Present arguments for your faith, without using your holy texts...

I'm no Christian apologist, but I could point to the 5 proofs of St. Thomas Aquinas, or Aristotle's prime mover. as proof. This would point to the existance of God, but not belonging to any particular religion.

For proof of my religion, I would have to point to the story of early Christianity. How on earth did a small obscure Jewish sect come to conquer an empire? The apostles lives where fundamentaly changed. They where willing to travel to the ends of the earth and even willing to give up their lives. And for what? All over some myth? I don't think so. All but one of the apostles(John) died for their faith.

 

Biblically we are to give a testimony.

As for myself, I always felt empty inside like something was amiss. I remember this at a young age and tried to consult my parents but did not seem to know how to articulate this. Then I later became a Christian and that nagging empty God shaped space was gone. Then it all made sense for the first time. God also began to change me in other ways that I believe has made me a far better person than I would have been otherwise.

 

I didn't believe the pictures were real at first. I thought they were photoshopped but no, through all the destruction some Mosques stood tall in Indonesia. Including their minarets.

سلام

 

Mein Kamf got people to report on their neighbors and conquer most of Europe, to say nothing of modern Europeans throwing people into ovens. None of that was a part of German culture. Further, you can do so without a written book at all. Google the Standford Prison Experiment. Just by making one population prisoners and another as jailors resulted in people harming each other -- even though they'd never do so in the normal college experience. You can get people to give leathal doses of shock to a patient even while they scream and state clearly that they have a heart condition -- just on the basis of some unknown scientist saying to do so.

Come up with a real standard that can't be duplicated by psychological tricks.

 

Response: Yet your own ducking and dodging to answer the challenge yourself confirms your denial to the fact that the challenge that proves the Qur'an is the true word of Allah is still valid. If the challenge was inaccurate, you would be able to prove so by actually answering the challenge. You did not, because you clearly can not. So come up with a better excuse for your denial, because the one above is utterly weak.

 

I do like the gall of many atheists who consider themselves to be critical thinkers, and the systematically come up with illogical constructs to deny what they preport to desire. Tell me, if one were curious about say, plato, would one remove the records of those closest to plato and then believe that they could arrive at a close approximation of Plato having discarded the majority of the tects about him?

Most would find this process to be absurd.

This is particularly so when atheism has absolutely zero proof, when no atheist can even prove their own faith, and yet seem to be overwhelmed with a desire for others to leap through hoops that they cannot.

A bette question? Why do so many atheists, who profess to being aghast at others thrusting their faith upon them, spend so much timefinding such flimsy and intellectually adled attempts to attack the faith of others?

One would think, after all, that those so continuously interested in evidence would take the time to examne the evdential record rather then just repeatedly demand it and avoid it. But then that assumesnthe goal is problem solving and notjust buggering people.

But then why would anyone ask a question like, "OK,ignore all the reasons you belive something and then explain to me why it is still valid!"

Does seem a fitting statement for the intellectual weigh of atheism though.