Underpants

red ones

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Underpants

#1  Postby campermon » Jan 16, 2020 7:23 pm

Hi all,

There's a muslim fella at work who is attempting to convert me to Islam. We have interesting discussions at work and he knows that I am a soldier for science :grin:

Anyway, the other day he told me about a marvelous pamphlet that would make me change my mind. Right.

I've got a copy and will add my own commentary for this chap (it's the usual canards that we've seen here before).

I'd never heard of this text before, it's "The man in the red underpants".

Can be found here: https://www.muslim-library.com/dl/books/english_The_Man_in_the_Red_Underpants.pdf

Anyone ever seen this before?

And any advice on commentary welcome.

:thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17434
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Underpants

#2  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 16, 2020 7:38 pm

What is there in the totality of human experience that would lead us to believe that something comes from nothing or that order just spontaneously arises from chaos?


Erm, nope, never seen that one before. There it is, though, on our little pamphlet's page 5. This is a momentous day.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29385
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#3  Postby Hermit » Jan 16, 2020 9:18 pm

Bog-standard, generic evangelist literature. I spared myself from wasting a lot of time by skipping from the first sentence to the last few paragraphs...
As I said before, the difficult part is not understanding how much sense this all makes, the really hard part is doing it! In fact, really, honestly, truly even that is not so hard!

Just start by making a firm intention that you are doing this because it’s what the One who created you wants you to do! Then why not actually try asking for some help. Yes! Just go ahead and try asking the Creator of all things, and ask Him alone, not through anyone or anything, just direct to the Creator, and do it sincerely from your heart to guide and help you to do the right thing.

OK! So how do you feel?

Well if you feel the way I expect you to then all you have to do is follow these steps.

Simply say: “I am a witness that there really is no god <\» ept the One God and that Mohammed is the Messengei ol ( >od (technically that is what makes you Muslim) or in Aralm “Ash shadu an laa il laaha il Allah wa ashadu anna Mohammad.in rasul lu lah!”You need to start learning to pray the five prayers that a Mus Iim has to pray every day. To learn how to do this or for any other help contact “Muslim Now” (http://www.muslimnow.org).

And that really is just about all you have to take care of right now.

May the peace and blessing of God be with you always.

... and I'm sure that I have already read or heard everything I skipped elsewhere.

Copy-pastable version of the tripe here.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 4091
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#4  Postby campermon » Jan 16, 2020 9:45 pm

:thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17434
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#5  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 16, 2020 10:00 pm

Skimming through to actually get to the arguments rather than all the leading setup:

Paley's Watchmaker - I've noticed that this has crept into Islamic evangelism in the last few years... I believe it was popularized by Zakir Naik. As usual, taking objects of known human manufactured provenance doesn't allow you to then simply project that onto the sky by comparison. I can't make a watch, but looking at it, I can see how it might be made. I can't do that with universes.

Strong Anthropic Principle - i.e. arse-about-tit. The Earth's in the perfect position for life - how can we possibly explain that except by it being done on purpose? Well, life couldn't have evolved and thrived in a place that wasn't suitable for life: the counter thereby being the Weak Anthropic Principle.

Big Bang - the author wants us to talk about explosions that occur within the ordered universe we inhabit, then ask why we'd expect the Big Bang explosion to craft the universe, only the Big Bang isn't an 'explosion' and the result of the initial expansion wasn't finely crafted orderly ducks in a row, but the most basic particles which then, through the fundamental forces and time resulted in increasingly complex arrangements in localized areas, some tiny fraction of which became lined-up ducks.

Waffle about the way universal forces operate, but no actual argument as to how this is meant to support beliefs in gods.

Basically, a load of fine-tuning/dials of the universe nonsense that is poorly rendered by someone with only a passing grasp of the relevant physics but even with the best reading remains just an appeal to incredulity - but how can X be without Y? Well, X unarguably is whereas Y is not evident, so show me Y and then we can talk about it.

Appeals to 'created' things and whether X can be created in the absence of intelligence, i.e. begged questions.

An attempt to argue that there must be an ultimate creator by a really nonsensical and clearly motivated appeal to a chain of human command; what it doesn't manage to do is refute the existence of a god above their god. Nor does it actually indicate any necessity for that god when one could just as easily stop at the existence of the evident universe without needing to go another step to an unevident god.

So by page 11, he's decided he's provided enough wool to state that there must be an uncreated creator, for no other reason than because that's what he believes - he certainly hasn't provided any actual argumentation that could convince someone absent that supposition.

Essentially, it's a load of gish gallop waffle trying to make a case for a Creator. As the case fails on every account, and as the following chapters require one to accept the conclusion of the first as a working postulate, it's dead in the water.

I'd rather let a guy in red underpants in to read my meter than accept this load of tosh. It would be vastly more rational.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27424
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#6  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 16, 2020 10:21 pm

The guy with the red underpants -- seems like a pretty good argument against religion! Some rando person presenting in a ridiculous way, claiming to have authority you can be pretty well certain they don't have. Own goal!

At least we start with a foundation of accepting that what we see is real, and that we can apply reason to it. Unfortunately it's followed by an appeal to common sense, which is the equivalent of saying "ignore reason and logic and go with your gut." You can see where this guy is going: "Order doesn't spontaneously arise from chaos." It's the old "Someone must have organized this" chestnut, as usual presented in a way where the person declaring it doesn't actually have to do any work to support their contention. Middle of page 5, it totally jumps the shark. No point in going any further, from here on out it's one bald-faced declaration after another. He's the guy in the red underpants telling you "Well of course I'm here to check the meter! Common sense says so!"
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14391
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#7  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 16, 2020 10:45 pm

I will forever associate "red underpants" with "pissing blood", which is what our apologists should be planning on. It's a metaphor about breaking down under pressure.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29385
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Underpants

#8  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 16, 2020 10:59 pm

What is there in the totality of human experience that would lead us to believe that something comes from nothing or that order just spontaneously arises from chaos?

There is certainly a lot in the totality of the human experience that says we like to pretend to know about things that are far outside of the realm of human experience!
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14391
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#9  Postby THWOTH » Jan 16, 2020 11:32 pm

Image
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#10  Postby Svartalf » Jan 17, 2020 12:04 am

:clap:
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#11  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2020 3:21 am

I'm more than a bird, I'm more than a plane
I'm more than some pretty face beside a train
And it's not easy to be me
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29385
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#12  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 17, 2020 9:49 am

campermon wrote:Hi all,

There's a muslim fella at work who is attempting to convert me to Islam. We have interesting discussions at work and he knows that I am a soldier for science :grin:

Anyway, the other day he told me about a marvelous pamphlet that would make me change my mind. Right.

I've got a copy and will add my own commentary for this chap (it's the usual canards that we've seen here before).

I'd never heard of this text before, it's "The man in the red underpants".

Can be found here: https://www.muslim-library.com/dl/books/english_The_Man_in_the_Red_Underpants.pdf

Anyone ever seen this before?

And any advice on commentary welcome.

:thumbup:

It is not very encouraging that the introduction of the story starts with a lot of well-poisoning.
And appealing to common sense doesn't make it any better.

The next part of the text is all a big appeal to common 'sense', by declaring things that can be understood based on logic and evidence, to actually be universals, that are true, because we just magically know them to be true...

The next paragraph is a straw-man of the BB theory.
Followed by the Watchmaker argument and a thinly veiled appeal to irreducible complexity.
Followed by a failure to understand how evolution works, particularly the role of natural selection.

Then he makes the typical, unwarranted insinuation that it is highly unlikely that the earth would exist as the life-bearing planet that it is.

Then he mixes up the strong and weak nuclear forces with so called strong and weak electromagnetic forces.
A typical appeal to fine-tuning.
The typical appeal to personal incredulity and ignorance vis a vis the possibility of infinite regress, complete with flawed analogies.

The Kalam fallacy.

The assertion that you must always want to know the answer to everything.

A weird short tangent about racism and criminality.

A conflation of correlation with causation, through the typical 'it changed their life' anecdote.

Begging the question by asserting that we are 'created' to be religious.

The completely unwarranted assertion and display of cherry-picking: the fact whether a religion claims there is one single creator or not, should somehow determine it's validity.
In short, an appeal to mono-theistic exceptionalism.

Asserting there are only three mono-theistic religions, while excepting Christianity on the basis of declaring triune Christianity to be 'normal' Christianity.

Dismissing Hinduism on the basis of personal ignorance and incredulity.

Dismissing a self-creating and regulating universe on the basis that the author wants things to be created.

Dismissing Christianity again, this time on the basis of claiming Jesus was a finite mortal being and yet god, which cannot be according to the author because god is not a mortal finite being.

Making the self-defeating claim that any claim about god needs to be proven, while continuing to provide no evidence whatsoever.

The contradictory claim that god could do evil but never would because it's nature is good. Completely ignoring the question of evil: if god's nature is good and he created everything, why did he create evil?

Dismissing Christianity yet again, this time on the bald assertion that god does not have sex (Jesus), because, again by bald assertion, god is not like creation/humans.

Dismissing Buddhism as a religion on the bald assertion that it has no creation and apparently only philosophies with a creator can be called religions, otherwise it's just a philosophy.
Also a throw-away line that tries to inject the question-begging assertion that there is an afterlife.

Dismissing Sikhism on the assertion that it has no claim to divinity and that it's origin was a mixing of Islam and Hinduism. As if Islam was a truly original religion.

Repeats the baseless assertion that a religion can only be true if it has only one god; the creator.

The next chapter begins with another claimed, but unreasoned claim that a religion is only true if it is for everyone.
This bullshit is then used to dismiss Judaism for obvious reasons.
Then makes a 180 and admits Judaism might be true even if it preaches a favored people, and then another 180 by once again dismissing Judaism because if it were true, it would be irrelevant to anyone who is not a Jew.
As if that would somehow make it not true.

Then claims there are other reasons for dismissing Judaism but skips the burden of proof with the excuse that 'now is not the time for that.'

Self-fellatio about the dangerous and unlikeable truth the author is going to present.
Seriously, four paragraphs warning the reader that they won't like it and to keep an open mind.

Asserts there are only two possible religions left now: Islam and Zoroastrianism.
Then proceeds to claim Islam is 'better' on the basis that:
1. Islam is for all people, not just Arabs. Without addressing, much less demonstrating that Zoroastrianism is not for everyone.
2. Immediately invalidating point 1 by harping about the importance of 'Islam' and it's meaning as an Arabic word.
3. Immediately invalidates point 1 again, by pointing out that the creator god of Islam is the same god that sent prophets and messengers to various chosen people.
4. A weird 'argument' about how Islam is not, through it's name connected to any person or region with this list:
- Judaism (Juda)
- Buddhism (Buddha)
- Christianity (Christ)
- Hinduism (India)
- Zoroastrianism (Zoroaster)
As if Islam did not start specifically in the Arab world with Arabic being the divine language.

Then claims you don't need to know about Islam to come to the religion via reason and experience, thereby conflating Islam with generic d/theism.

Now follows an appeal to scriptural authority/veracity.
On which basis the author dismisses Zoroastrianism again (no/few texts remaining) and Christianity (controversial origins of the bible).
Completely fails to address the scriptural authority of other religions.
Then asserts, falsely, that there is virtually no controversy about the Quran.
Proceeds to invalidate his argument by appeal to the oral tradition of the Quran.

Tries to dismiss accusations of Islam being sexist by playing various 'whataboutism' cards.
Then proceeds to list various immoral, sexist and barbaric teachings from the Quran only to dismiss them by once again appealing to 'special' consistent authenticity. As if the former are in any way remedied by the latter.

Disingenuously or foolishly mistakes the moral criticisms of the Quran as an attack on it's veracity.
Tries to defend the atrocities in the Quran by appealing to the subjective morality of the rest of the world.
Finishes with a literal appeal to authority: god know what's best for us.

Regurgitates all the 'arguments' made at this point and then ads the mob-boss threat of hell.

Followed by the typical erroneous claim that the Quran does not contain any errors or contradictions.
Followed by the even more ridiculous assertion that the Quran is the most poetic piece of literature in existence and that, even the Arabs, supposedly the masters of poetry and literature have never been able to produce better.
Tries to enforce this claim by appealing to Muhammed's illiteracy proving it came from god.

Briefly touches upon the liar, nutter, prophet false trilemma and then asserts, blindly, that prophet is the only reasonable conclusion.

Next the author tries to dismiss the fact that the Quran is partially copied from Judaism and Christianity by asserting there was not Arab bible at the time and Muhammed couldn't read anyway. As if that's the only way one could copy the stories.

Tried to claim that the Quran's assertion to be the final message, somehow makes it true.
Then offers several ignorant and a-historical assertions about historical mistakes in the bible that are not present in the Quran.
Some unsourced appeals to authority are also thrown in the mix.

Followed by the typical nonsense of scientific 'truths' found in the quran that were not possible for that time.
Complete with mental gymnastics and brute-forced reinterpretations of Quranic mythology to fit scientific knowledge.
Also including the infamous 'embryo description in the Quran' nonsense.

Followed by another long-winded appeal to authority, which is only interesting because it reveals the author is a cherry-picker by referring to authenticated hadith.

The second to last chapter is basically explaining what's important to know/do as a Muslim.

The last chapter ends with the typical 'belief in what you need to belief and you will belief it!' diddle.

This story is, imo, poorly titled as the man in the red underpants is only mentioned twice.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#13  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 17, 2020 11:45 am

Yipes, I'm glad I stopped at the first part they fucked up.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14391
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#14  Postby campermon » Jan 17, 2020 4:09 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

I'd rather let a guy in red underpants in to read my meter than accept this load of tosh. It would be vastly more rational.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks Spearthrower!

:beer:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17434
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#15  Postby campermon » Jan 17, 2020 4:11 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

This story is, imo, poorly titled as the man in the red underpants is only mentioned twice.


Awsome stuff Thomas!

Thankyou :thumbup:

Beer's on me tonight guys!

:beercheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17434
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Underpants

#16  Postby Rumraket » Feb 11, 2020 12:28 pm

Same experience, read the first part, noticed it's based outright on the false religious premise that atheists are somehow afraid of dealing with death, afterlives, or the putative existence of God. Weird, as I've spent most of my adult life dealing with those exact questions.

This tired old trope made me lose interest right out of the gate. The book is clearly NOT written for atheists to try to persuade them there is a God, it's actually written to confirm and comfort already committed believers in a long exercise of confirmation bias.

It appears like a sort of emotional pornography, where the reader is constantly reminded of the assumed, suppressed existential angst that surely must exist on the atheist's side. It's intrinsically condescending to atheists, which is of course it's very purpose. To instigate a feeling of a sort of schadenfreude in it's theistic reader. Haha, this book really tells to to the atheist, niiiiiceee! :roll:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13214
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Underpants

#17  Postby Thommo » Feb 11, 2020 12:32 pm

THWOTH wrote:Image


Yes, but can he read a gas meter?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27108

Print view this post


Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest