Original sin was a concept flourished by Augustine, who believed literally that there was a couple called Adam and Eve.

However, many Christians today do not believe the literalness of Adam and Eve. If that's the case, then the concept of original sin no longer exists, and the value of Jesus' redemption falls apart.

Both religions claim that their God is all knowing and fair.

Both claim that if you don't believe without evidence in their God, youll be sent to hell for eternity.

So where is the problem? The faith mechanism and the concept of hell.

If God is all knowing he would have known there would eventually be false prophets who would claim to have had visions or dreams from him and would threaten those who didn't follow their religion with hell.

So he would have created a mechanism to independently and scientifically verify that these visions were genuine and they came from him.

Instead, we have to decide whether we should trust the claims of Isaiah and Paul or those of muhammad, both claim visions and their message contradicts each other.

All without an independent verification mechanism, and while being threatened with eternal hellfire if our guess is wrong.

This is a very real problem God could have avoided by either:

1. Having everyone be born with the knowledge of the one true religion and God.

2. Revealing himself to everyone instead of just a few prophets.

3. Providing evidence of his existence frequently or throughout the creation.

Instead we are told he asks us to have faith in either of those religions and have a 50% chance of our guess being wrong and being sent to hell for not making the right guess.

If Islam is true, 2 billion people will be sent to hell, for making the wrong guess, if Christianity is true 1.8 billion people will be sent to hell for making the wrong guess and worshipping the wrong God.

A God who sends you to hell for guessing wrong and rewards others for guessing right is not fair. Furthermore if their guess is right, believers will be tortured by the idea of what if their guess is wrong?

The one true God would provide evidence instead of relying on faith, to distinguish himself from the false god and the false prophet. Both religions rely on faith because both worship false Gods.

At last both theologies prove each other and by extension themselves wrong.

Neither of their prophets had any evidence to back up the claims that they had revelations from God. They just claimed it and expected us to believe it without evidence.

If God exists he never created a scientific mechanism to prove visions or dreams were genuine because he never intended to reveal himself. So all three Abrahamic religions ( Judaism, islam and Christianity) are most likely false.

Ok, so this is mainly about what i see from Abrahamic people who know nothing about Hinduism and make certain arguments/insults against Hinduism

1.) If a Christian complains about "polytheism"

So, it makes no sense for Christians to call it "polytheistic" since they obviously dont believe Christianity is polytheistic, since they say that the trinity is monotheistic, saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different persons, but the same God, so why can't that logic apply to Hinduism? many Hindu traditions teach that the different gods (Ie Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma etc) are all different manifestations of the Brahman, so calling Hinduism polytheistic is essentially the same as calling Christianity polytheistic, but obviously no one would say that, right?

2.) If a Muslim complains about "idolatry"

So there is a BIG misconception with people who know nothing about Hinduism but still critique it, which is saying that Hindus believe that statues of gods (Murtis) are literally gods. like they say Hindus believe that making the statue turns it into god or whatever their reasoning is. BUT. this is just not true, Murtis are used to help focus on god during prayer, and they're not required for it, its simply a helpful tool, and many people pray without Murtis. so why did i mention Muslims? because if they say this, then they themselves are saying Islam has idolatry, since the Kaaba is a thing, obviously no one will say that Muslims believe the Kaaba IS god so they can't call Hinduism idolatry without saying they themselves have idolatry

So, in both examples they have the capacity to understand the concepts, its not deep or philosophical and it doesnt take years of research to understand, they CAN understand it, but then their main insults vanish into thin air. they dont want to understand it since that makes it harder to demean and/or insult Hinduism.

JUST to be clear, I'm not claiming Christianity and Hinduism are the same, or that Islam and Hinduism are the same. I'm also not claiming that Brahman and the Trinity are identical, or that murtis and the Kaaba have the same religious function. My point is simply that the relevant conceptual distinctions are similar enough that someone who understands one should be capable of understanding the other.

Sex, or fantasizing about it, is not inherently evil. Physical sex can certainly be wrong when forced or imposed on someone at a young age.

A recently departed poster here accused other people of "sin" because they were assumed to have sexual fantasies. This poster was accusing people that they don't believe in their particular God because they love their sin too much. Of course, the poster themselves didn't offer if he/she fantasized in this way. I am sure they are pure.

However, in males, fantasizing about sex can be heavily influenced by the level of the primary androgen hormone, testosterone. So how is it possible that this very human activity could be determined to be "sin" if it so easily influence by the level of a chemical in the body?

That odd part is that in the US the very vocal Christian Department of War cabinet member was attempting to force men to inject testosterone and thereby increase the degree of this supposed sin would be committed. It is strange times we live in.

Matthew 16:28 - Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom".

This is a failed prediction. Every person standing there died, and everyone 2000 years later has died without Jesus' return.

Christians are unable to question it and have to come up with any reason why it's not what it says because it would mean their religion is false.

What I have seen tonight was probably comparable to two hours of rage bait in the chokey from Matilda, then 5 minutes of sunshine and rainbows. I got second hand embarrassment from Simple's logical chain and his vocabulary. The only credit that i can possibly give him is that he may not have understand the fundamental importance of morality because it's outside of his general sphere of conversation.

The majority of the debate was circumvented by the general positions of, in the beginning: 'abortion is bad' - from JaW's side, and SBT: 'If the deregulation of abortions is your goal, this doesn't impact its quantiative status'. This later translated into: 'abortion is murder' and 'what do we categorise murder as? + BTW IDC'.

The line of reasoning from SBT was so illogical, seriously. JaW posed the most simple hypothetical to SBT, and he could not answer it on the grounds that 'he couldn't imagine a world where he could be convinced of a thing as abortion being murder.' Ironically, this was simple and theoretical so you'd think this would be his area of expertise. He positioned his rejection to the hypothetical on the grounds that the judicial system is predicated with 'innocent until proven guilty'. Giving a legalistic response to a subjective position on morality. This was then mysteriously refuted, BY HIMSELF not moments later. Just really frustrating to watch someone go into a debate when you really don't know how to have a conversation about fundamental metaphysics or a grip on their own positions and why. HM quotes: 'Your premises. I dont really know if i disagree with any of them' (i don't think he understood what a premise was) and 'If abortion is murder. Kill that fetus.' .

However, not to be to biased. I think that the only problem that i have with JaW's refutation was that he didn't give the best responses in the world. Like the legalistic predication on SBT's moral position could have been so easily ripped apart because, surprisingly, it was not a hypothetical legal system. He ment his moral position was ingrained in the legal system that america upholds today. At least the dude was consistent. Jesus. Anyway that's my two cents about something i had no part in. THANKS FOR LISTENING TO MY TED TALK 🗣️🔥!!!!

Theists believe that god created everything from nothing which can never be demonstrated. In my world view all matter and energy have always existed as can be supported by the first law of thermodynamics which says energy can only be changed.

Ever since I started to notice the parallels between ba’al/moloch and the people on this earth that have done insidious things in their name for the sake of fertility i’ve become very confused.

I was raised as a half white half lebanese christian baptist from texas and i still follow jesus today, i’ve also always had a great respect for the muslim side of my family due to their tolerance and curiosity opposed to the rigid bible belt dogma on my white side.

I’ve heard that yahweh and ba’al are either one and the same or brothers to some degree. I like to believe I know who I pray to at night even if I don’t know their name but i’d also like to learn what is “right” for me. One of my greatest fears is that my soul is nothing more than livestock preparing for the slaughterhouse.

I’ve read up a little bit on gnosticism and that cooked my noodle even more, the sheer thought that i’m being led astray even if i’m not aligned with the gods of child sacrifice.

I’m only 20 and this paranoia has started to interfere with my day to day life. Despite the fact theology is far from binary I do feel as if there is some sort of fog on earth clouding many religious people’s consciousness and these “higher ups” that do these abominable rituals are spreading that fog via media, culture wars, religion, nationalism etc. There does appear to be a classic good vs evil trope being presented to us (The epstein class is a good example of the “evil” i’m talking about) and I just can’t seem to understand why things would be that simple if there are so many deities among us. Sorry for the word salad

Is having a good heart enough or are we all essentially gambling?

I’ve been thinking about something that I’m not sure there is any real way to answer, but I think it makes for an interesting thought experiment.

For the sake of discussion, assume that gods and supernatural beings are human constructs. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. Just grant the premise temporarily and work backward with me.

At some point in our evolution, there presumably had to be a first supernatural thought. And I don’t mean Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zeus, or even anything we would recognize today as a god. I mean the first time some human thought there might be an invisible being, spirit, mind, or force behind something they couldn’t explain.

So what caused that thought?

One possibility that makes a lot of sense to me starts with something humans are really good at: detecting agency.

Imagine a very early human hearing something moving in the bushes. Is it the wind or a predator? If you assume predator and it’s just the wind, no big deal. If you assume wind and it’s a lion, you may have just removed yourself from the gene pool. So there’s a pretty obvious survival advantage to assuming that unexplained things sometimes have an agent behind them.

Now take that same brain and put it in a world with no understanding of weather, physics, disease, or how the brain works.

Thunder suddenly explodes overhead. What did that?

Lightning comes out of the sky and sets a tree on fire. What did that?

The rain stops coming and everyone starts starving. Why?

Then I think death and dreams could make this even more interesting.

Someone you love dies. You know they’re dead. You saw the body. Maybe you even buried it. Then you go to sleep and there they are. You see them, hear them, and maybe even talk to them.

Today we understand that your brain can produce that experience. But how would a human living tens of thousands of years ago interpret it?

I’m not sure that concluding "some part of this person still exists" would even be irrational given what they knew at the time.

Then there’s another ability humans have that I think matters here. We understand that other people have minds even though we can’t see them. I can’t see your thoughts, intentions, anger, desires, or memories. I infer that invisible mental world from your behavior.

Once our ancestors were capable of imagining an invisible mind inside another person, was imagining an invisible mind without a person really that enormous of a leap?

Maybe that eventually gets you from unexplained agency to spirits, ancestors, nature spirits, supernatural beings, and eventually gods. Not necessarily in that exact order, and certainly not the same way everywhere.

There’s also the issue of control.

If the rain simply doesn’t come, you’re helpless. But if something or someone controls the rain, now there might be something you can do about it. Maybe you can please it. Maybe you can ask it for rain. Maybe you can give it something. Maybe certain behavior makes it angry.

Suddenly an unpredictable universe becomes one you can at least try to negotiate with.

What I find interesting about this idea is that nobody ever has to "invent religion." There doesn’t have to be some prehistoric person who decides to make up a god and convince everyone else. Religion could develop naturally from traits humans already had because those traits were useful for completely different reasons: detecting agency, recognizing patterns, understanding other minds, dreaming, remembering the dead, looking for causes, and trying to gain some control over things we don’t understand.

And when I look at human nature that way, this seems like a plausible path to the creation of gods.

Maybe not the only one. Maybe not even the correct one. We obviously can’t know whether the first supernatural thought was self-induced or whether it was genuinely caused by something supernatural. We cannot know what the first person to imagine a supernatural being was actually experiencing or thinking.

But the evidence suggests that this natural explanation is at least as plausible as a supernatural one, and perhaps more likely. It is grounded in cognitive tendencies we already know humans possess, rather than requiring us to assume that a supernatural being actually intervened.

That still doesn’t prove there is no God. A real God could exist whether humans developed these tendencies or not.

But if human nature can plausibly explain how belief in gods arose without any supernatural event having to occur, why do we continue to treat the supernatural explanation as the more compelling one?

That’s really what I’m curious about.

If the bible says Jesus IS but also is NOT God how can it be relied upon for facts and truths? Wouldn't a single contradiction instantly demonstrate it's unreliability?

Sorry if my question is dumb, I am new to these kinds of topics. I really wonder about this question. In Islam and Christianity, God sends people who don't believe in Him to hell for eternity. These religions claim to be the absolute truth. And if these two religions say that people should look for the truth, why send people to hell who find the truth in other religions or none at all? What should they do, follow a religion that doesn't make sense to them? And if we should look for the truth, why include one of the deepest emotions, such as fear, in this topic? Doesn't it prevent people from acknowledging the actual truth instead of a fake truth which is taught to them from childhood? For example, let's assume Islam is the right religion. At this point, most Christians wouldn't believe or even entertain the possibility that Islam is the right one because of the fear of hell. So what Christianity is doing would be wrong, but Islam also does the same thing. How does that make sense?

I have a genuine question about theological philosophy as it relates to free will. This is not meant to be polemical in any way - just genuine curiosity/confusion.

I think free will is a complicated subject to comprehend when considered with the predetermined knowledge from Allah. I have a specific thought when it comes to Iblis when it comes to his disobedience and banishment: if Allah knows with certainty before creating Iblis that he would disobey the order to bow to Adam, and Allah could have created him differently or simply not created him, in what sense was Iblis’s rebellion genuinely open to him as a choice?

I understand the response that Allah knows the outcome but the individual still has the ability to choose. But if Allah knows the outcome with absolute certainly - how can the individual make any other choice? Iblis was always going to disobey, he couldn’t possibly have chosen otherwise based on what was written to happen.

Brigham Young didn’t just float the idea that Adam was divine, he taught that Adam was the only God with whom humanity, and specifically the Latter‑day Saints, had dealings. Modern LDS members who reject this teaching run into a serious problem: they still claim Young was a true prophet whose authority is essential for maintaining an unbroken prophetic line. But accepting Young’s prophetic status while rejecting one of his core doctrines creates a contradiction that can’t be smoothed over.

Bruce R. McConkie made this tension even sharper. In his 1980 address Seven Deadly Heresies, he stated that anyone who has received the temple endowment and still believes Adam–God “does not deserve to be saved.” By McConkie’s own logic, Brigham Young who was endowed and who did teach Adam–God, would fall into the category of the unsaved!!!

McConkie reinforced this in a 1981 letter, writing that those who teach false doctrine on fundamental issues “will lose their souls,” and that the nature of God is one of those fundamentals. If Adam–God is false, as McConkie and Spencer W. Kimball insisted, then Brigham Young was promoting a false understanding of God. That conclusion leads directly to the claim that Young was a false prophet.

The common LDS fallback, “it was just his opinion”doesn’t work. Young explicitly declared Adam–God to be doctrine, and said it was revealed to him by God!

“One particular doctrine which was revealed to them, and which God revealed to me, namely that Adam is our father and God.”

Deseret News, June 18, 1873

And the most uncomfortable part for modern LDS members is this, Young didn’t merely preach Adam–God publicly. He embedded it directly into the temple endowment through the Lecture at the Veil. From the 1850s until 1927, the endowment included teachings that:

-Adam is Michael

-Adam is the Ancient of Days

-Adam is our Father and our God

-Adam came to Earth with one of his wives

-Adam initiated mortal creation

-Adam is the God with whom humanity has to do

This lecture remained part of the endowment until Heber J. Grant’s administration removed it in 1927. That leaves a set of unavoidable outcomes:

A. If Adam–God was false, then the LDS Church’s most sacred ordinance contained false doctrine for nearly 80 years, meaning the church was in apostasy during that period.

B. If Adam–God was true, then the church is in apostasy now, because modern leaders reject it.

C. If Brigham Young was a true prophet, then his doctrinal declarations, including Adam–God, must be accepted.

D. If Adam–God is rejected, then Young taught false doctrine about the nature of God, and followed and believed in idols, which makes him a false prophet by LDS standards and the Bible.

E. If Young was a prophet but taught a false God, then LDS members must accept that prophets can lead people into worshipping incorrect deities, a position that undermines prophetic reliability entirely. And that God approves of this.

In short, Adam–God was not a casual opinion. Young institutionalized it, canonized it within the endowment, and claimed revelation for it. The Lecture at the Veil carried this doctrine from the mid‑19th century until 1927.

Tafsir Maariful Quran, commenting on Quran 65:4, says:

“Women who do not menstruate, because they have not yet attained puberty……”

(Page 494, English translation, Volume 8)
https://archive.org/details/tafseer-mariful-quran-sura-65-at-talaq-english-translation-pdf/page/n5/mode/1up

The verse then gives these females a three month iddah after divorce.

This isn’t talking about adult women who simply have irregular periods.

The classical tafsir explicitly explains that this category refers to females who have not yet reached puberty.

So my question is pretty simple:
If prepubescent girls could not be married, why does Quran 65:4 give a specific divorce ruling and waiting period for females who have not yet reached puberty?

The traditional interpretation clearly places prepubescent girls within the legal framework of marriage and divorce.

If you disagree, explain who these prepubescent females are supposed to be? and why the Quran is giving them a specific iddah ruling after divorce.

Quran 65:4

وَٱلَّـٰٓـِٔى يَئِسْنَ مِنَ ٱلْمَحِيضِ مِن نِّسَآئِكُمْ إِنِ ٱرْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلَـٰثَةُ أَشْهُرٍۢ وَٱلَّـٰٓـِٔى لَمْ يَحِضْنَ ۚ وَأُو۟لَـٰتُ ٱلْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَن يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ ۚ وَمَن يَتَّقِ ٱللَّهَ يَجْعَل لَّهُۥ مِنْ أَمْرِهِۦ يُسْرًۭا ٤

“As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them.”

Tafsir Maariful Quran: (Page 494, English translation, Volume 8)

Surah At-Talaq: 65 : 1 - 7
494

her three menstrual cycles or clean cycles complete, her waiting period of divorce will be over. Women who do not menstruate, because they have not yet attained puberty, or because they have attained menopausal age, rule about them is forthcoming. Likewise, the rule for pregnant women is also forthcoming, in which case the waiting period for death and divorce is the same. The verse indicates that divorce should be given during tuhr (when woman is not in her menstruation period), so that '‘iddah may start from her immediate menstruation period. Conversely, if she is divorced during menses, '‘iddah will start from the next menses period, and she will have to wait for a longer time before her '‘iddah may start.

My thought process is as follows:

An all-knowing God knows the future with absolute certainty.

This means that even before a human is born, God knows every action they will take with a 100% guarantee.

This guarantee means that for every "decision" a person makes, there was only actually one available choice-the one God knew they would take.

This lack of real choice means humans do not have free will, at least not in common meanings such as the libertarian version.

The implications of this are as follows:

Religions that claim an all-knowing God and choice are forced to concede on one of the two

OR

They are made to use a weakened version of free-will, which is a debate within itself.

My life hasnt really been going well lately, and honestly, sometimes I wish God was real. I feel like if there really was a God, life would feel a little easier to make sense of, and maybe I’d have something to hold on to. That’s probably part of why I want to believe in God

But then I also wonder, am I wanting to believe because God actually exists, or just because I want there to be something bigger than all of this?

And when I look at religion, especially Hinduism, I get even more confused. There are so many rituals, rules, and practices that people say are done to please God, and some of them just seem completely unnecessary or even irrational to me. I find myself thinking, if God is actually real why would God need us to do all these things just to prove that we believe in Him ?

So I guess what I’m really asking is is God actually real, or do humans believe in God because we need something to give life meaning? And if God is real, how do we separate God from all the human made rituals and practices that have been built around religion?

I genuinely want to believe, but I also don’t want to believe something just because I’m struggling and need comfort.

In John 7:8, Jesus says:

ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην[

This means “i am not going up to this festival”. The important word is οὐκ, meaning “not”, not to be confused with “not yet”.

Verse 9 then says that Jesus staied in galilee. But the next verse:

τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη
“then he also went up.”

So Jesus told his brothers that he was not going to the festival, waited until they had left, and then went there in secretly. It even says “not publicly, but secretly”. He lied so that they leave without him.

Like you would expect, some later manuscripts change οὐκ =not to οὔπω =not yet. This happens a lot between manuscripts, it can be intentional or unintentional. But it conveniently removes the problem.

So Jesus couldn’t have been god, because “god is not a man, that he should lie”... And since jesus was a man... sorry, wrong argument. The bible portrays jesus as having lied, amongst other sins, so the doctrine of an unblemished(sinless) offering is hard to reconcile.

This is an argument against the traditional doctrine of Hell and for Universalism. If you are a theist, you should be a universalist.

1. If God exists, then God is all-powerful and desires that everyone goes to Heaven.
2. If God is all-powerful, then God cannot fail to achieve any of His desires.
3. Therefore, if God exists, God cannot fail to achieve His desire that everyone goes to Heaven. (Derived from 1 and 2)
4. If God cannot fail to achieve His desire that everyone goes to Heaven, then everyone will go to Heaven.
5. Therefore, if God exists, everyone will go to Heaven. (Derived from 3 and 4)
6. It is not the case that everyone will go to Heaven (some people go to Hell).
7. Therefore, God does not exist. (Derived from 5 and 6)

The only way out of this argument is to admit

A) Actually, God does not want everyone to go Heaven
B) Actually, God can fail sometimes

Both seem like very big bullets to bite, I imagine most theists will admit A/that in fact God doesn't want everyone to be saved.

Free will sophistry will not solve this. That might make God not responsible, but he still fails.

A classic example is the basketball coach. He may give his team all the tactics and training and nutrition they need to win. On the day, one player may intentionally ruin the game. The loss is not the fault of the coach.

But he still failed. He had a goal, for them to win, and they did not. He wanted P to occur and notP occurred. That is the definition of failure.

Hitler, Napoleon, nor any autocratic leader in history marketed themselves as the bad guy. They all claimed to be executing a higher vision of "good" for their people.

1. Human dictators always rewrite the laws so that criticizing the ruler is a crime against the state.
   Dictators declare that their will *is* the law. If they execute dissidents, it is framed as "protecting the nation."
   Traditional theology operates on the exact same framework of Divine Command Theory. If God floods the Earth or sentences billions to eternal torture, it is defined as "holy justice" simply because he did it.

2. Totalitarian regimes are famous for mandatory military parades, massive statues of the leader, and forcing citizens to pledge unquestioned allegiance under threat of death or imprisonment.
   If you do not bow to the supreme leader, you are labeled a traitor and executed.
   The first and most important commandments in monotheism do not forbid murder or theft; they demand total worship, submission, and loyalty to God. If you do not perform this loyalty—even if you live an otherwise perfect, deeply moral, and kind life—the system dictates that you are a "sinner" who deserves the ultimate gulag: an eternity of burning fire.

3. Dictators maintain power by convincing the population that they are the only thing standing between the people and total chaos or external enemies (like "Satan" or rival nations).
   God is described as the only savior who can rescue you from damnation-completely ignoring the fact that he is the one who created damnation in the first place.

4. Why do humans openly hate past human tyrants but praise the divine one?
   Humans hate Hitler or Napoleon because their physical actions had immediate, horrific consequences that human societies eventually fought back against and defeated. Human rulers can bleed, they can lose wars, and they can be judged by history.
   God, by definition, is insulated from accountability. He operates from total invisibility, cannot be assassinated, cannot be voted out of office, and never has to face a tribunal for his inaction during human atrocities.
   The reason the traditional God looks exactly like a historical tyrant is because the concept of God was modeled after human tyrants.

Thoughts on this

-Some random insta comment-
“kabhi prophet abraham ki kahani pad liyo jo puri tarha se ram ki kahani jasi hi he jase abraham ki patni ko mistra ke raja firon ne apne pass rakh liya tha aur itihaas gawah he mistra se jyada sona puri duniya me nahi tha aur in prophet abraham ki kahani un logo ne bharat me mirch masala laga kr sunai jinhe murti pujne gaye pujne aur pakhand wadd failane pr prophet mosa ne apne kabile se laat mar ke nikala tha fir ye aryavart yani iraan se hote huye sindh yani hind pahuche aur yanha aake yanha ke mool nivasiyo ko varno me bata aur rakshas tak kaha asal me ye kahani un yahudiyo ne bharat me mirch masala laga kr sunai kyuki sabse purana dharm yahudi hi he jinke propheto ko duniya ke tino dharmo ke log mante he aur ye tino hi 1 khuda ki ibadat pr yakeen karte he”

it is always best to believe in as many truthful ideas and as few false ones as possible. if there is no evidence to support gods existence than it is only logical to remain neutral before accepting him as God.

The Courtier's reply is a so called 'fallacy' invented by atheist Pz Myers, the fallacy is when a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism.Basically the person you're arguing with must show why the argument is wrong instead asking to learn about the subject.

However there is one big problem with it which is that it's subjectively applied, you only ever see this reply to philosophy or theology.If a biologist were to tell creationist that they don't know biology, and the creationists responds with Courtier's reply most atheists would say that they're in the wrong and that the scientist is right.The fallacy would also mean that subject experts must treat criticisms of their subject matters from laymen seriously even when the laymen dont know anything about the topic.For example a physicist would have to listen to someone who hardly knows basic physics, criticize the theory of relativity and take it seriously because if he didn't he would be invoking Courtier's reply.

WARNING: Please read the entire argument before responding with a half-hearted critique of my argument.

Islam portrays itself as the religion without any sort of contradictions compared to its predecessors, yet it falls short of that title in many ways.

Starting off:

1 (Introduction) Both the Qur'an and Hadith are considered sacred texts in Islam, yet most stereotypes of Islam are purely Hadithic, not Qur'anic (support for the hijab, mandatory beard for men, no handshaking, etc.)

2) The hadiths are ranked from most trustworthy to least trustworthy, which makes no sense. For example: Sahih (authentic), Hasan (Fair), and Da'if (Poor). This does not make any sense. Why would a religion comply with sacred texts that are seemingly a mix of poor- and medium-grade scripture? The hadiths of Islam are essentially half-holy/half-sacred books, yet are complied with by the vast majority of adhering Muslims across the world. A book cannot be half-sacred; it is either holy or not holy. That is the first contradiction of Islam.

2b) An argument I hear a lot is that the reason the Hadiths are sorted into trustworthy ranks is due to unreliability among the companions of the Prophet (Muhammad). It seems that some of Muhammad's companions were not as reliable as others. This logic makes no sense because if that were true, then the Qur'an would not have written about them so positively and greatly as it did.

2c) Also, the majority faction of Muslims, Sunni Muslims, believe that any and all companions of the Prophet are deemed reliable, also disproving the argument mentioned earlier.

3) As stated in my thesis, Islam prides itself on being a religion of no contradiction. Islam's main critique of Judaism and Christianity is that the core scriptures have been changed and are now unreliable. How can Islam expect to convert people if it is hypocritical in its own logic? If a Christian or Jew, according to Islam, converted, they would be facing the same contradiction as their core religion, thus dismantling the main hypocritical critique of Christianity and Judaism according to Islam and thereby invalidating its core epistemological logic.

Notes) This post is not meant to derail or enrage any adherents of the Muslim religion. The post above is meant to demonstrate a hypocritical contradiction in how Islam portrays other religions and how it fails to address its own in a centralized state.

Comments: If you wish to comment and actually engage with the argument instead of throwing a religious tantrum, please read the entire argument before responding. Also, if you are debating what a definition of what is and isn't scripture is, I will not respond to you because that was previously mentioned several times in my argument. Please address the contradiction in Islam, not the already established definition. Again: Hadiths are considered a sacred text to the majority of Muslim sects; although they are ranked second, they are still extremely sacred and meant to be followed accordingly, which is one of the premises of my argument.