PEOPLE have to do things we don’t want to do. How many women LOVE being pregnant, nursing and putting parts of themselves aside for the benefit of their family. We need to stop glamorizing life.
This is why men should do at least some level of basic training in some martial art or combat sport (at least two years)...you need a basic level of competence and confidence in those fight or flight scenarios. Don't go looking for a fight, but be ready in some capacity if it comes to you and you cannot avoid it.
@@marcusarkane The Companions (ra) lived in an all-hands-on-deck environment - even diminutive and thin men like Abdullah Ibn Masood (ra) who the others poked fun at for having thin legs were competent enough to be involved in major battles including Badr...not everyone is going to be at the level of Khalid ibn Walid (ra), but every man should be at some level of competence to at least be an asset and not a liability.
I wish we, in the audience, tuning in from all over the world, could do so without having to listen to the other young lad chiming in frequently with his commentary. I tried, but I can’t get over it.
@@SafinaSociety Your answer does not engage with the question about personal ownership and lacks evidence to support your claim, focusing instead on a theological interpretation of authority
@@SafinaSocietyyou also own what is given to you. The evidence for our bodies being an amanah and not a gift is that it will be taken back from us when we die, it is not a gift of permanent ownership.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
This video covers the rational basis that the universe was made. Reason & Revelation || NBF 386 || Dr Shadee Elmasry ru-vid.comeQwb1Y0kD5w?feature=share
Observation is tied to the material world, and god is immaterial. Using scientific means to conclude that god exists is like using a screwdriver to climb a tree, wrong tool for the job. Affirming gods existence is attained through rational means.
I'm agnostic myself. Your definition of atheism is not one all atheists share. I dislike redefining atheism for this very reason. What is your response to the contingency argument articulated by Joshua Rasmussen and Alexander Pruss in their book Necessary existence?
