All arguments for God absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, existing boil down to "dude, trust me"

All arguments for God absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, existing boil down to "dude, trust me".

There's no reason to not be agnostic. If God wanted us to know he existed, he would tell us all in a form other than scribblings and vocalizations jotted down and spoken by other people.

Attached: art-various-shutterstock-editorial-6051092cl.jpg (1020x1500, 393K)

Other urls found in this thread:

m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
youtu.be/LI2_6mZi12k
youtu.be/ztXhPnPr9ZY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

agnostics are just pussified gnostics

There is existence.
We possess a subjective experience known as consciousness.
These are the only two truths you know. Anything else you think you know was fed to you your mind, which you cannot control.
All of existence is mind. What people understand as "God" is just mind.

Attached: 1568760811616.jpg (898x728, 245K)

People hate it when you admit that you can't know if God exists or not.
They can't place you and that frustrates them.

as always kill yourself, then youll know once and for all, and the best part will be you wont be able to make a thread about it

I'll know eventually, might as well spend the rest of my years fucking your mom.

based and motherfuckerpilled

Do you mean that you can't control the secondary knowledge or that you can't control your own mind?

Why don't you manifest a pizza in front of you user? Including the smell, sensation of picking up a slice, the taste when you bite into it, the warmth of the cheese, etc.
Come back to me when you do this.

Agnosticism is the logical approach. Gnosticism hints at the reality we're suffering from, the fact that this world is a twisted mess and a mere imitation of what it should be.

Attached: 1550613734296.png (600x630, 426K)

Yeah, no shit, that's why it's called faith.

How would you explain the resurrection accounts of Jesus then?

I find that picture to be racist and offensive

I'm agnostic because while I find religion and mythology to be a very fascinating subject, I wish to study it from an impartial point of view. I don't have a problem with religious types or atheists, believe what you want, just don't be a dick about it.

>there is one true god that loves everyone equally
>but if you don't believe in him you'll be assfucked in hell forever
>it's very easy to believe in him, though
>you have to just choose the right religion out of the 20 major ones and the 2000 minor ones
>although you don't actually choose, your parents and country indoctrinate you into one
>so unless you were born in a christian country you're probably going to hell
>and even then you have to blindly believe things that sound impossible and cannot be scientifically proven, because your god loves you and wants to make it all easy for you

What is even your excuse for being an atheist at this point.

Why would anyone need to explain it when the evidence that it happened at all is Gospel writers saying "dude trust me?"

But there were resurrection accounts from numerous people on numerous occasions

>For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1 Cor 15:3-8

"Dude, trust all of us" isn't much more compelling than one guy saying it, especially since we've had millions of people be wrong about a single subject before. And have had thousands of people all lie about a single subject before.

Faith is very conditional, there's psychological and social benefits to calling yourself a Christian, these then transfer to financial and physical benefits. The gut feeling people have that God exists is intrinsically inseparable from the mental and social bribes/promise of rewards, blackmail, shaming and threats that indoctrinated children or adult non-Christians experience.

Christianity has gotten way more lax and less aggressive over the years, but it's hard to admire faith or think that it's just a natural thing people adopt after reading a book, they were never pushed into, as adults.

And even then, the book itself is a case of "dude, trust me", full of all the things Christians themselves spread to coerce people into the religion.

Thats the problem though religious people generally a dicks by default because they are doing something they shouldnt which is try to influence other people to join their religion. Because religion is faith based they have to do this the more people believe in the same thing as you the easier its to have strong faith.

I will pose a question to any agnostics reading. Do you believe in God? Don't say "I don't know". I didn't ask if you knew. I asked if you believed. Since the answer pretty clearly isn't "yes" you are not a theist. Therefore you are, by definition, an atheist. If you think this label doesn't apply to you, you are probably reading too much into this.

Attached: 1559345639586.jpg (850x1303, 121K)

So the bible which is originally a text compiled from stories told by jesus for the purposes of teaching his savage barbaric people how to become better people which has also been edited multiple times throughout history by all kinds of councils of priests and whackos you are now going to believe this literally as if everything in the book actually happened. What the fuck dawg.

>"Dude, trust all of us" isn't much more compelling than one guy saying it, especially since we've had millions of people be wrong about a single subject before. And have had thousands of people all lie about a single subject before.
This isn't about any subject. These are experiences of seeing a dead man coming back to life

Obviously in this scenario the hindu girl won.
I mean that fucker is an axe wielding elephant wih 4 arms.

Agnostic atheists call themselves agnostic/don't know that they're atheists because "atheism" as a word has been associated with "cringe" due to Youtubers and memes.

What if you're an atheist but you don't have a raging hate boner for christianity?

Dont tell me thats not important to modern white atheism, you can say that but you'll be raging at some ark exhibit from buttfuck Idaho in the nedt second. What comes out of your mouth isnt the same that you reenact with your hands.

Jesus has a 1-up tho

Again, so? You have the writer's word that this incredible event happened and that everyone saw it, and nothing else. Moreover, even Bible scholars will admit that all the accounts were written second-hand, decades after the alleged events allegedly occurred.

So he can get spawn killed twice.

>So the bible which is originally a text compiled from stories told by jesus
They're not just stories. They're the gospel

>for the purposes of teaching his savage barbaric people how to become better people
The purpose isn't just to teach people to be better. The main purpose is the salvation of men

>which has also been edited multiple times throughout history by all kinds of councils of priests and whackos
I don't think they have

>you are now going to believe this literally as if everything in the book actually happened. What the fuck dawg.
Yes, because the Holy Spirit made me believe it

You gotta read it in the context of the epistle. Paul was being disputed by some of the corinthians. If he lied he'd open himself up to be exposed if it wasn't true, so I don't think he would lie

"Dude, trust all of us, we've seen it. Come on, bro, believe us."

Why would multiple people come together to make something up? And why weren't they busted if they did?

>Dont tell me thats not important to modern white atheism,
That's not important to atheism, modern, white or not.

This claim generally comes from Christians who want to undercut intellectual atheist critique of their religion by painting atheists as being unduly biased against Christians, which allows the Christian theist to dismiss the criticism without considering it; "They're just being mean to me."

But there's nothing about Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, paganism or any of the other myriad religions with metaphysical claims that's more acceptable to an atheist. In fact, the New Atheist movement made a strong point that Islam is worse than Christianity if for no other reason than the practical risks; Muslims are much more likely to get us all killed. Atheists argued against Islam publicly for exactly these reasons, in more strident ways than faithful Christians ever have, and to much greater risk to their own reputations due to the progressive stack's regard of that critique as racism. Meanwhile Christians were largely twiddling their thumbs, either arguing for cross-religious "understanding" or engaging in Bible-thumping that did nothing to convince anyone else of the dangers of Islam.

The claim of being uniquely victimized isn't true. It's simply useful as a pretext for dismissing criticism out of hand, lest you hear it and find it convincing.

The question shouldn't be "why would they all make it up?", it should be "why should we believe that what they're saying is true?" There's people who genuinely believe in all the things normal people know as bullshit, Sasquatch, Nessie, Chupacabra, Moth Man etc. Does them being sincere in telling their collective truth make these cryptids less bullshit-fake?

Why should I or anyone believe 4 accounts of a thing happening and take that as absolute proof?

Because they were telling their personal truths? Do you believe in the Boogie Man too, user? There's people in large groups telling their personal truths about him, it doesn't mean there's a Boogie Man, does it?

>>which has also been edited multiple times throughout history by all kinds of councils of priests and whackos
>I don't think they have

Yes they have multiple times also different religions have spawned from disagreements by these powerful men from not agreeing which books and stories should and should not be included in the book.

*DEUS VULT INTENSIFIES*

I feel like there's too many of them to be made up. Take for example the 12 disciples. What are the odds that all of them claim to see the risen Jesus? Then there's James and the apostles. Then there's the 500 people. Then there's Paul. What are the odds all of them saw Jesus?

What I meant was, what are the odds all of them were making up stories of seeing Jesus

Retard argument. You assume all of them saw it because that's what you read. And you essume they were being truthful. All with no substantial evidence.

Pretty good, actually. Why wouldn't they, who wouldn't want to be treated as a holy prophete?

Why would they all make it up then? And if they did, how did they pull it off? Surely they would be found out if they did, since there were so many of them

Seems like there were too many people in on it if they made it up

>12 people too many
There are whole corrupt governments that lie to whole nations.
12 people isn't a mass of people. It's barely a fucking gang.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHY THEY WOULD LIE

IT MATTERS WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE THEM

THERE ARE ONLY 4 ACCOUNTS IN THE BIBLE, ONLY 4 PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE TOLD A MISTRUTH TO SHATTER YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT

EVEN IF IT WERE A MILLION PEOPLE CLAIMING THE SAME THING, IT WOULDN'T MAKE IT FUCKING TRUE

APPEAL TO MAJORITY AND AUTHORITY IS THE MOST BRAINLET FUCKING THING

How could they not let the cat out of the bag if they lied? One of them could've turned, one of them could've let the secret slip, or one of them could snitch.

This but without the Alex Jones caps

Why would muslims make up the Quran? It's gotta be true right?

See and . There weren't just 4 accounts

Again, retard argument. You're grasping at straws, for a truth that isn't there. Imma play along though.
There was one guy that tried to fuck them over, and he was found hanging from a tree.

The quran didn't have any supernatural claims made by multiple people

DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT A FUCKING ACCOUNT IS

ONE PERSON SAYING THAT 500 PEOPLE SAW A THING IS
ONE
ACCOUNT
A SINGLE FUCKING ACCOUNT

YOU
ABSOLUTE
BRAINLET

Wrong. Judas died before the resurrection accounts

See . It's unlikely that Paul would lie

One of them did say it was a lie and now the phrase "Doubting Thomas" is forever in our vocabulary. Why do you believe what Thomas said when he said he DID see Christ but not what he said when he said he DIDN'T see Christ?

Also, all of this is stupid because you don't know these guys, you didn't hear them say they saw Christ, you read about it in a book two thousand years later. Do you think that Giglamesh and Enkidu are real people too?

Again, all that is based off your fucking story book. If he died after, would you really know? If he was murdered for trying to out them? Stop being in fucking denial.

How do you know Paul even wrote that? It could easily have been someone else using the same name, or it could have been written centuries later and inserted into the scripture to win an argument.

>One of them did say it was a lie and now the phrase "Doubting Thomas" is forever in our vocabulary. Why do you believe what Thomas said when he said he DID see Christ but not what he said when he said he DIDN'T see Christ?

But he believed later, didn't he?

>Also, all of this is stupid because you don't know these guys, you didn't hear them say they saw Christ, you read about it in a book two thousand years later. Do you think that Giglamesh and Enkidu are real people too?

We didn't know who wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh. We do know who wrote the authentic Pauline epistles: Paul

See How do we know what epistles are authentic, how do we know Paul knew what he was talking about, and how do we know the text wasn't changed later?

1 corinthians is from the seven unanimously considered authentic epistles

m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

Also, Paul is just as capable of lying as anyone else, if only to give hope to his fellow Christians in a dark time. How do you know Paul wouldn't lie, exaggerate, or even just be wrong?

1. YOUR ARGUMENT RELIES ON THE IDEA THAT IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PAUL TO EVER LIE AND THAT THIS SOMEHOW ALSO MAKES IT FACTUALLY TRUE
2. PAUL SAYING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T FACTUALLY TRUE ISN'T THE SAME AS PAUL SAYING SOMETHING THAT HE KNOWS IS A LIE

YOU STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN A SINGLE REASON WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE EVERYTHING THESE LONG DEAD FUCKS HAVE SUPPOSEDLY SAID TO BE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH EXCEPT "Why would they lie tho. Dude, trust me, there's more than one of them."

So it comes down "Some dudes say they're authentic."

For the record, I believe you that Paul wrote those epistles, and that he actually existed, but because of documentary evidence that he did. But it's a little much to ask me to change my whole idea of how the universe works based on a second-hand account of a second-hand account written two thousand years ago in another language and the only proof we have it wasn't made up yesterday is that a group of well-educated people are pretty sure it wasn't.

Reminder that at some point the church burned almost all "false" accounts, and left only a handful standing.
Your beliefs are based on the then Pope's political agenda

Because of this senpai

Daily reminder that Buddhist philosophy is the only way to attain enlightenment. The only God is existence itself.

Good now the Budes have joined the server

>1. YOUR ARGUMENT RELIES ON THE IDEA THAT IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PAUL TO EVER LIE AND THAT THIS SOMEHOW ALSO MAKES IT FACTUALLY TRUE
No, I said it was unlikely that he lied

>YOU STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN A SINGLE REASON WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE EVERYTHING THESE LONG DEAD FUCKS HAVE SUPPOSEDLY SAID TO BE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH EXCEPT "Why would they lie tho. Dude, trust me, there's more than one of them."
There's not just more than one. There's the twelve, and james, and the apostles

>They're not just stories. They're the gospel
As told by several of his followers, in fact the whole Bible was written by people who aren't YHWH, which is funny.
>The purpose isn't just to teach people to be better. The main purpose is the salvation of men
From what? Sin? Sure there are real-life consequences for sinning, but what's YHWH going to do, torture me for eternity because he programmed me as a rapist or murderer or beard-trimmer?
>I don't think they have
Bro the Bible is literally the most translated book in existence
>Yes, because the Holy Spirit made me believe it
Well the holy spirit told me performative Christianity on incel websites is more about self-gratification than service.

>So it comes down "Some dudes say they're authentic."
But they're not just some dudes. They're the majority of academic scholars

>For the record, I believe you that Paul wrote those epistles, and that he actually existed, but because of documentary evidence that he did. But it's a little much to ask me to change my whole idea of how the universe works based on a second-hand account of a second-hand account written two thousand years ago in another language and the only proof we have it wasn't made up yesterday is that a group of well-educated people are pretty sure it wasn't.
But those accounts said Jesus rose from the dead

Any presupposition that is accepted to believe in God is as valid as my presuppisition to establish a lack of ability to know
Now fight or perish like a dog

>>So it comes down "Some dudes say they're authentic."
>But they're not just some dudes. They're the majority of academic scholars
Like?

answer to
you cherry picking faggot

Read the wiki page here . It has citations and references

I've never heard of such a thing tbqh

>All arguments AGAINST God absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, existing boil down to "dude, trust me"
Wow it's almost like all the scholars since the dawn of civilization have already disregarded arguing whether god exists or not because it is literally pointless. Brainlet atheists and religious people of the modern age think this is some profound discovery.

The problem is that the cancer of religion still exists.

Faith is ultimately a entirely individual experience, if your Faith depends on external factors you have failed as a believer.

why not just atheism? I trust my senses.

I am agnostic, an agnostic theist. I don't know, can't know, have got doubts all the time and believe anyway.

It doesn't say those scholars believe in god, they're only tracking the canonicity of the story.

I'm not saying they believe in God, I'm saying they think that 1 corinthians is aurhentic

>That's not important to atheism, modern, white or not.
youtu.be/LI2_6mZi12k
youtu.be/ztXhPnPr9ZY
>This claim generally comes from Christians who want to undercut intellectual atheist critique of their religion by painting atheists as being unduly biased against Christians.

Tell me, which is more retarded: jesus ressurcetion or semen coming from the ribs? Do you know which one comes which religion? I doubt it, cause its not important to you.

>which allows the Christian theist to dismiss the criticism without considering it; "They're just being mean to me."

Atheists positioned to have a statue of baphomet in little rock. They did this just to spit in christians faces but then they wash the dicks of jews.
>But there's nothing about Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, paganism or any of the other myriad religions with metaphysical claims that's more acceptable to an atheist.

When has there ever been a big atheist debater debating a hindu!?!? When? Please, show me where that happened, I'd love to see it with my own eyes.

>In fact, the New Atheist movement made a strong point that Islam is worse than Christianity if for no other reason than the practical risks; Muslims are much more likely to get us all killed.

AhAHahahahahaha!!!!
"200 years ago, christianity was far more barbaric and evil then islam was and probably will be in the future"

Oh yes, whimpering wails of "I'm so so sorry but islam is incompatable with western civilization" is the equivalent of raging against jesus you people were so known for. The fact that islam had to invade you nations so that you would actually have to criticize them and even then gou shitbags stare like deer caught in headlights and apologize for racism is truly telling to me and should be telling to everyone who observes your ilk.

>What is even your excuse for being an atheist at this point.
I don't believe in any deities
You cannot force yourself into believing something

You sound like a whiny little baby

>I'm an atheist
That's a funny way of saying you pretend to know more than you really do.

Attached: 1569072643016.jpg (563x499, 41K)

???
It's literally just saying "I do not believe in a religion. I have not seen sufficient proof to believe."

If you do not hold religious beliefs, then you are ignoring what should be obvious to anything sentient.
You take pride in your ignorance, as if you understand some deeper truth to reality, despite relying on the immaterial to feed you that apparent knowledge in the first place.
"Atheist" is supposed to mean someone who does not believe in theology. There are a number of atheistic religious traditions. I suggest you look into Hermeticism, perhaps you'll become in tune with your mind and live a more holistic life.

Attached: 1567638759030.jpg (517x567, 44K)

And you sound like a little faggot bitch whl can't refute my claims.
> Atheists argued against Islam publicly for exactly these reasons, in more strident ways than faithful Christians ever have,

I'd like to see the proof other then the cowardly whimpering you guys do against the muslim horde. If you guys could put in a 10th of the effort badgering christianity as you do in islam, islam would have the number of adherents as zoestrainism.

>and to much greater risk to their own reputations due to the progressive stack's regard of that critique as racism.

Didn't you guys use racism as a way of attacking christianity around, oh. Say, the 60s to the 80s? I love how your own tactics are used against you.

>Meanwhile Christians were largely twiddling their thumbs, either arguing for cross-religious "understanding" or engaging in Bible-thumping that did nothing to convince anyone else of the dangers of Islam.

We've held the damn horde away for over a thousand years and all you've done is let them in so that christendom hegemony would be challenged. Whenever we try and talk about it, you guys reflex and bite at our throats once again. We know what wolves in sheeps clothing have done to us, its why we're in the mess that we're in right now!

>The claim of being uniquely victimized isn't true.

Didn't you faggots try to claim victimhood by ststing you were a "religious minority"?

>It's simply useful as a pretext for dismissing criticism out of hand, lest you hear it and find it convincing.

How can we be nothing more then hairless apes but utopia would be acheived if we just got rid of religion? How about all the wars being caused by religion argument again?

>then you are ignoring what should be obvious to anything sentient.
Being?
>You take pride in your ignorance, as if you understand some deeper truth to reality, despite relying on the immaterial to feed you that apparent knowledge in the first place.
Uhh, no. That's not how I think, and you aren't a psychic.
>I suggest you look into Hermeticism, perhaps you'll become in tune with your mind and live a more holistic life.
You cannot force yourself to believe something. And I'm not interested.

Atheism is a religion in itself, a godless one. We simply do not know enough, hence agnosticism is the only sensible approach.

>Atheism is a religion in itself, a godless one
Atheism is only the lack of belief in a god. Nothing else. Anything else that you try to tack on to it is just some other thing entirely, be it related or not.

>Being?
The fact you are conscious, and the realization that you cannot know anything other than what is fed to you by your mind, which you do not control.

>Uhh, no. That's not how I think, and you aren't a psychic.
How can you prove consciousness is material? By using tools that your mind tells you are real, and making observations that must be processed by your mind before you can think about them?
How is that any different than proving God? You're simply taking one assumption (There is God) and switching it our for another (My senses are accurate to and only influenced by an external reality).

>You cannot force yourself to believe something. And I'm not interested.
I only started to believe because I read a book from 1910 or so that explained quantum mechanical concepts 5-15 years before the author/s could have possibly known such things. For example, the idea that everything can be represented as oscillations in fields that pervade all of space. That's physical fact at this point.
Like you said, you can't force yourself to believe. Getting spooked into believing can certainly happen though.

>god
There are many ways to define a god, or gods. The whole thing is an abstraction in itself and we don't really know anything about how creation came to be, why, and how it operates.
Writing off the idea of entities capable of creation is just intellectually dishonest.

>How can you prove consciousness is material? By using tools that your mind tells you are real, and making observations that must be processed by your mind before you can think about them?
>How is that any different than proving God? You're simply taking one assumption (There is God) and switching it our for another (My senses are accurate to and only influenced by an external reality).
Again, you're assuming how I think.
I'm not saying that they don't exist, I'm saying that I don't believe in them. I only believe in things of which I have seen direct proof. All else falls into a grey area.

>What if you're an atheist but you don't have a raging hate boner for christianity?
Yes, and? How does that affect anything? Your opinion on Christianity or any other religion isn't really the basis for these labels. They only refer to belief, or lack thereof. Some atheists are over-the-top cringelords who like to engage in retarded arguments on the internet for hours at a time, and some aren't. They're both still atheists.

Attached: the_king_in_yellow_by_geber_luis.jpg (1920x2501, 364K)

>Again, you're assuming how I think.
I assumed you wanted scientific proof, which assumes natural, material causes. If not, what could you possibly believe that would have 'sufficient proof'?
You either believe reality is fundamentality material, or you have supernatural beliefs that are no better than saying "God exists".

Hey Atheists, if you choose not to believe in "anything", any religion or any established framework of belief you are still choosing to follow a framework of belief whether you know it or not. It's impossible for us to be empirically correct about the world so we make presuppositions, your presuppositions just differ from the suppositions of others, so guess what you're not enlightened for viewing the world "objectively" or through muh science, we're all fallible and we can't base objective reality off our own existence and experiences, is your experience of reality no less objective than of another living being? Atheism isn't a lack of belief despite how much you may claim otherwise, this is a game you can't not play in, any decision you make about your framework will dictate you perception and interaction on the world, you can't not participate.

Attached: 6k3rhBL1qi73s5o1_500.gif (500x700, 1021K)

don't say "i don't know"

No i will say i don't know beacuse you don't get to pidgeon hole the converstation into a framework where you win the argument. I DON'T KNOW IF GOD EXISTS. NOBODY knows if he exists. it's impossible to know that. it's just faith and I have a complete absence of faith. i have my own concept of god but it's not a god created or described by religion.

What i understand is humans, I've spent my entire life studying humans and I've noticed that every npc who lacks individual thought is a sheep who is easily herded and men with original thought find it very easy to convince people to give them money.

humans across the world have pro social behaviour and a propensity to pray and believe in the concept of god.

that doesn't make god real in every mind. i was born without a strong spiritual connection and i was abused by people around me, as a result i find the concept of religion to just be a way for a sheperd to exploit his flock.

yeah no shit.
I'm a buddhist, a taoist, a stoic and a christian but i have no faith in any mythology preached by the philosophies and religions that guide my life and allow me to tame my brain. of course experience is subjective and in my reality god is mainly absent but exists if i decide to commune with him. I consider god a part of my brain and it has an unseen psychological effect that allows me to manifest and exert control over my mind to get what i truly want whenever i pray. it allows me to exert more executive function

Attached: 99vi1wo3lhu21.png (640x640, 440K)

I never claimed that we like Christians. Of course, you're wrong too. But no Christian managed to land the calm, hard-turned points against Islam that any of the Four Horsemen did. The Christian version of this is ineffective whinging about how their holy book is wrong (but yours is right despite the proof being similarly lacking) and begging for anyone who would listen to remember that America is a "Christian nation." How could that ever convince anyone that didn't already agree with you? It wasn't a Christian who wrote the End of Faith or hopped on Bill Maher's program, in front of the whole liberal screed, to call Islam "the motherlode of bad ideas." Mostly Christians have been found telling their flocks to remember to turn the other cheek.

You Christians haven't been putting in any work because you can't. You're stuck defending and justifying ancient ideas that are largely justified and defended with the same rhetorical tactics that defend Islam. How could you destroy them without destroying yourselves?