Analyzing the Deceptive Tactics of Atheists in Debates
✍ Written by: Izzuddin Dakni
This article presents a detailed review of a debate where Azazi Hashim and other atheists employed numerous logical fallacies. The central topic of the discussion revolved around predestination and the controversial use of the term "Arabic God." Izzuddin Dakni not only exposed these fallacies but also highlighted the dishonesty, weak arguments, and deceptive tactics employed by the atheists.
Explanation of the Fallacy:
A loaded question contains a hidden assumption that has not been agreed upon by both parties.
Example:
If someone asks, “Since when did you start honestly paying your taxes?”—this question already assumes dishonesty without proof.
Use in Debate:
Azazi introduced the term “Arabic God” while questioning the concept of predestination. This was an implicit and disputed claim, making it a loaded question.
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Introducing an irrelevant point to divert attention from the main issue.
Example:
While discussing the honesty of the Prophet ﷺ, someone suddenly brings up the age of ʿĀʾishah (RA)—a completely different topic.
Use in Debate:
Azazi presented baseless points like, “Allah has occupied a house in Makkah without registration,” as evidence for the “Arabic God” claim. This was an unserious distraction—a clear red herring.
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Using a claim as its own proof.
Example:
“The Bible is the word of God because Jesus said so, and we know Jesus said that because it's in the Bible.”
Use in Debate:
Azazi claimed that Allah is not a conscious being, and then presented the same disputed points to support this claim—an example of circular reasoning.
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Misrepresenting someone's actual position to make it easier to refute.
Example:
If someone says, “I’m against air pollution,” and the reply is, “So you want all factories shut down and people to lose jobs?”
Use in Debate:
The atheists distorted Izzuddin Dakni’s actual stance and accused him of holding additional responsibilities—like proving the existence of God—when that wasn’t part of his argument.
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Attacking someone with derogatory labels instead of addressing their argument.
Use in Debate:
The use of the term “Arabic God” was merely for insult. Azazi ignored the true attributes of Allah and presented Him under a prejudiced and derogatory label.
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Attacking the person rather than their argument.
Example:
“Your point is invalid because you’re not a morally good person.”
Use in Debate:
Azazi and others attacked the character of Izzuddin Dakni, accusing him of arrogance and argumentative behavior, rather than responding to his actual points.
Explanation of the Fallacy:
A claim that cannot be proven or disproven.
Example:
“It seems you are arrogant.” — a subjective and unverifiable accusation.
Use in Debate:
Atheists accused Izzuddin Dakni of arrogance and argumentativeness, without offering any measurable or verifiable evidence—classic unfalsifiable claims.
✔ Use of “Arabic God”:
Izzuddin classified this term as both a loaded question and name calling.
He maintained that the best way to refer to the Creator is through His own chosen name—Allah—and not through derogatory labels.
✔ Bad Faith of the Atheists:
Azazi and his companions avoided logical argumentation and resorted to personal attacks and deceptive tactics.
When they failed to counter the arguments, they employed red herrings and name-calling.
✔ Conclusion of the Debate and the Blocking Incident:
In the end, Izzuddin Dakni was blocked—a move intended to hide the atheists’ defeat.
Despite being blocked, his arguments remained strong and clear.
This debate serves as clear evidence that dishonesty, deceptive tactics, and insulting behavior lead to intellectual failure in discussions based on logic and reasoning.
Izzuddin Dakni exposed the ignorance of the atheists and made it evident that atheism is not rooted in solid knowledge but built on fallacies.
✍ Written by: Izzuddin Dakni
❖ Introduction
This article presents a detailed review of a debate where Azazi Hashim and other atheists employed numerous logical fallacies. The central topic of the discussion revolved around predestination and the controversial use of the term "Arabic God." Izzuddin Dakni not only exposed these fallacies but also highlighted the dishonesty, weak arguments, and deceptive tactics employed by the atheists.
❖ Types of Deceptive Tactics Used by Atheists
➊ Loaded Question
Explanation of the Fallacy:
A loaded question contains a hidden assumption that has not been agreed upon by both parties.
Example:
If someone asks, “Since when did you start honestly paying your taxes?”—this question already assumes dishonesty without proof.
Use in Debate:
Azazi introduced the term “Arabic God” while questioning the concept of predestination. This was an implicit and disputed claim, making it a loaded question.
➋ Red Herring
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Introducing an irrelevant point to divert attention from the main issue.
Example:
While discussing the honesty of the Prophet ﷺ, someone suddenly brings up the age of ʿĀʾishah (RA)—a completely different topic.
Use in Debate:
Azazi presented baseless points like, “Allah has occupied a house in Makkah without registration,” as evidence for the “Arabic God” claim. This was an unserious distraction—a clear red herring.
➌ Circular Logic
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Using a claim as its own proof.
Example:
“The Bible is the word of God because Jesus said so, and we know Jesus said that because it's in the Bible.”
Use in Debate:
Azazi claimed that Allah is not a conscious being, and then presented the same disputed points to support this claim—an example of circular reasoning.
➍ Strawman Argument
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Misrepresenting someone's actual position to make it easier to refute.
Example:
If someone says, “I’m against air pollution,” and the reply is, “So you want all factories shut down and people to lose jobs?”
Use in Debate:
The atheists distorted Izzuddin Dakni’s actual stance and accused him of holding additional responsibilities—like proving the existence of God—when that wasn’t part of his argument.
➎ Name Calling
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Attacking someone with derogatory labels instead of addressing their argument.
Use in Debate:
The use of the term “Arabic God” was merely for insult. Azazi ignored the true attributes of Allah and presented Him under a prejudiced and derogatory label.
➏ Ad Hominem
Explanation of the Fallacy:
Attacking the person rather than their argument.
Example:
“Your point is invalid because you’re not a morally good person.”
Use in Debate:
Azazi and others attacked the character of Izzuddin Dakni, accusing him of arrogance and argumentative behavior, rather than responding to his actual points.
➐ Unfalsifiable Claim
Explanation of the Fallacy:
A claim that cannot be proven or disproven.
Example:
“It seems you are arrogant.” — a subjective and unverifiable accusation.
Use in Debate:
Atheists accused Izzuddin Dakni of arrogance and argumentativeness, without offering any measurable or verifiable evidence—classic unfalsifiable claims.
❖ Izzuddin Dakni’s Points and Defense
✔ Use of “Arabic God”:
Izzuddin classified this term as both a loaded question and name calling.
He maintained that the best way to refer to the Creator is through His own chosen name—Allah—and not through derogatory labels.
✔ Bad Faith of the Atheists:
Azazi and his companions avoided logical argumentation and resorted to personal attacks and deceptive tactics.
When they failed to counter the arguments, they employed red herrings and name-calling.
✔ Conclusion of the Debate and the Blocking Incident:
In the end, Izzuddin Dakni was blocked—a move intended to hide the atheists’ defeat.
Despite being blocked, his arguments remained strong and clear.
❖ General Conclusion
This debate serves as clear evidence that dishonesty, deceptive tactics, and insulting behavior lead to intellectual failure in discussions based on logic and reasoning.
Izzuddin Dakni exposed the ignorance of the atheists and made it evident that atheism is not rooted in solid knowledge but built on fallacies.
