Author Topic: freethoughtmecca.org  (Read 1513 times)

symtacs

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 255
  • Karma +0/-0
freethoughtmecca.org
« on: February 03, 2004, 05:04:15 PM »
Interesting sites.

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
http://www.freethoughtmecca.org/

Free thought claims to be based on rationality, is provably irrational. Unfortunately, thanks to Shiasm and Sunnism, Islam is mis-quoted and misunderstood everywhere. Irshad (refusnik) is right in refuting Shiasm and Sunnism. Unfortunately, she does not know Deen-e-Islam. It is not her fault in a way. She is merely criticizing what she sees. We are also criticizing the 'isms' in Islam.

Freethoughtmecca.org had an interesting logic problem posted here:

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranlogic.html/

Unfortunately, his logic is flawed in the analysis of 4:82. For those who have read his analysis, here is his flaw.

From his website:
"So, this means that the verse is putting forth a proposition that is logically equivalent to saying "if the Qur'an does not have any errors, it is from Allaah." That is a statement that is demonstrably false. I could easily present a text that is both free of error and not of a divine origin (exempli gratia: a phone directory). The Muslims might argue that we are not discussing phone directories, and put forth some special pleading on behalf of the Qur'an, but that too is fallacious"

The problem is "I could easily present a text that is both free of error and not of divine origin..".

What is the connecting transition from "If the Quran does not have any errors, it is from Allah" to "This statement is false".

Define false. Logically false? It is only one statement. It does not contradict itself. Rationally unverifiable? This he does not show.

While giving the example of a phone book, he keeps the following statement in mind "If ANY text does not have any error, that text is from Allah". The example of a phone disproves the above 'any text' statement, not the actual Quranic statement that talks about itself.

Quranic verse is talking about Quran itself. Freethoughts dude went from a specific to a general with no llogical connection. As far as logic is concerned, from a simple If-then statement, you can only conclude the contropositive and nothing more. He introduced a variable 'phone book' that does not belong to the statement being criticized. His generality is not derivable from the Quranic statement.

Both Irshad and freethoughts dude are finding contradictions in sunnism and shiasm. Both rely on hadith-based faith. In retrospect, looking at the positive side, they are also doing a favor to Islam (real), which is taken synonymously with widely-accepted islam (hadith based). Furthermore, by raising those concerns, they allow us to disprove them, hence, adding to the strength of Islam.

I guess Im an optimist.   :D

AaRoN

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
freethoughtmecca.org
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2004, 10:31:19 PM »
peace

you know, i don't understand...of all the examples these people choose to use, they use the phone directory.

at one time i worked as a directory assistance agent for the phone company. i can assure you that the phone directory is anything but free of errors. :)
* the Divine suffices as observer - appreciation is the message of the Divine - and those who are with it are harsh on concealment and nurture between themselves *

The Sardar

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
  • Karma +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: freethoughtmecca.org
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2020, 11:21:38 AM »
I know this is old but i came across this old anti-Islam page a while. The authors are arrogant from what i saw in their articles. I wonder if someone here has made refutations against these people.

The Sardar

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
  • Karma +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: freethoughtmecca.org
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2020, 12:59:03 AM »
There is a article in the Miscellaneous called the Great Debate, i didn't check the entire article, just skimmed a little but it was a bit of a mess. Especially on the Kalam Cosmilogical Argument.

There is a blogpost that has made responses towards the objections against KCA:

DEBUNKING COMMON ATHEISTS' ARGUMENTS AGAINST KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (PART I)

https://debunkingatheistrepublic.blogspot.com/2019/06/refuting-common-atheists-arguments.html

DEBUNKING COMMON ATHEISTS' ARGUMENTS AGAINST KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (PART II)

https://debunkingatheistrepublic.blogspot.com/2019/07/debunking-common-atheists-arguments.html

Kalam & Fallacy of Equivocation (DEBUNKED).

https://debunkingatheistrepublic.blogspot.com/2020/06/kalam-fallacy-of-equivocation-debunked.html

The Sardar

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
  • Karma +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: freethoughtmecca.org
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2020, 01:44:22 PM »
By the way, 4:82 obviously states it's about the Qur'an not just any text as that article claims which i have no idea how they make 4:82 means any text.