"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."-Dr.zakir naik
Because when i first saw your comment i though you were muslim.but now it appears you not one since you don't know about this,Don't be shy.
Saying part of the Shahadah is irrelevant because the portion they are missing is the antithesis of the atheist creed. To reject the existence of other gods does not bring one closer to accepting Allah.
What does my religious belief have to do with addressing the points in my statement? Does the truth about the existence of God vary based on my religious beliefs?
What i meant that atheists said part of the shahada"There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.." The atheists simply said"there is no god" so all they need to say is "but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God"
i will answer your second questions if you told me your religion by simply voting on the poll.
Except that atheists are also kafir. Kafir are not favored in Islam. The implication that atheists are favored is patently ridiculous concerning they are destined to the same "Hell" that awaits Christians, Jews, Hindus, and people that worshipped Odin.
Francis Bacon lived in the 1600s. He knew and understood a fraction of what we now know about the world. It is arguable that if he knew then what we know now, his position might be different. That however, is useless speculation. Second, his religious conviction actually has no bearing on what the real truth is.
The idea that scientists are eliminating "models of God" doesn't make your position any stronger. That demonstrates a classic God of the Gaps argument in which people typically point to anything that scientists have not yet figured out and scream "GOD!!!". It is categorically impossible to disprove the existence of God by nature. It's also impossible to disprove the existence of an invisible rainbow colored Star Destroyer that has the ability to warp space and time.
deletedalmost 9 years
I like George episodes the best
deletedalmost 9 years
It's an episode of Seinfeld, Jerry becomes a practitioner of Odinic Rite but quickly discovers that half the members of the Odinic Rite in his neighborhood are anti-semites. Meanwhile George's Dad upon learning of Jerry's conversion is inspired to create a new religion based upon the principles of his own holiday of Festivus, only to come into conflict with another cult established by Elaine's ex-boss J. Peterman.
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God.
I am not against atheists, in fact atheists are actually favored in islam.
i'm positive this is the beginning of a sitcom episode
deletedalmost 9 years
You can't prove Odin doesn't exist, you can't prove he does, safest option is therefore to believe in him. You can't prove Ra doesn't exist, you can't prove he does, safest option is therefore to believe in him. You can't prove Discordia doesn't exist, you can't prove she does, safest option is therefore to believe in her.
By your argument the safest option is to incorporate every single deity into your faith, because their existence is neither provable nor disprovable. Unfortunately the Christian God is wholly incompatible with the worship of other Gods, therefore the safest option is to exclude the Christian God.
If you can't prove he exists, and can't prove he doesn't isn't the safer option to assume he does? I of course believe in god, just as all science and logical reasoning proves he is, but even if that's not enough proof for some of you, who think that the pavement evolved onto the streets, it's always the safer and more mentally rewarding choice to believe in god. BTW I'm one of Jehovah's witnesses, which Millenarian Restorationist Christian.
I didn't say all biblical prophecy has been proven right. I said it has never been wrong. I guess a more objective statement would be it has never been proven wrong.
i'm telling you politely now because i don't want you to be mocked for this or anything, but a lot of the biblical prophecies that people claim have been fulfilled are very, very vague or were directly known by the authors of the NT, who arguably tried to fit the narrative to make the prophecies be fulfilled. as such, this argument doesn't work really well.
