exists". Some parts of existence change sure, but does existence itself stop existing? well no. This is a constant or a law, an unalterable constant.

The fundamental point to remember here is laws of logic are being described by minds but not synonymous with mind. What does it mean to say laws of logic derive from God's mind? The statement itself is incoherent. Laws are Laws, Laws are not thoughts. Our description of them are thoughts.

Derek Adams said...

"Honestly, you as an atheist living in a so called Godless universe how do you know what's good and evil? How does morality come from immorality?"

1) Morality doesn't come from immorality. Human morality comes from the nature of human beings.

The progression goes:

Human nature ->
Human set of preferences ->
Human Character ->
Human Values/Principles/Standards->
Human Commands/Objectives

2) How do I discern moral from immoral? Two parts. Firstly my objectives/values are derived from my character, and my character is derived from my human nature and conditioning. So our human nature largely determines ethics.

Secondly a sound standard and principle that can be derived from our human nature with the help of some cognitive rationality is: "The greater good for everybody is the less amount of unnecessary suffering". Note this model cannot be determined without human nature, the foundation of human morality is derived from human nature and the set of preferences it produces in us.

Here is what I said else where:

"As for having to "justify" this standard , as I mentioned earlier that's as silly as asking you to "justify" God's nature. Why is God's nature all loving? Well, because it is. Why does God have a set of preferences over another? How does he justify these set of preferences? He doesn't. He doesn't decide to be all loving, by his very own nature he is all loving.

Similarly humans don't decide to have a set of preferences or standard (the least unnecessary pain the better), they are automatic and derive from there nature. However one experiences "pain" the automatic set preference to dislike like it is natural."

Derek Adams said...

Next Hezekiah you said:

"What's wrong with atheists burning in hell?"

Well nothing if you assume an transcendent omnipotent dictator who is more concerned with his own self-glorification over that of the greater good which is the least amount of suffering possible.

But the question you have to ask yourself is: What is the better standard? An omnipotent being, who uses humans as his "clay", his play toy, a being that creates vessels for destruction and dishonor in order to glorify his own name (all biblical read Romans 9). Or our very own human set of preferences and the standard derived from these preferences that all unnecessary harm is cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course this is a particular criticism of Yahweh and Allah. As there might be a conception of God that doesn't want to promote his own worship over that of the greater good for humanity.

But let me ask you, what is the purpose of endless, perpetual needless suffering? Once God extracts his revenge, why continue the punishment? You also have to prove the punishment fits the crime. It's not enough to say God is infinite therefore our crimes are infinite. No, our crimes are finite. You also must prove whatever sin we commit against God warrants everlasting punishment.

Al Andalusi in his debate with Farhan, simply passed this off as "the punishment for shirk the unforgivable sin". Yet he wasn't able to manage to show why worshiping more than one God actually warrants everlasting punishment. So I'll leave that up to you, since you think and agree with a Muslim.

You said:

"In a Godless universe anything goes it's the might makes right universe."

The irony is the exact opposite. Since I've already demonstrated human morality has nothing to do with "might makes right", that is a principle that cannot be rationally defined on the basis of our set of preferences, I'll move on to the truth of the matter.

The last point which demonstrates Christians argue that since God is infinite and our sins are waged against an infinite being then we must be punished forever. So yes "might makes right", the very ontological essence of God causes our consequence to be perpetual due to his omnipotent, infinite nature. If a finite being attempted to punish someone perpetually, then him being in a position of power doesn't make him right, he is still condemned by all human rights, yet God is allowed to proving "might makes right".

Next you said: "The problem is by removing God out of the picture you make things worst. In other words removing God does not solve the problem of evil."

No it certainly doesn't "remove it". But belief in God certainly perpetuates it (point in case: Islamic nations). Assuming it was true, the problem even becomes worse because the tyranny of this world is only an millimeter of what is to come.

Derek Adams said...

Hezekiah said: "Who's gonna avenge all the atrocities committed in life? Who's gonna avenge all the wrongs?"

Ahh the human need of justice.

Yet according to you, the worst crime of Hitler wasn't killing millions of people, his worse crime was not accepting Jesus and faith in his resurrection from the dead.

So indeed, what is God going to be extracting his justice for?

In fact according to the Bible, myself and Hitler will receive the exact same punishment.

So certainly justice will not be implemented by Yahweh anyway. Yahweh's kind of justice is based on "belief" and not "actions". Human morality is based on the judicial system, which takes into account actions, there is no such thing as thought crime.

"Ok then as a naturalist how do you justify belief in abstractions for example logic?"

I don't believe logic is an abstraction. Our descriptions of the laws of logic are abstractions.

Hezekiah said: "Starting points don't need to be accounted for then we will never get started. I start with the Christian God how about you? It's actually a simple question why is nature uniform?"

I disagree. Axioms don't need accounting for. In fact since you believe starting points do need to be accounted for please explain why does anything exist, why does God exist rather than nothing exist? Justify existance. Why does God have a nature? Why does God have three persons and not ten?

Hezekiah said: "Claiming that's it's axiomatic is to beg the question."

It sure is, but in this case it is not fallacy. Why?

A statement must satisfy three conditions to be considered axiomatic:

1) It must be irreducible to prior concepts
2) It must be self-evident to introspective and extrospective acts of cognition
3) It must be undeniable without direct contradiction

The concept of “God” fails to meet each of these:

1) One can reduce the concept of God to an unembodied mind, thereby rendering the concept of God as non-foundational
2) The concept of God is not self-evident to all acts of cognition
3) The denial of God does not lead to direct contradiction, in stating that “God does not exist” one is making use of various axioms but not presuming the existence of God.

Until next time,

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Derek,

I have moved things over to my blog(the link is below you) it will make things easier and quicker. However, if it's fine with David I will also post my reponses to your questions that you have asked here on this blog:

From my blog:

http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/2012/02/exchange-with-derek.html


I am currently in a dialogue with Derek(a professing "atheist") I have decided to move things here. Since I don't moderate comments things will be easier and move a lot faster.

You can go here to get the background here, here, here, here.




I want to address some really interesting questions(which are also quite hilarious) that Derek has decided to ask me(his questions are in italics) you can get the background here:




Do you believe in Santa Claus (irony intended)?

Why Derek does Santa Claus exist?


Do you believe in little green men?

Why Derek Do little green men exist?

Do you believe in leprechauns?

Why Derek do leprechauns exist?


Do you believe in invisible jinns?

What's an invisible jinn Derek?


Do you believe in angels and devils on our right and left shoulders?

Why Derik do devils and angels exist?


Do you believe aliens will invade us and take over the planet tomorrow?

Well, Derek, I haven't turned on the news today but should I be expecting something?


Do you believe your little cousin freddy is really a super hero?

I don't have a little cousin named freddy, Derek.


Do you believe that computers were really invented by aliens and aliens adsorb the body of bill gates who created Microsoft?



Why Derek do aliens exist?


This is the first absurdity of Abrahamic faith, the absurdity that nothing espoused can be justified true belief.



How do you know?


The next absurdity is blind obedience to faith, and the violence that follows from it.

What blind obedience and what violence?


The rest of his(derek's) questions I will be answering in the comments but as you can see Derik didn't ask the right questions.


It's simple you reject the Christian God and you are reduced to a fool.


Thank you Dr. Bahnsen I guess you were right after all. How is Dr. Van Til doing up there?

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Derek said: "The laws of logic are not based on a brain or mind either, rather what we have are descriptions of self evident rules of reality."


In other words that's just the way it is. Could you be wrong?


Derek said: "By reality I take it you mean: "what is real" and "what exists". Some parts of existence change sure, but does existence itself stop existing? well no. This is a constant or a law, an unalterable constant.


How do you know the laws of logic can't change or existence can't change?

It's interesting because YHWH can't change. See the "proof"?


Derek said: "What does it mean to say laws of logic derive from God's mind? The statement itself is incoherent. Laws are Laws, Laws are not thoughts. Our description of them are thoughts."


It means that they derive from YHYW mind. In other word's they are a reflection of his thinking. Notice Derek how humans don't have their eyes in back of their head or three legs or three heads. See the evidence?


Are laws abstract or concrete?

Cont.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I wonder where Derek went I hope he's not trying to figure out if little green men exist. Anyway.

Derek Said: "1) Morality doesn't come from immorality. Human morality comes from the nature of human beings.

The progression goes:

Human nature ->
Human set of preferences ->
Human Character ->
Human Values/Principles/Standards->
Human Commands/Objectives"


In other words "that's just the way it is". I guess it's ok since you claim "So, what you tooooo". It's kinda like "well I don't have to be rational I mean you're not rational." Great.

Derek Said: "Secondly a sound standard and principle that can be derived from our human nature with the help of some cognitive rationality is: "The greater good for everybody is the less amount of unnecessary suffering". Note this model cannot be determined without human nature, the foundation of human morality is derived from human nature and the set of preferences it produces in us."


And why should I care about other people
suffering? How about if the greater "good" just happens to be the suffering of others?


Derek said: "Similarly humans don't decide to have a set of preferences or standard (the least unnecessary pain the better), they are automatic and derive from there nature. However one experiences "pain" the automatic set preference to dislike like it is natural."


So, I guess hitler was just a born natural killer. How fascinating. So, you should be defending him then he was just being him.




Cont.