anyways Atheist people (not meaning that in an offensive way)
have any of you even bothered to read what I posted with the green font?
Yes. I have seen it (and Zakir Naiks other work) hundreds of time. It is about as groundbreaking and as innovative as the Teleological Argument relayed by Christian Fundamentalists.
Oh wait. Zakir Naik
uses the Teleological Argument.
Ourra-Tul-'Ain said:
anyways Allah swa is the one who guides people to the straight path, I'm just trying to help you see the plain TRUTH.
You could do better than Zakir Naik.
Just some of his argument responded to for now:
Zakir Naik is a man who simply repeats very common arguments about God. There is very little to be proud of in him as a Muslim, let alone an Atheist. I get tired of seeing his arguments endlessly copied on the internet as if they are revolution in thought.
Article said:
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.
My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.
Yes.
Zakir Naik said:
LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD
My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?"
An Atheist can answer with an array of answers to that. Traditionally, the Islamic attributes towards God is omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, eternal, judge, creator, transcendent, perfect.. etc.
Article said:
For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God.
Article said:
His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives.
Not necessarily. An Atheist may not even have a concept of God. Some Atheists may assert various concepts of God according to their understanding of Gods that people believe in.
Article said:
The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.
This assumes that all Atheists disbelieve in a
particular qualities of a God and for
particular reasons. The actual reasons Atheists disbelieve in God is overwhelmingly due to lack of evidence or reason to suppose there is one or incoherence in the definition of God as provided by many.
Article said:
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.
Right.
Article said:
If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
This is, as I can quite clearly see - the Teleological Argument. Hardly an innovation in thought or even an effective argument to proving anything.
The Teleological Argument assumes its conclusion in the premises. It assumes that the universe
was created and concludes that it was created by God. Analogies used to provide a clearer picture refer to human inventions being designed - but ignores the fact that the universe
(which is the sum total of everything) and a car
(often used in analogies) are comparable. They are not comparable in the slightest. We are with complete knowledge and evidence of the origins of cars. We are not with knowledge on the origins of the universe.
The Teleological Argument is only of any value if you actually contend the universe was created. Even then it does not actually account for or provide any meaningful evidence for what created or established the designer of the universe, and by the arguments own standards - it would require one or defy its own logic. The Teleological Argument therefore begs the question and is one rather irritating and consistent logical fallacy.
eace:
may I ask…………or have I totally misunderstood something
