Be me

I disagree.

Ha, nonsense. Everybody is born muslim, whether they know it or not. The upbringing is what alters the flow of things, which is why you revert to Islam, not convert.

sharpshooter fallacy, try again.

Fine, let's look at it from an atheists point of view. There is no afterlife and when you die, that's it, it's done. But what is the one and I mean ONE purpose of life? It's procreation. To breed. And here you are getting rammed up the ass with huge CONGOlombian cocks. You are a failure even from an atheists perspective.

ad hominem fallacy, try again.

we MUSLIMs believe some people are created spesifically as fuel for hellfire

you are a NPC, an example for real human beings to not follow and stay away

you were born a homosexual so that other people see and feel disgusted by you + stay away from you

there is nothing you can do, you'll burn in hell forever

it is from genetics, your ancestors are natives that got raped by christians because they worshipped idols instead of one true god

now their descendands are made example of

all trannies homosexuals drug abusers pederasts, pedophile serial killers are from latin america

Attached: efs.webm (576x1024, 2.83M)

post hoc fallacy, try again.

is this a falseflag shitpost

In nature, there is no gays. Animals aren't faggots. That is something unique to humans and you know that because you are willingly choosing to engage in temporary homosexual lust that has damned you for an eternity (forever) of suffering. If you can not act out on your fetish and start behaving like a normal human you might be able to redeem yourself but only if you submit to the oneness of Allah (swt). Recite the shahada and find a wife.

>falseflag
how and y?

>>have a rare condition that makes me unable to believe in a god
autism isn't a rare condition

>In nature, there is no gays
zooportraits.com/animal-homosexuality/
psychmechanics.com/homosexuality-in-nature/
creationstudies.org/articles/who-is-god/282-homosexuality-in-nature

?

also, ad baculum fallacy.

This, human beliefs are also very biased, so we usually take any disagreement very personal and rarely change our opinions even if we lose the argument, so it's better for anyone to not waste their time unless both parties are of an open mind.

Well, autism unironically is thought to cause lack of belief by some scientists.

you are soy as fuck dude. time to learn how to show respect

If you are not listening to reason and just want to justify your fetish, nothing can be done.

I used to have religious arguments with a fundie Christian on a RuneScape forum back in the early 00s. Ever since then I can't be bothered, I feel like no one will ever change their mind on this subject, so I don't see the point.

listening to an ad baculum fallacy? obviously not; a threat is not a valid argument.

are you too lazy to read that sources?

did i was unrespectful?

Being gay means liking only your same sex, animals do not do this, if they have sex with others of the same gender but this does not affect their sexuality at all, they will continue to mate heterosexually, sometimes they do so for lack of females or social power

why did y'all assume that i'm gay? do people actually like false dilemmas?

also, according to your speech, you're reducting homosexuality as a pure mental thing, so there would be less reason to try to classify a abstract idea as something bad or good, don't you think?

>hes arguing with himself to prove being gay is okay

straw man fallacy. do you actually know what reason is?

I just said that animals are not gay, like you.

faggot fallacy

i think i got autism just reading this post

assuming that I'm gay because I'm giving my postulates in their favour is just as stupid as saying that everyone who is not a capitalist is a communist.

...

ad hominem fallacy, try again.
it is not hard to accept you can't defend your arguments.

>postulates
nigga what? are you really colombian?

im not the same guy im making fun of you for copy pasting fallacies from the pol sticky

Is there more than capitalism or communism? Don't name socialism or those in-between shit and you're gay accept it.

yes, doing a major in logic.

again, "defending" gays equals being one? that would be a false dilemma.

My ftirnd had a homo dog.
He was male and would bark at female dogs while trying to jump male dogs.

Why are you defending them in the first place? They aren't discriminated against in CONGOlombia... They are a protected class in your favela. Just admit your that you like it up the bum and move on.

i put that in quotations marks for a reason. if i were really defending them in first place, from the beginning I would have dedicated myself to justifying my premises.

instead, attacking contrary premises is merely to demonstrate that they are invalid, but it does not mean that an opposite thesis (an argument defending gays) is.

My thesis? I hate the gays

>atheist
>retard
pick both

thesis can't be constructed on subjetivity. the correct thesis based on this sentence would be: he/she/they hate(s) gays.

does that makes

shut up faggot
i know your type
you are a mediocre moron who knows absolutely nothing about anything, but after watching hundreds of hours worth of youtube debaters and reading thousands of /r/atheism threads you fancy yourself a cultured intellectual, even though this notion has no basis in reality whatsoever, and you want to own le silly theists with your superior le logic and le reason, even though you only manage to make yourself look like the big fat dumb retard you actually are
now go read the doctorem angelicum and don't speak to me ever again retard

why so emotional with a reply

are you baptized?

Attached: 1556802781332.png (602x734, 562.06K)

yes.

what you don't understand when it comes to the concept of God? I mean which part?

Attached: 1581935115263.png (541x533, 355.42K)

Not God itself but a sentient god. The first illogical thing is: Every action God makes, in the Bible for example, is merely because He made that scenarios in first place. So excuses like "it is your fault to remain in hell forever" are invalid because:

1. God knows that since the beginning and let it happen anyway.

2. God knows he could perfectly create only perfect people that believe on him. If he creates people to punish them, isn't that sadism?

you're making a mistake when you conclude that you are able by yourself and your mind alone to understand God and his Plan, since none of us is. There's a basic difference between knowing and believing, which you seem to mistake for eachother. Add into your equation the fact that you may not be able to see the logical outcome no matter how hard&honestly you try to make it perfectly clear and visible. There are no proofs, there is no knowing. There is only Faith.

Attached: 1571787354605.png (800x720, 973.85K)

do pookis really?

>shut up faggot
>i know your type
>you are a mediocre moron who knows absolutely nothing about anything, but after watching hundreds of hours worth of youtube debaters and reading thousands of /r/atheism threads you fancy yourself a cultured intellectual, even though this notion has no basis in reality whatsoever, and you want to own le silly theists with your superior le logic and le reason, even though you only manage to make yourself look like the big fat dumb retard you actually are
>now go read the doctorem angelicum and don't speak to me ever again retard

Attached: 20200326_113717.jpg (465x730, 138.35K)

>"how's homosexuality wrong without claiming: god said so"
Not muzlim but it's wrong simply from a biological point of view, you can't impregnate same sex partner and the primary function of coitus is reproduction.

Now, that's not the point. The contradiction begins when linking all these aspects of God, like:

1. There's no free will, because God already knows all the possible events, and therefore, he's lying about giving "opportunities" to people or even to claim we need to choose him, because he already knows who's going to obey.

This scenario makes God not only a liar but a sadistic entity that knows the destiny of the people and does nothing to give a false feeling of freedom in this regard; that is, God would become complicit in man's own mistakes by letting them alone be condemned in the first place under circumstances that he himself created.

2. If there's free will, it would contradict the God's omniscience as he's tied to uncertainty. As you will see, this takes away his attributes as a deity, but instead, also makes him regain his concept of fair entity.

3. The reason there's no middle point is because the attributes themselves and not by God. If he knows future, there's no free will and he's not fair. If he doesn't know it, there's free will and that makes him fair, but removes His deity aspects.