73 replies to this topic

[rehman]

Ok, here's the deal. I was born a Shia Muslim in a mostly religious family, and grew up with a mainly religious upbringing. I was not like most other 'Muslims' I know, who call themselves Muslims but in fact follow none of the rules that come with it, except when its Muharram or Ramadhan, thats when they feel they really need to be Shia/Muslim. I used to pray 5 times a day and all that, and keep away from Haram as much as possible but then I thought whats the point? I've read a lot on religion and Islam and how great they say it is, and while Islam does have some good sides to it, it is not perfect and does have flaws. If it were the 'right' religion, there would be no flaws. I still believe in God, just not in any religion. Some of the few 'flaws' I saw in Islam:

1) I understand that God created Heaven and Hell so people can be rewarded or punished for what they did on Earth. What I don't understand is Islam's explanation of good and bad. If God really wanted to do justice with people, why would he care about religion? My non-Muslim friends are better people in general than most Muslim people I know, yet according to Islam, it doesn't matter how good of a human being someone is. If they don't believe in Allah and the Prophet and everything else, they deserve hellfire. How does this make sense to you guys? Forget about the 'you have to be a good Muslim to go to heaven' argument, is it or is it not true that no matter how good a non-Muslim (or even a non-Shia) is, then according to Islam he is going to hell?

2) I'm sure at least 95% of you are only Muslims because you were born to a Muslim family (note that there may be a higher concentration of converts here than usual because this is an Islamic forum). Don't deny it. That puts everyone who is born a non-Muslim at a HUGE disadvantage. Like its not even fair in any way. If religion was the truth, there would be no unfair advantages. Not to mention the way Muslims display themselves as a community. Growing up in the west and being closely linked with Pakistan and also the Middle East at the same time, its been saddening for me to know that most Muslims are the most bigoted, ignorant, dishonest, and hypocritical people I know. If I was born a non-Muslim, it would have taken an ENORMOUS amount of convincing for me to convert to Islam. If I didn't, then no matter how good of a person I turned out to be, I'd be going to hell.

3) This has been typical of all anti-Islam arguments- the Islamic punishments. And you can't blame anyone for it because seriously, you would have to be a complete bigot to not see the wrong in them! If I went out and announced that I was leaving Islam, what would my punishment be? Death. Wow. Did I ever have a choice? I was born Muslim, I didn't realize it wasn't the path I wanted to follow until I was old enough to understand things for myself but if I choose to leave now, I'm threatened with death. How do you even begin to give a logical explanation to that?
And thats not it. The punishment for saying something bad about the Prophet? Thats right, death. Its like Allah just wants to kill everyone who doesn't agree with him. This is ridiculous. Again, please provide me with a LOGICAL explanation to these rules that apparently come from 'the Magnificent, the most Merciful'. I don't want any magical twisted logic explanations or verses from the Quran or any of that, explain to me in pure human logic how that is the right way to go. I'd say every single non-Shariah government is more 'merciful' than the God of Islam.

4) While Islam may take pride in 'providing liberation' to women, in my opinion that couldn't be further from the truth. First there's Hijab, I understand that it is supposed to be a symbol of modesty and all that, but why make it an obligation? I spent some time living in Qatar while my father worked there, and those of you who have been to the Middle East in the summer know how hot it gets there. It was painful to see my mom go out all dressed up in a burqa, she would literally be dripping in sweat when she got back from a 5 minute trip to the grocery store. Women can't have any fun in Islam, for instance just look at Iran's (I'm not even going to mention Saudi Arabia because I understand this is a Shia forum) rules regarding sports for women. They have to be fully covered at all times, they can't have male coaches, they are banned from events if there are any unrelated men (which is obviously inevitable), its just hard to explain how this is 'liberation' in any way. Trust me, and most of you should know this, if a man is going to look at a woman with the 'evil eye' as you say, he will no matter what she is wearing. Again, during my time in Qatar, so-called MUSLIM men used to whistle at my mom while she was in full hijab. Here in 'the west', non-Muslim men generally don't do that kind of stuff even if they see a scantily clad woman. You think women don't want to sun bathe at the beach, or be able to wear shorts in the summer? It is natural for women to want to make themselves look pretty, but Islam deprives them of all that. They aren't even allowed to shake hands with men even for a purely business-related reason. I don't know about you guys, but I have definitely never been sexually aroused by shaking hands with a female. I think this precisely is the reason why most Muslim men are so much more "hypersexual" to put it in a technical sounding non-offensive way. This reminds me of the time I spent reading the all too gory texts in Islam, depicting how women who don't cover their heads will have their heads boiled and beat with molten iron or something like that. Most merciful? That's not it, a Muslim woman is not allowed to leave her husband for more than 3 days, and she is 'cursed' if she refuses to have sex with her husband. Men carry no such obligation toward their women.

5) Why does Allah care about a person's sexual preference? Isn't he the one who made gay/lesbian/bi people? Don't tell me sexual orientation is a choice, it has not quite been proved otherwise but homosexuality has been observed in other species as well, suggesting it is genetic/otherwise natural. The literate part of the world have come to accept such people as equals, but people blinded by the ignorance of their own faith continue to be a disgrace to the rest of humanity.

To me, religion is more of a culture than an obligation. Islam has taught me not to drink for example, and I still choose not to. But then again, that's just the right decision, even alcoholics admit alcohol isn't a good thing. Islam didn't come with any 'miracle revelations' or anything like that, it's all just common sense jumbled up with some violent [Edited Out] that's supposed to scare people into believing.
I'm not really expecting any convincing or logical replies here, I've had this discussion before many times with my Muslim friends and its always the same bigoted magical blinded by faith replies. I just thought there might be more learned people here. That, and maybe I can free some other locked up soul who has never learned to trust logic and reason over something that's been passed on to them through generations of ignorance.

[zeinab94]

Asalamu Alaikum,,

im not here to convince u that Islam is the most perfect religion,, buti just want to comment on some of the points u put up,,

if the majority of the human race would end up in hell forever,, then Allah would have never created this universe,, that would go against the Rahma of Allah,, meaning most of the human race will end up in heaven,,
Christians and Jews and other religions can go to heaven,, they first must believe in Allah,, believe in day of judgment,, and do good deeds,, then they have nothing to fear,,
watch this short 10mins video from Hajj Hassanein,, he explains it better

dont speak on behalf of women,, i wear proper Hijab and im proud that Allah made it an obligation on me,, its not only a physical thing,, its also spiritual,,

the reason y being gay is haram,, is because they can get a disease from each other,, thats y Allah sent Prophet Lut PBUH to warm people of his time,,

Allah sent down so much facts about this world before there was technology to prove it,, how isnt that enough proof ??

i think u should study Islam and the real laws for it,, before judging it,,

Inshallah Allah SWT guides u to the right path again,,

[Goku]

When does Islam say that non-Muslims go to hell and Islam itself commands it's people to question themselves and their faith and religion so that even if they are born within Islam, they eventually stay in the religion because of the research they have done.

I'm sure that you can leave Islam without being killed?

[titumir]

Well, for one, all of your reasons show a breathtaking amount of ignorance and naive thinking. I don't really believe you came up with those reasons all by yourself, these look like exact copy-pasting from atheist sites. I'll just list some of the reasons in brief:

1) Just because your Pakistani countrymen are Arab masters are the worst examples of humanity that doesn't give you any right to judge Muslims of other countries, who for the most part, neither do the things your countrymen do, and neither do they then become atheists and go about posting trash about Islam. Its always someone else's fault for your Pakis, isn't it?

2) I really doubt that you wrote those points yourself, just for this forum. it looks like more like a copy-paste job from an atheist site. I'm pretty sure I've seen your exact reasonings again and again.

3) You rush to judgement in all your posts, and don't provide any reason for why you believe something to be bad. You speak of LOGIC, like you have a monopoly on logic, yet you do not give any reasons why, for example, you see the wearing of the hijab as being oppressive. It seems to me you are one of those kids who spend all their time on western websites and think you've become some sort of "enlightened" person because you read Voltaire and Russell.

4) Let me point out some of the LOGICAL points our enlightened friend has posted:

Quote

My non-Muslim friends are better people in general than most Muslim people I know, yet according to Islam,

I'm sure at least 95% of you are only Muslims because you were born to a Muslim family (note that there may be a higher concentration of converts here than usual because this is an Islamic forum). Don't deny it.

"Don't deny it!" -> Wow our enlightened friend certainly does have a very LOGICAL scientific method of debate. I've said it, DON'T DENY IT! It must be true, because I said DON'T DENY IT! I read Voltaire! I know!

Quote

Not to mention the way Muslims display themselves as a community. Growing up in the west and being closely linked with Pakistan and also the Middle East at the same time, its been saddening for me to know that most Muslims are the most bigoted, ignorant, dishonest, and hypocritical people I know.

Again, a very non-bigoted non-ignorant honest point of view from our "enlightened" Pakistani atheist friend. Totally scientific, and wait, what was the word? Yes, LOGICAL.

Listen, my dear friend, it is only your PAKISTANI community which goes around with all these nasty stuff, blowing up things in western countries, and are all the things you said, so really, don't try to smear your [Edited Out] on the wider Muslim community, so that you feel comfortable in saying, "Its not our fault! All Muslims are like this, its not just our own community".


If your Muslim friends are some of the most bigoted, ignorant, dishonest, and hypocritical people YOU know, then I suggest maybe taking a look at yourself to see what kind of person you are that you are surrounded by these people, and don't come here and try to blame Islam for it, to lessen the pressure on your own community, because, certainly, MY Muslim friends are the most honest, honourable and hardworking people I know, in contrast to atheists who whine and complain all the time.

Your talk about "Islamic punishments" -- I don't know how you turn this into an anti-Islamic point, I really don't know, since most Muslim countries do not practise them. I think these points just go to show how ridiculous and stupid your reasons are for leaving Islam. I don't doubt that, if tomorrow the US adopts whipping as an alternative to long jail times, and to clear out the overcrowded prisons, you'd support that, too. You are just a pendulum, you swing which way it seems "cool" to be in.

Quote

While Islam may take pride in 'providing liberation' to women, in my opinion that couldn't be further from the truth.

"Your opinion". Yes, this entire piece is just your opinion, not just this sentence, because, for all of your talk about LOGIC, LOGIC is conspucious only by its absence in your post. The rest of your points in your post are nonsense. You "think" this, in your opinion that,really, what do we care, since you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your opinions? Again, your bigotry shines through again in that "MUSLIM men in Qatar whistled at your mother, and in the WEST men don't do any of that". I suppose the rape statistics which state that 25% of American college women are victims of rape are then all raped by Muslims then, in your "enlightened", "European", "LOGICAL" opinion.

I'm sorry, but your post is so irrelevant, so devoid of any substance, that it is really hard to make us take it seriously. You think this, you think that, in your opinon this, Muslims do this, Westerners don't do that.... All of it your opinion, no doubt helped along by a healthy dose of Western anti-Islamic blogs, all of it just opinion and slander, bringing along nonsense like women having no sexual rights over her husband, listen, this is an Islamic forum where people are acually knowledgable with Islamic laws, and you won't be taken seriously here. You may want to go to a neutral forum and spew your enlightened opinions to non-Muslims, although that market is a bit saturated.

[aliasghark]

Did you guys notice the title?

"Why I Choose Not To Believe In Religion"

[Pascal]

Your story is a very interesting one and you must be commended on the great length of time you obviously spent writing it. The grammar is a lot better than we sometimes get around these parts (from myself included). Your post seemed very worthwhile responding to, so, i took my time in responding. You took your time in writing, so, it is only fair. I hope you find the time to read it.

I use to also be a believer (not in Islam). I became very interested in philosophy of religion as well in recent years, so, I will just offer some comments.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

I was not like most other 'Muslims' I know, who call themselves Muslims but in fact follow none of the rules that come with it, except when its Muharram or Ramadhan, thats when they feel they really need to be Shia/Muslim.

I think you make a very important and critical distinction here, one i often see people fail to make on a consistent basis.

I’m very glad you made it.

The distinction people fail to make is between the religion of the clergy, scholars, and encyclopaedias and the religion of the people.

In Islam, it might be a bit hard to see. Historically, there was more of an "Islam of the people" but it largely got displaced when the masses took up the Islam of the clergy (i read a very fascinating book on it a long time ago, so forgive me if my argument is a bit foggy). Some people even go, as far to theorise this is where some of the more distasteful elements of Islam and extremism come from. I don’t know if I’d go that far. You can of course see this today in the extremely strong scholarly tradition and on the reliance of scholars and the judgement of them.

Something like Christianity, it’s a lot easier to see. You have Roman Catholicism, my former faith. It's not what I’d call a religion of the people, especially before the last 40 years; The catholic mass use to be held in Latin (not the local language), with the priest mostly having his back to the congregation. They just sat there and kind of watched while he carried out his archaic rituals. Most couldn't even understand a word. It obviously isn't very engaging either.

You can see the very strong reliance on established tradition here and not the tradition of the people, i doubt Jesus would of preached like that, no. It’s the tradition the clergy created. The clergy are quite clearly distinct from the people, especially in a religion like Catholicism. They're celibate, not allowed to wed. In my catholic high school hardly anyone cared for their prohibition on contraception, they were just so far removed from the average people. Why should we listen to a celibate male, who does not have a partner and maybe never has... why should we listen to his opinion, delivered from his ivory tower in Rome while he sits around in fancy robes, originally published in Latin too. This is obviously an extreme and i may have inflated it a bit but you can see this kind of distinction. It is just so far removed from reality and the plight of the common person. They are telling us how to act instead of looking at how things are and how we can act within that framework. It is a very rigid thing when you end up with a religion of the clergy.

When i first came to study philosophy of religion, with Islam as my new focus, i knew next to nothing about Islam. A friend introduced it to me and I will always be thankful to her, i probably never would have looked at it otherwise. It had many interesting features that lead me to stay and keep looking at it.

Over time, i poured through encyclopaedias, journal articles...handbooks...books so old the dust held them together half the time. I read a lot of the formal rulings and how they reach these decisions. I'm lucky to live in a relatively multicultural country and I’m blessed enough to be able to go to what according to some rankings places well within the top 60 universities in the world. These kinds of things attract people from all over.

As i read more and more, i started seeing people who i could quietly easily tell were Muslims doing things the encyclopaedias told me they shouldn't be. I almost wanted to scream (not literally) out haram like that person in the YouTube video series. This is coming from me as an atheist as well. I saw them do many things they should not be according to my dusty encyclopaedias. That is the problem though, the encyclopaedias and all those other things pretend the world is ideal, pretend everyone else is ideal; pretend the world is a perfect place in certain aspects. It quite clearly is not. The encyclopaedias and rulings i learnt from were a world of paper and ink, we live in the real world though. The problem wasn't that they were doing things wrong, the problem is that a lot of these things assume or implore people to be perfect. It's not happening any time soon.

That is what happens when you disconnect from the real world though, from the actual people. It’s what happens when you burry your head in an idealistic world and dusty old robes. I later came to knew a few Muslims and they weren't perfect Muslims but that’s fine, they were still good people. That is probably what matters most.

---------------------------

---------------------------

I just have an additional point as well. Here’s the problem, we have the supposedly perfect books and close to perfect rulings. These are idealistic things. What if we have people who both say they are Muslim and are bad people? What if they both say they are Muslim and immoral?

I can draw an analogy to something like communism. When I was younger, i was idealistic (like most of us). I was drawn to the left wing of politics. I read the communist manifesto, i read Lenin. I hated how the rich exploited the weak; i hated anything to do with capitalism. I thought the world could be a communist utopia (how naive i was).

People bought a very good challenge, "If communism is so good Kingpomba, why have all the communist countries so far ended up so bad!” I would go through the standard reply of course - Ah! You see, those countries weren't really communist, they just said they were. Nope, they weren't real communists at all, not what happened under Stalin in Russia, not what happened in Vietnam nor China. Those aren't real communists, there never has been a truly communist nation in every sense! I just thought they couldn’t see and moved on with my life, i never much thought about it. Obviously, as you do when you are young, i thought i must have been quite clearly right and they were all mistaken.

There obviously can't be any other way...i mean it has to be this way right?

Its only later i look back, laugh and shake my head. I have become a lot more educated since. I know a lot of the pitfalls. I've moderated my zeal.

I think back to their challenge though. You know, sure, maybe if you compare those countries to what’s written in idealistic books, they weren't communist. They thought they were applying communism though. This thought still blows my mind, think about this - Almost all the "bad guys" in the world thought that *they* were the good pguys! You can argue over individual leaders but if you look at someone like Hitler, he thought he was doing Germany a great favour, he thought it was restoring it to its former glory, to purity. Even if you look at terrorists, they think ultimately, they are doing something good. They think you are the bad guy. This is why politics can get so heated, people fail to realise everyone thinks they're the good guy!

Therefore, i look back to their challenge. People like Mao, Castro and countless other people who tried to apply communism, they thought they were doing good. They probably thought they were applying the communist theories right for the first time unlike all those other failed places. However, every time we have seen in the history of modern world pretty much, every time we try to apply communism, it fails miserably. Therefore, maybe it is not the problem with there never being a true communist state, maybe the problem is with communism itself. Maybe this is what happens when you pull communism out of the ink of your idealised book and bring it into the real world. Maybe that is what is always bound to happen. How many more times do we need to see communist nations run themselves into the ground and still continue to claim they weren't really communist before people realise, maybe, just maybe, the flaw is with communism itself?

I often see Muslims accuse other people of not being real Muslims. That is why they act bad, they're not proper Muslims at all! Maybe, just maybe, it is harder to translate the idealistic words of book and clergy into the life of the everyman. You can draw a parallel to what I have said above.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

I used to pray 5 times a day

This I’ve never really understood. Why does God need to be prayed to? Surely as an all-powerful being, he does not have the clinginess or the constant need to be reassured of a 5 year old. You certainly don’t need to speak words of your faith to him, if he is all powerful, he can already see this faith in your heart without prayer. I can’t really fathom a God who would actually punish someone for not constantly, verbally praising him, when he knows what’s in your heart anyway. Ditto to the actual words and method of pray. I once asked my Muslim friend if she could just pray like Christians do, kneel down or just sit in your chair and talk to God. She said no. It still baffles me today what extra connection you get to God by going through a very ritualised set of motions rather than just sitting quietly and praying.. or why such motions are even necessary.

I accept some people say prayer isn't for God, it’s for the person praying. That’s fine but then don’t go tell me in the next breath it’s so so bad not to pray and you'll wind up in hell. People have many different ways of reaching God. Christian music use to be a big one for me, it use to illustrate God and the concepts in the way a robed priest could not. I have even learned a lot about the experiences and feelings from the one "Islamic pop music" album a friend suggested by Maher Zain (yeah yeah i know haraaaaaaam apparently, not a Muslim though so meh). I don’t think we should discount these alternative methods out of hand. Certainly i felt a lot more of the feeling of Islam and saw a lot more of the beauty listening to that supposedly haram music than i ever got out of spending hours reading from bound copies of the Quran.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

it is not perfect and does have flaws. If it were the 'right' religion, there would be no flaws.

This is one of the things that made my orientate my philosophy of religion lense onto Islam. The bible i was use to was not really the word of God per se in my view. It was the word of humans inspired by God. They recounted historical tales and parables about morality, with deep meaning, not for us to squabble over the odd interpretation of a word or two or the literalness of it all but to focus on the meaning.

Therefore, to me the bible was the work of humans merely inspired by God. What i got from Muslims though was the fact that the Quran is the literal word of God, he spoke to Muhammad and Muhammad had it scribed down, the very words of God scribed down. I found this very interesting that God could be talking to us all directly. Theologically it was very interesting as well, especially in combination with the fact most Muslims believe the Quran to match exactly what God said and to be very and wholly free of errors and mistakes.

It’s really a catch 22 situation philosophically though. On the one hand, the claim that it’s the direct word of God leads a lot more authenticity and feeling to it, you just feel like you want to believe it if it came from God as opposed to historical tales. Anyone could question anything in the bible, indeed, Christianity itself, because it is not the word of God in the same way the Quran is (some Christians will differ on this but this is my view on the Quran and the bible). It could end up shattering the very religion itself, it could its way into extinction. Therefore, the Quran wins on that front. However, the claim it is the word of God, totally error free, leaves open a problem: If you find any contradiction in the text or in the properties of God (eg. God is all-loving but all just...how can you both be all loving but also justly punish people? I've read in the Quran numerous times how God has boasted about wiping out entire villages for example, seems contradictory to me personally), even one, it’s a totally fatal and decisive flaw on Islam itself, if you are convinced of that contradiction. Since it is the word of God, if there is some kind of problem and you do not or cannot reconcile it, the entire concept of Allah of the Quran just falls apart. The supposedly error free book has errors? That’s a pretty big pitfall. Therefore, this is one of the things that kept me interested philosophically.

This has also lead to a very strong traditional of literalism in Islam, compared to how a lot of Christians interpret the bible, a lot of the people here are fundamentally literalist. There seems to be a distinct lack of liberal movements in Islam as well which i discussed in another thread.

I would also like to personally note if it was the perfect religion, it is hard to find why so many people don’t believe in it or why it can’t convince me. It is not as I am putting up huge mental roadblocks against being convinced or something, if it were actually truly convincing, everyone would be convinced! The entire world should have been Muslim by now. Obviously, that hasn't happened. Religion is obviously heavily intertwined with politics, tribes, and things like that though, so we need to be mindful.

I think it’s hard for a written textual religion to be perfect. In my view you both cannot write the Quran so that both the Arabs in the 600-700s could understand it and apply to fully to their lives and that people could do exactly the same in 10,000 years. Some of the metaphors and ideas are already quickly getting dated. Democracy is spreading like wildfire for example. Despite what the text may see about them being unclean, the reason i believe certain animals are prohibited is for health reasons, just like in Judaism. It was passed along as tribal custom not to eat those animals. Why? Well, I have studied a far bit of biology but this isn’t my greatest area but I’m fairly sure most of the animals they prohibited are naturally crawling with parasites. Shellfish are big carriers of parasites, pigs seem like they would be too considering their living conditions and what they eat. Therefore, to me it seems nonsensical to continue this today. Obviously, people will disagree with me but I’m not here to talk to those guys, I’m here to talk to the original poster, so, you'll forgive me if i don’t respond to those things.

After i stopped being a Christian but before i locked my mind on atheism, i went "religion shopping" so to speak. I looked at a lot of the world religions. I strayed across Hinduism but i just could not believe it. It just seemed so focused on India in some ways, why should the Ganges be that special. It obviously arose out of Indian tribes creating a religion to match their surroundings but it is hard to see how this pertains to me as a western male. It just doesn’t have the significance for me. I guess you can rather analogise it to the religions of the past, the ancient Greeks believing quite literally that Zeus resided on mount Olympus for example. It would be very hard to believe something like that today and it was not even all that long ago. Christianity isn’t that old and people are already discounting its birthplace of Jerusalem! The Mormons (a *very* American religion if i must say so) think the Garden of Eden was in the USA! We either stay on earth or probably die eventually or we colonise other planets. This is actually a serious topic of study in astrobiology, it’s a given fact. Most people think we'll simply have to colonise other planets because we'll run out of resources...cause environmental damage...suffer overpopulation...a disease will wipe us out...something will destroy our entire species or send it back 10 000 years. The only way to survive as a species is colonise other planets like early humans colonised new countries. Imagine growing up on somewhere not very close to earth and trying to understand the significance of the Quibla for example. It may sound strange but so did the new world to European explorers.


Our times are just so different from the times these texts were penned in, the rift isn’t getting any smaller. It seemed quite reasonable for Jews to offer animal sacrifices at the time but now it seems almost absurd.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

I still believe in God, just not in any religion.

Organised religion is a human concept, God is what is the eternal and true.

You might be interested in looking into the idea of Deism.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

I understand that God created Heaven and Hell so people can be rewarded or punished for what they did on Earth.

Why stop there? Why even create hell? If he's the most merciful, all loving God why even send your own creations to hell, only to seem them suffer (supposedly) for eternity for a finite amount of evil they caused?

As a Christian i had trouble swallowing this doctrine too.

Just very recently though i started re-examining Christianity. I found an alternative doctrine, it’s called "annihilationism". Basically, it’s the idea God just simply destroys the souls of the very wicked and they never get into hell. They never have their insides brutally roasted in hell for all eternity but they don’t wind up in heaven either. They just disappear. Only the good get to go to heaven.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

My non-Muslim friends are better people in general than most Muslim people I know, yet according to Islam, it does not matter how good of a human being someone is. If they don't believe in Allah and the Prophet and everything else, they deserve hellfire. How does this make sense to you people? Forget about the 'you have to be a good Muslim to go to heaven' argument, is it or is it not true that no matter how good a non-Muslim (or even a non-Shia) is, then according to Islam he is going to hell?

If God really wanted to do justice with people, why would he care about religion?

This is what struck me about the Quran. The very first time i actually got one on paper, instead of a screen, i remember it well. I was reading it on my long train journey home (2 hours roughly). It wasn’t great literature but i was not reading it for that reason. I was just simply going cover to cover. What struck me about the second sura (the longest one) is just how many times it mentioned the word "hell fire" or "destined for the fire" or "they shall inherit the fire". I was actually quite shocked. Especially coming from Christianity where its constantly drilled into us God is love, Jesus was love, he loved all people. This was a very abrupt shock. It’s like someone dumping a bucket of cold water on your face whilst you're sleeping. I'm sure there were at least..10...maybe 15 mentions implied or otherwise of hellfire in the very first sura alone! It struck me more as the angry and jealous God of the Old Testament rather than the loving God of the New Testament i was more use to.

What also strikes me and upsets me even a little is shirk. The idea that shirk is a sin that Allah won’t even forgive. He could if he wanted to but he just simply will not. If i get a ticket to live out the rest of my life, in pleasure in heaven but Hindu’s are roasting in hell just for being Hindu’s, I’d rather go to hell and suffer with them than accept heaven on those terms.

If you think about it, the religion you follow is largely circumstance. If you were born into a Hindu village in India, guess which religion you'd probably wind up being? Hindu? and you'd get sent to hell just for being brought up in Hindu circumstances! It seems the whole prohibition on shirk is more based on the political climate Muhammad endured when he was fighting the pagans. Since they were fighting so badly, it seems logical he would not want any of his tribes or his people to associate or join the pagan people.

---------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------

I have collected the following quranic verses in another thread about mother theresa and hell:

Since the quran is wholly error free and free of contradictions one verse should suffice:

And (the ones) who have disbelieved and cried lies to Our signs, those are the companions (i.e. the inhabitants) of the Fire; they are therein eternally (abiding). 2:39

Incase you were looking for more:

Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His Angels and His Messengers, and Jibril and Mikal, (Angle Gabriel and Michael, respectively) then surely Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98

...then protect yourselves against the Fire whose fuel is mankind and stones, prepared for the disbelievers. 2:24

The ones to whom We have brought the Book recite it with its true recitation: those believe in it; and whoever disbelieves in it, then those are they (who are) the losers (eg hell). 2:121

Before, as guidance for the people. And He revealed the Qur'an. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment, and Allah is exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution. 3:4

And whoever inequitably seeks for himself as a religion other than Islam, then it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter (he) will be among the losers. How does Allah guide a people who have disbelieved after their belief, and bore witness that the Messenger is true, and the supreme evidences came to them? And Allah does not guide the unjust people. Those will have their recompense in (that there will rest) on them the curse of Allah and of the Angels and of mankind all together, Eternally (abiding) therein. The torment will not be lightened for them, and they will not be respited. 3:85-88

It goes on to say if one repents and accepts Islam during their life and lives a proper life according to Islam they will be forgiven. If they die and do not:

Surely the ones who have disbelieved and died (when) they are steadfast disbelievers, then (there) will never be accepted from any one of them the (whole) earth full of gold, even if he would ransom himself thereby. Those will have a painful torment, and in no way will they have any vindicators. 3:91

Say: "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Why do you reject the Ayat of Allah (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) while Allah is Witness to what you do?" Say: "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Why do you stop those who have believed, from the Path of Allah, seeking to make it seem crooked, while you (yourselves) are witnesses [to Muhammad SAW as a Messenger of Allah and Islam (Allah's Religion, i.e. to worship none but Him Alone)]? And Allah is not unaware of what you do." O you who believe! If you obey a group of those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians), they would (indeed) render you disbelievers after you have believed! And how would you disbelieve, while unto you are recited the Verses of Allah, and among you is His Messenger (Muhammad SAW)? And whoever holds firmly to Allah, (i.e. follows Islam Allah's Religion, and obeys all that Allah has ordered, practically), then he is indeed guided to a Right Path. 3:98 - 3:101

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Don't deny it. That puts everyone who is born a non-Muslim at a HUGE disadvantage.

If you think that’s bad you should of seen how gobsmacked i was when i first heard about Judaism's idea of a "chosen people" (and im not ethnically Jewish...so that religion was off the list).

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Growing up in the west and being closely linked with Pakistan and also the Middle East at the same time, its been saddening for me to know that most Muslims are the most bigoted, ignorant, dishonest, and hypocritical people I know.

I could be wrong but I have only seen this happen when you mix politics into the equation. People can get quite…. Stubborn about Iran here for example but thats alright.

I think the answer to this challenge is just that Muslims are people like everyone else. Ignorance and being an axehole does not discriminate, you can see it across all cultures and religions. Whilst I’m sure as you say there are plenty of Muslims like that, there are plenty of all people like that really.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

3) This has been typical of all anti-Islam arguments- the Islamic punishments.

You know, I’ve had a fair amount of counter arguments to Islam in my time on these forums but i don’t think I’ve ever used that one when arguing if the religion was right or not.

I have always more associated it with the Sunni's and bhukari and sahih muslim rather than the shi'a.

Until that completely nasty acid business (http://www.guardian....d-criminal-acid) in Iran cropped up anyway, that sickened me quite a bit...

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

If I went out and announced that I was leaving Islam, what would my punishment be? Death. Wow. Did I ever have a choice? I was born Muslim, I didn't realize it wasn't the path I wanted to follow until I was old enough to understand things for myself but if I choose to leave now, I'm threatened with death. How do you even begin to give a logical explanation to that?

I think this is more of a problem with Islam as a state and a political system rather than a religion per se. That’s compounded by the fact though that Islam is meant to be a comprehensive system of everything and not just a personal religion like Christianity is here...

I think part of the reason was what i was talking about earlier, how many Muslims tend to be very literal and how the religion of the clergy became the religion of the people (i really should try find that book...).

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

First there's Hijab,

That should definitely be a personal choice. I don’t see why the government should be in the business of legislating a dress code for its people, even against their will...enforced under threat of judicial punishment. It's not like it’s going to want to make people wear the hijab, you're just making them wear it out of fear of retribution by the very same government that’s meant to serve them...

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

It was painful to see my mom go out all dressed up in a burqa, she would literally be dripping in sweat when she got back from a 5 minute trip to the grocery store.

I had to actually write a paper on the genetics of skin color. Vitamin D played a significant role in the evolution of skin color, so i came past a lot of research on Vitamin D. I actually saw a many papers that suggest the full on ninja-style burka ala saudi arabia can be quite detrimental to vitamin D status. It’s hard to find a publically accessible form we can all read but despite the nature of the site, on quick inspection, their references check out  - http://wikiislam.net...ess&oldid=70478 .

I think modesty is a culturally relative thing as well. I mean what is considered modest now in the west would probably be considered scandalous in Victorian England. Times and standards of modesty change. African tribe’s people do not seem to have much shame at all in their particular dress code. Indeed, it is a part of their cultural heritage.

Reminds me of this actually:




This is a perfectly modest, probably bordering on frumpy way to dress in the west. It won’t get you any more attention than usual. In fact slapping on a Burka is likely to get you more attention than what she is wearing. This is from BYU, which i believe is a Mormon university and they made their students sign some kind of honor code.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

They aren't even allowed to shake hands with men even for a purely business-related reason. I don't know about you guys, but I have definitely never been sexually aroused by shaking hands with a female.

You too, huh?

I could never understand this. It is not like you're suddenly going to shake hands with someone and rip your clothes off right there in public and just get it on.

I think this is a consequence of what i was talking about above re: clerics and literalism.

rehman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Islam has taught me not to drink for example, and I still choose not to. But then again, that's just the right decision, even alcoholics admit alcohol isn't a good thing.

Alcohol is a neutral thing really, its just a chemical. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about it.

Some people, especially here, seem to think if you have one drink the sky will fall. I on occasions enjoy drinks with my friends and associates who are all successful students or scientists or engineers or what have you. It's not like you can’t function as a member in society if you have a drink from time to time. I'm not denying alcoholics exist, i've seen them within my own extended family and how bad this can be but at the same time alcohol isnt an automatic evil.

Prohibitions like that are easy to understand though. For me its other things. Like why can a Muslim man marry a Jew or Christian yet... a Muslim girl can only marry another Muslim? It seems to suggest politico-cultural undertones to me. In tradition society’s marriage indicated "giving away" the female involved. Of course, the Muslim community leaders and Muhammad being one would only want to add to and strength the Muslim community, the man would be able to have control over a Christian or Jewish girl. However, the female would likely be in control of her husband and his tribe and it would be a net loss for the community. The politico-cultural tones seem very strong in things like apostasy as well when you interpret them in ways of tribal affiliation and the historical wars that happened around the time the Quran was revealed. It's this fact that Islam might of survived. We look at religions that prohibit conversion and intermarriage like zoastrianism. Its rapidly sliding into decline. Unless both partners are zoastrian, neither are. Most dont want to marry just based on religion, they are not forced to. There are less zoastrians to marry and therefore that shrinks the community even more. The religions of the recent west are marked for their exlusitivity. Whereas if you look at Asia people are quite happy to practice more than one religious tradition at once without any conflict.


(Microsoft word might of accidentally auto-corrected some of the stuff i quoted from you, along with my writing, while i was composing it in word. So, apologies about that. I dont think it's so drastically modfied that it misrepresents you though.)


Some additional threads that might interest people reading:

Is mother teresa in hell? - http://www.shiachat....teresa-in-hell/

Why can't muslim women marry "people of the book" - http://www.shiachat....ple-of-the-book

Why does religion seem so irrelevant in real life? - http://www.shiachat....t-in-real-life/

Is God an "anger God" ? - http://www.shiachat....is-an-anger-god

The fate of the unbelievers (eg. Heaven/Hell) - http://www.shiachat....the-unbelievers

We discuss miracles at some length here, RE splitting of the moon - http://www.shiachat....itting-of-moon/

Is it really possible to choose to believe? Can you willingly choose? - http://www.shiachat....ose-to-believe/

Liberal movements in Islam (or lack thereof) - http://www.shiachat....2-liberal-islam

And a thread i made awhile back, "9 reasons why i dont believe", i detail some general reasons about Gods in general then specify all the way down to Islam - http://www.shiachat....-i-dont-believe

I've come up with some better arguments since but its still good.

Edited by kingpomba, 05 March 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[aliasghark]

kingpomba, on 05 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Therefore, the Quran wins on that front. However, the claim it is the word of God, totally error free, leaves open a problem: If you find any contradiction in the text or in the properties of God (eg. God is all-loving

Citation needed (for God being 'all-loving' from the Quran; I think your religion-shopping has left you confused about these kind of things).

[Pascal]

Are you contending he isn't all loving? If he isn't all loving who does he hate and who does he love then?

In any case, I know he is certainly said to be the most merciful, which means the maximally merciful. I think you can interchange most merciful and most loving in cases where punishment is to be rendered or reward is to be delivered.

I'm sure i've heard compassion mentioned somewhere too, surely compassion is a kind of love?

Anyway i dont want to get too bogged down into these things and drag this way off topic. Its good you clarified it though.

Oh, i think you misunderstand, i dont want to make a new post so, i'll just edit this one. Its not that i dont want to discuss it, its just that not within this thread. i just really dont like derailing threads. I could see this exploding out to a topic within a topic just like how the thread about how evolution and islam can be reconciled kind of degraded into a thread about if it was even true in regards to islam then if it was even true at all.. I'm sure you've seen it happen around here before, so i dont want to derail his thread. I'm happy to talk about it somewhere else though.

Seems to be a flurry of editing going on here!

Feel free to respond if you like, i'll read, i might not reply though RE above.

Not that i'd have much to reply to anyway. It's not like its a strongly held belief or anything, seems to be something i mistakenly (?) picked up along the way. So, i'm happy to be shown the right way, not going to complain about being told the truth certainly.

Edited by kingpomba, 05 March 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[aliasghark]

Feel free to start a new topic on it and we can discuss, once you answer the above question.

Okay, after I responded to your one-line "Are you contending he isn't all loving? If he isn't all loving who does he hate and who does he love then?" reply, I see you edited it and added an additional few lines indicating you didn't want to discuss it further.

Sure, no problem, just try not to jump to conclusions by mixing up irrelevant and false things like the above without actually researching them, in future.

[rehman]

Sorry for the late reply, I originally posted this in Thinker's Discourse and thought it was still being reviewed.

Quote

if the majority of the human race would end up in hell forever,, then Allah would have never created this universe,, that would go against the Rahma of Allah,, meaning most of the human race will end up in heaven,,
Christians and Jews and other religions can go to heaven,, they first must believe in Allah,, believe in day of judgment,, and do good deeds,, then they have nothing to fear,,

From what I've read and heard (from scholars), the majority of people WILL go to hell, is it not true that (what you believe is) when Imam Mahdi arrives, there will only be a few Muslims who stand by his side? It's always been that way. Even today, if everyone on the planet were to die , 90% of them are going to hell.
Also if Christians and Jews did all that, then they aren't Christians and Jews anymore, missing the whole point.

Quote

dont speak on behalf of women,, i wear proper Hijab and im proud that Allah made it an obligation on me,, its not only a physical thing,, its also spiritual,,

the reason y being gay is haram,, is because they can get a disease from each other,, thats y Allah sent Prophet Lut PBUH to warm people of his time,,

Allah sent down so much facts about this world before there was technology to prove it,, how isnt that enough proof ??

Good for you for wearing Hijab, but that's a choice you make yourself. I went to Iran for ziyarah 2 years ago and on the plane back women were literally taking off their Hijab and dressing up on the plane like they were just set free from prison.

You can also get STDs from sex with the opposite gender...

About scientific proof in the Quran, yes I admit there may be some things that happened to be proved right, but then there is also stories of trees talking, an animal talking to a person etc.
I see a lot of the things that people believe Islam proved are just a bunch of self-assuring rubbish. Something I've seen floating around my Facebook feed just recently is how some non-Muslim scientist proved that today's electronics are causing a build up of radiation in people's bodies and placing your forehead on the floor will help get rid of these. And people on the status's are all like "Subhanallah! Wow! Praise the Lord!". Including smart, college going people, blinded by faith.

Quote

When does Islam say that non-Muslims go to hell and Islam itself commands it's people to question themselves and their faith and religion so that even if they are born within Islam, they eventually stay in the religion because of the research they have done.

I'm sure that you can leave Islam without being killed?

You sound like one of those people who were born Muslim and were made to think Islam is all happy happy fun times but have never really read about the dark side of it. No, you can't leave Islam without being killed.

@ titumir
Your entire post is typical of all insecure Islam apologists who try to throw personal insults without actually making any counter-arguments or anything that contributes to the discussion whatsoever. Nice try. I am no scholar in religion but I've read the Quran and its translation, law books of Ayatullah Sistani, and have done intensive research on the internet (with authentic sources if you're going to flame me for that now). I am an adult, and that entire post is all points that I have been thinking about for over a year now, I haven't copied from anywhere. Even if I did, that doesn't change the fact that you are unable to answer any of them.

Quote

Just because your Pakistani countrymen are Arab masters are the worst examples of humanity that doesn't give you any right to judge Muslims of other countries

I said most. Most meaning Pakistanis/Indians and Arabs make the majority of the Muslim population.

Quote

Your talk about "Islamic punishments" -- I don't know how you turn this into an anti-Islamic point, I really don't know, since most Muslim countries do not practise them.

Most Muslim countries do not practice them hence they are not a part of Islam? Wow, and I am the one who is 'ridiculous and stupid'.

Quote

I suppose the rape statistics which state that 25% of American college women are victims of rape are then all raped by Muslims then, in your "enlightened", "European", "LOGICAL" opinion.

The worst thing that could happen to a woman if she doesn't wear Hijab (even though it clearly happens, and not rarely, to women in Hijab) is she gets raped. What happens to women who refuse to wear Hijab? They are thrown in hell and tortured for all of eternity by the "most merciful". Hallelujah!

Quote

Why stop there? Why even create hell? If he's the most merciful, all loving God why even send your own creations to hell, only to seem them suffer (supposedly) for eternity for a finite amount of evil they caused?

I do believe it's true that the really evil people in this world deserve a punishment, one that is not possible to give them in this world. Like if a serial killer killed babies and ate them or something like that while being totally sane lol, he/she deserves worse than just being killed once. The perfect God that I have in my mind would send the extremely wicked people to hell, "annihilate" slightly wicked but not deserving of eternal torment people, and send all good people to heaven regardless of religion. This is just a fairytale concept.

Quote

If i get a ticket to live out the rest of my life, in pleasure in heaven but Hindu’s are roasting in hell just for being Hindu’s, I’d rather go to hell and suffer with them than accept heaven on those terms.

Hah, excellent point, but I'd probably soon realize I'd made the wrong choice given the horribly gory and brutal descriptions of hell in the Quran, not to mention that it lasts for all of eternity. Small children really shouldn't be reading that book.
There are also a lot of self-contradictions on the fate of Christians and Jews in the Quran, and many Muslims will try to fool you (maybe thats a bit harsh, many of them have been fooled themselves) by stating the verses that apparently give them tremendous amounts of respect.

Quote

You know, I’ve had a fair amount of counter arguments to Islam in my time on these forums but i don’t think I’ve ever used that one when arguing if the religion was right or not.

The point I was trying to make there was that a religion can not possibly be "right" if it has laws like those. Again, a perfect religion should be flawless, so everyone little error or exagerration etc needs to be a cause for doubt.
About that article on Iran, I've read it before and I think that man got what he deserved. If I were that woman, I would want exactly the same thing to happen to him. This is one of those places where an Islamic punishment seems justifiable and hence "right". But the reasons I've stated in my first post (i.e. death for apostacy and blasphemy), I just can't imagine how someone no matter how blinded by their faith they were, could justify that in any way.

Quote

Alcohol is a neutral thing really, its just a chemical. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about it.

Are you kidding? It's been proven time and time again to do all sorts of crazy things with your head, liver, overall body and life in general. But that's an entirely different conversation. Fyi, I don't really have anything against people who drink, its what I tell everyone, to each their own and I just choose not to.

Your political reasoning behind some those rules makes a lot of sense. That's another point I wanted to make, the creators of Islam had a huge political agenda. Just look, they're long gone but still people are fighting over them and someone from their direct family even still exists, alive and well. Its just that learned philosophers and scholars twisted the words over time in an attempt to make them more believable. If the Quran is read in its raw form, it certainly doesn't fit into today's world.

Edited by rehman, 06 March 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[rehman]

Kingpomba, I just had time to read some of the threads you suggested and they have been quite helpful in strengthening my decision, thanks.

Here's something I found interesting from the first one (is mother teresa going to hell):

Quote

These verses clearly show that belief in God - and His Oneness - is not enough. It must be complimented by belief in Prophet Muhammed and also the other Prophets (peace be upon them all), along with the books that were revealed to them, the Unseen and good deeds.

Now, Mother Teresa does pass the test of action with flying colours but, to be honest, she has some problems when it comes to belief. Yes, she does believe in monotheism and nearly all Prophets (peace be upon them all) but neither does she believe in Prophet Muhammed nor in what was revealed to him (The Quran). Therefore, she does sort of fail this test.

The question which here is: can she go to Heaven if she failed one of the most important tests? The answer can be given by looking at the example of a teacher who gives the students an examination. Let's say it was a Physics examination and the topics to be studied were waves, radioactivity and forces. What if a student learns everything about waves and radioactivity but leaves out forces? He/she would, surely, excel brilliantly at the questions involving waves and radioactivity but will fail the forces questions.

Here, can we say that the teacher is either not merciful or a "cruel teacher" just because he makes the student fail in the forces question? The answer is, obviously, no. It is not the teacher's fault if the student does not study, when he/she was already given the topics to be studied.

Taking this example into our question, even if He does send her to Hell, we cannot call Allah (SWT) a "cruel God" because he had already set the criteria and she failed in one of them.

So, yes, mother teresa is going to hell I laugh every time someone gives an example like that. How does one compare failing an exam to being doomed to eternal torment?

[magma]

It's your own free will.

Usually the hypocrisies of the modern world draw someone closer to Islam.

[Pascal]

rehman, on 06 March 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I see a lot of the things that people believe Islam proved are just a bunch of self-assuring rubbish. Something I've seen floating around my Facebook feed just recently is how some non-Muslim scientist proved that today's electronics are causing a build up of radiation in people's bodies and placing your forehead on the floor will help get rid of these. And people on the status's are all like "Subhanallah! Wow! Praise the Lord!". Including smart, college going people, blinded by faith.

I think using the "Scientific Miracles" as proof is a silly and risky thing. Often the pasages that talk about these scientific miracles are so broad and open to interpretation, you could interpret them to mean anything. What if the science is disproved later? What happened to your supposed divine miracle?

It wasn't so long ago that (some) muslim alchemists were convinced the Quran proved the fact they believed in, that everything was made up of fire, earth, air and water (the so called "classical elements"). As opposed to atomism which is the idea things are made up of smaller indivisible atoms like salt is made up of calcium and chlorine atoms bonded together. They thought everything could be explained in terms of fire earth air and water. They found proof for this, the quran even mentions jinn being made out of fire and things like that.

Now almost all muslims are shying away using the Quran to prove that, a fact that seemed so evident at the time and that the quran discovered it before anyone else knew about it...

Same with a lot of the other things they claim the quran talks about. Putting aside the fact its extremely broad, what if we have new science in 30 years time? What happened to the fact you were so sure was proved in the Quran? There are alternative theories to the big bang and yet we have a lot of people running around claiming the Quran contains knowledge of the big bang... What if its disproved in 30 years time..where does that leave you?

I'm all for well reasoned philosophical arguments but this just seems like a kind of flattery almost. I doubt these scientific miracles (especially in the modern days) change anyone elses mind, they only re-enforce muslims belief about how right they think their religion is so we can all pat each-other on the back and say how right we all are.

They tend to ignore some of the more dubious scientific things in the Quran as well..

rehman, on 06 March 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

About that article on Iran, I've read it before and I think that man got what he deserved. If I were that woman, I would want exactly the same thing to happen to him. This is one of those places where an Islamic punishment seems justifiable and hence "right". But the reasons I've stated in my first post (i.e. death for apostacy and blasphemy), I just can't imagine how someone no matter how blinded by their faith they were, could justify that in any way.

If we take it out of the religious context, its probably to maintain a face of cohesion or indeed control over the population. If you look at a lot of the Islamic countries, especially in the middle east, they're not exactly the freest countries around. Religion allows them (especially in the cases of those with kings) to try keep the people down a bit. A lot of people in those countries seem legitimately afraid that if the kings or the rulers go, people will run amok. Society will degrade beyond measure. Whilst they may or may not like the kings its something they have to accept for a supposed greater good. It's polarising.

Of course we know this isn't the case looking at places like europe. If you look to the USA though where politics has become so ingrained on moral politics and electing someone to force your particular set of morals on society, you can see this kind of thing. Politicians should be there to run the economy and government, not to drag morals into it on extreme levels. People have attacked obama as anti-christian or as a muslim or as an atheist...hardly see why that matters...got no baring on his ability to run a country. It's a way to fire up the people though. You see a lot of people voting on moral lines because they feel they have no choice, if they dont vote republican, the sky will fall.

I don't think retributive justice is right. It's an old remanant from our tribal past and really needs to be done away with. As Ghandi (i believe) said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.". You become almost a blood thirsty society over things like this. Yes, while he did allegedly commit a horrible crime, is it really right for yourself to be a criminal unto him? Is that the right or noble thing to do? It might give you some temporary visceral joy but it wont fix whatever he done to you. Its not the noble nor the right thing to do.

The thing i found really grotesque was the fact the state was complicit in this. They have a whole apparatus for these things. They had a place set up and they had doctors, professionals trained to heal, to supervise the permanant blinding of a man in clinical conditions. It's just barbaric as a people to act that way, what he did was unexcusable but doesn't mean it should be done to him, he should be punished though. Similarily in Saudi Arabia where a man was driving drunk and he paralyzed someone. The government set up a pannel to determine if it was possible for doctors to surgically paralyze the offender. It sickens me that kind of thing, especially the fact that doctors are involving themselves. That a man would be tied down, drugged up, sent to the operating theater walking and come out permanantly paralyzed due to the machinations of the state and the justice system. He should go to prison definitely but that kind of thing isn't right. It's almost childs morality "You hit me, so, i'll hit you back!".

This is probably for another thread though, we'll try stick to why you're not a muslim anymore.

rehman, on 06 March 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

Are you kidding? It's been proven time and time again to do all sorts of crazy things with your head, liver, overall body and life in general. But that's an entirely different conversation. Fyi, I don't really have anything against people who drink, its what I tell everyone, to each their own and I just choose not to.

Maybe you think this never having drunk yourself or being in a society or enviroment where that kind of thing goes on. Maybe that kind of attitude just filtered down. If you read the research though, a drink or two every now and then will do almost no damage to you. If you're a chronic alcoholic yes. If you have a couple beers with your workmates on a friday, no.

The problem with not being a Muslim anymore is how do you justify things you use to use Islam to justify?

How do you justify not drinking for example? I know plenty of Atheists and Christians that don't drink, so, its by no means an exclusive thing to Islam.

Thats the problem with Deism though, thats the problem with believing in a God out-there without believing in a religion.

You no longer have any books which tell you how to act.

Which i think is a fine thing, i dont need to be told how to act or subscribe to some rigid moral code made up for someone else and placed onto me. Like in the example of the celibate clergy i gave, its just not practical.

If you're no longer a muslim why do you not eat pork? I've been a vegetarian for a long time so i wouldn't really no but it doesn't seem to be all that different to any of the other meats, my friends tell me its tasty. You certainly have no reason to no longer eat pork *shrug*. Just sayin'

Who says God does want to impose morals on you though. To me, the version of the deist God is one who created us and the universe and just kind of stopped after that. Personally i consider it a historical step between Theism and Atheism. It was the time of the enlightment and they were shaking off all kinds of superstitions, it was a great time. They still had no big bang or drawin though, they needed some way to rationalise how we are here, so they believed in God but not in organised religion or specific books. Especially if you look at it in the context of the enlightment where they threw off the shackles of a lot of repressive, long lived, institutions like the monarchy and the church it makes sense.

I don't know how tenable it is now though.

I'm not going to lie, even if i some how manage to end up sending you back to Islam (I'm not here to "convert" people but i'm obviously happy to have more atheists). I just don't think Deism is that great of a position either. It's a bit hard to justify your logic behind why God exists in that case as well.

In classical deism, there is no heaven or hell. God doesn't interfere in human lives, he might not watch nor care. He might care but still doesn't interfere (opens up to the problem of evil here). I have a deist friend and shes very smart but i told her this..."If there is no heaven or hell...if you won't get punished or rewarded, if theres no scripture telling you what to do, why even bother believing at all?" At that point it becomes more of a philosophical position over the truth of certain things rather than over God. Even if this God i described does exist, what does it matter at all to us, if he is how i described? It doesn't matter one bit in a practical sense, which is what i'm all about.

You seem to think there still might be a heaven or hell though but how can you know this if you no longer believe in the scripture? The very nature of the Islamic scripture is if you think part of it is false, its a wound on God and the Quran and it all must be false. You really have no good reason for believing this, you might want to but you don't have any logic behind it really.

We talk about Deism a bit more here: http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2300411
http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2246018 (theres more as you go along)

Deism is sort of a paper tiger, it just falls apart when you look at it in my opinion.

The other threads i linked in my previous post are also very good if you're feeling confused.

http://www.beliefnet...liefOMatic.aspx - Obviously a bit of a novelty but it might help set you on the right path. Maybe tell us what you get hey?

rehman, on 06 March 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

Your political reasoning behind some those rules makes a lot of sense. That's another point I wanted to make, the creators of Islam had a huge political agenda. Just look, they're long gone but still people are fighting over them and someone from their direct family even still exists, alive and well. Its just that learned philosophers and scholars twisted the words over time in an attempt to make them more believable. If the Quran is read in its raw form, it certainly doesn't fit into today's world.

I've always found this striking about muhammed, comming from a Christian background too. Unlike Jesus he just didn't wander around the desert preaching and healing the sick; Muhammed was a politician and a general too, by some measures quite a good one. We can obviously see through history religion being used for political means and especially in times when people were much more fragmented into tribes and nationstates it was a very powerful tool. Theres volumes of literature on this kind of thing out there.

[md. ammar ali]

one of our imam said "the concept that u cant see god made u disbelieve but the fact that i am too small to see the almighty god made me believe"


such a great statement
hamdulillah

[Pascal]

varun loves ahlulbayt, on 07 March 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

one of our imam said "the concept that u cant see god made u disbelieve but the fact that i am too small to see the almighty god made me believe"


such a great statement
hamdulillah

Problem with that statement is it supposes you already believe in the Quran and already are a muslim if you accept the authority of the Imam's. It's useless for proving God to anyone or indeed yourself, unless you're already a muslim just in need of reassurance..

Even if that somehow leads you to believe in God...or any argument leads you to believe in God...the question is...which God? There are countless Gods out there. Countless religions. How do you go from believing in "just God" to a religion? It seems a greatly difficult thing to do. It always almost seems to work in reverse, people already have their religion and their God and work backwards to justify why they already hold those beliefs.

[aliasghark]

kingpomba, on 07 March 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Even if that somehow leads you to believe in God...or any argument leads you to believe in God...the question is...which God? There are countless Gods out there. Countless religions. How do you go from believing in "just God" to a religion? It seems a greatly difficult thing to do.

Not really, you don't have to wonder 'which God?'.  After you believe in God (after you realize that everything in the world cannot just be a coincidence), you just have to think - what may be the attributes of God.  Based on the answer (can God be something I can see or hold in my hand (example, a rock, or an animal, or the moon); or is the creator of the worlds more likely to be greater than that?), evaluate the religions and compare their answers your own logic.  Whichever makes most sense, is your religion.  

What is so hard about this?

[zeinab94]

rehman, on 06 March 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

Sorry for the late reply, I originally posted this in Thinker's Discourse and thought it was still being reviewed.

From what I've read and heard (from scholars), the majority of people WILL go to hell, is it not true that (what you believe is) when Imam Mahdi arrives, there will only be a few Muslims who stand by his side? It's always been that way. Even today, if everyone on the planet were to die , 90% of them are going to hell.
Also if Christians and Jews did all that, then they aren't Christians and Jews anymore, missing the whole point.

Good for you for wearing Hijab, but that's a choice you make yourself. I went to Iran for ziyarah 2 years ago and on the plane back women were literally taking off their Hijab and dressing up on the plane like they were just set free from prison.

You can also get STDs from sex with the opposite gender...

About scientific proof in the Quran, yes I admit there may be some things that happened to be proved right, but then there is also stories of trees talking, an animal talking to a person etc.
I see a lot of the things that people believe Islam proved are just a bunch of self-assuring rubbish. Something I've seen floating around my Facebook feed just recently is how some non-Muslim scientist proved that today's electronics are causing a build up of radiation in people's bodies and placing your forehead on the floor will help get rid of these. And people on the status's are all like "Subhanallah! Wow! Praise the Lord!". Including smart, college going people, blinded by faith.

your looking at the wrong places then,, and no thats not what we believe,, when Imam Mahdi ATF arrives there would only be 313 Generals,, but the actual army would be of 1000`s and 1000`s of people,, and not all would be Muslims,, they might be Christians because they have DEEN,, which is obedience,, a non-muslim can be closer to Allah to a muslim,, from there actions,, there is this following Hadith,, "An Ignorant (another religion) person who is generous is more beloved to Allah than a worshiper (muslim) who is stingy",,,,,,, that way the Non-Muslims deserve to be in the 313 than the actual Muslims,,

u didnt understand what i meant,, if a Christian or a Jew followed there Book correctly,, meaning believed in ONE God,, they believed in the day of Judgment,, and they did good deeds,, then they have nothing to fear,, most Christians and Jews dont follow there book properly,, the same as Muslims,,

and u cant judge Hijab on what people do on the plane,, because its there choice,, if there is a girl who who connects with Allah spiritually but doesnt put scarf on,, it will be better than someone who puts it on just for a show,,

when u start mentioning trees talking then u seriously believe everything,, the miracles in the Quran were revealed before science technology could prove it,, and u should know better than to believe most things from facebook,, but WHY should Islam be based on these dumb things u see and read who r from people who dont even know there religion to start with,,

who should also read all the amazing things Imam Ali AS has done in His time,, i can send u the stories,, it shows how our character should be,,

and i suggest u get ur sources from reliable places,,

[Pascal]

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

Not really, you don't have to wonder 'which God?'.  After you believe in God (after you realize that everything in the world cannot just be a coincidence), you just have to think - what may be the attributes of God.  Based on the answer (can God be something I can see or hold in my hand (example, a rock, or an animal, or the moon); or is the creator of the worlds more likely to be greater than that?), evaluate the religions and compare their answers your own logic.  Whichever makes most sense, is your religion.  

What is so hard about this?

You're essentially creating a God in your head then. You're going off nothing but what *YOU* think God *should* look like, then, you're going out to find him.

You're holding a gun to gods head and saying you have to look the way i created you in my head or i wont reach your religion, even if its the right one.

It doesnt seem like a good way to go about it.

Whether or not it comes to be your religion is a quite different matter to whether or not you happen to be right, quite clearly, all the views of all the religions cant be right. Some contradict the others and have to be wrong to any observer. To most believers, almost all the other belief systems both present and historical are wrong. So, you've got a pretty low probability there..

Its not a very reliable or consistent system either. If you asked prehistoric humans they'd almost certainly say theres a God in the sun or in the volcano because they had no idea how these things worked. They had no idea why the sun kept rising or why the rains came for the harvests. Thats what would happen if you applied that kind of logical system eons ago. We obviously dont think its reasonable to believe that the sun is God now. If you apply it today you'd get a far few people inexplicably reaching monotheism, probably because its so saturated and prevalent into our collective consciousness now.

If you apply the same logic but get inconsistent results, theres kind of a problem there in regards to establishing truth...

I definitely accept you might reach *a* religion but will you reach *the* religion?

Edited by kingpomba, 07 March 2012 - 08:14 AM.

[aliasghark]

First kingpomba, why are you not able to stick to what you say (or type) in the first go? Almost each of your posts are edited a few minutes after you post the initial version. This is a sign of inconsistency, and it may be that you're not being honest with yourself - try to avoid hypocritical thinking.

Now, about your response (the current version of it): you appeared to be confused about the different ways that religions portray God, and which was the right one. My response was to explain how you can decide. Your latest reply twists logic unnecessarily.

Quote

You're essentially creating a God in your head then. You're going off nothing but what *YOU* think God *should* look like, then, you're going out to find him.
You're holding a gun to gods head and saying you have to look the way i created you in my head or i wont reach your religion, even if its the right one.
It doesnt seem like a good way to go about it.

I don't understand your issue with this. You should be independent-minded - think about things freely, and form your own opinion or hypothesis first. After that, go out and look for evidences. It may be that you got everything right, or somewhat right, or neither.

Quote

Whether or not it comes to be your religion is a quite different matter to whether or not you happen to be right, quite clearly, all the views of all the religions cant be right. Some contradict the others and have to be wrong to any observer. To most believers, almost all the other belief systems both present and historical are wrong. So, you've got a pretty low probability there..

True, all religions cannot be right, but what you're saying above sounds like if two of your friends go to Dubai, and on returning describe it in different ways, you will say that Dubai does not exist.

This is also like saying 'some climate scientists believe the world is going to be warmer by 2 degrees in 50 years, but others say 1.58 degrees, yet other say 2.1, and the remaining claim 1.8 degrees; therefore, it's not going to get warmer'.

Quote

Its not a very reliable or consistent system either. If you asked prehistoric humans they'd almost certainly say theres a God in the sun or in the volcano because they had no idea how these things worked. They had no idea why the sun kept rising or why the rains came for the harvests. Thats what would happen if you applied that kind of logical system eons ago. We obviously dont think its reasonable to believe that the sun is God now. If you apply it today you'd get a far few people inexplicably reaching monotheism, probably because its so saturated and prevalent into our collective consciousness now.
If you apply the same logic but get inconsistent results, theres kind of a problem there in regards to establishing truth...

I think you're vastly underestimating the capacities of people who came before you, you make it sound like people before us didn't have disagreements about God. I believe that any person in any age who thinks hard enough will not accept the sun or other things like it to be God. As an example, you should read prophet Ibrahim (Abraham)'s story where he carefully thinks and observes things around him, and is thereby led to the conclusion that God has to be greater than the things he can physically see.

Quote

I definitely accept you might reach *a* religion but will you reach *the* religion?

By studying and comparing them, and thinking.

[Pascal]

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

First kingpomba, why are you not able to stick to what you say (or type) in the first go? Almost each of your posts are edited a few minutes after you post the initial version. This is a sign of inconsistency, and it may be that you're not being honest with yourself - try to avoid hypocritical thinking.

Haha, thats quite far from the truth. I'm more of a perfectionist. I actually most of the time dont change what was previously written(you can even watch if you dont believe me), i just add more (which is why my posts are quite long).

I am being consistent, i'm just see something i forgot and add more but very rarely i actually change what was already present, almost never.

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I don't understand your issue with this.

My issue is the fact you are manufacturing a human created God in your head with no evidence or basis for it besides what is contained in your head.

By creating this God  in the image you would like to see him, you're already sympathetic to this position. Unless you come across a very good argument otherwise or have a significant revelation, youre more bound to read things that support this, because you want it to be true, rather than things that don't support it (RE confirmation bias).

It seems in someways you suggest a form of idealism. I'm very grounded in the empirical tradition.

It's great you go out and suggest for evidence but all things being equal, being a true or false proposition and noting the large number of believers, we can assume many people will go on to find evidence confirming the God they would like to see, the God they created in their head.

Very few people would think God is an evil God but what if this is true? 95% of people would be wrong using your method then. My problem isn't so much that it isn't a method for finding a religion and finding one that feels comfortable nor does my problem lie with the fact its a method of choosing a religion (might as well use a dartboard then), my problem is with its use to find the true religion and the true God.

You suggested people come up with a God in their head, the God they think should exist and the God they would like to exist. Its a natural choice obviously. The problem is, most people in this case would look to prove it more than they would look to deny it (again, confirmation bias). So, you're essentially creating your on God and most people would go onto confirm it if so inclined.

We can look at it in terms of pascals wager, except lets turn pascals wager on it's head.

For those unfamiliar, here is a short introduction i wrote some time ago:

Pascals wager, first formulated by the philosopher Blaise Pascal is a pragmatic argument for belief in God. It emerged out of the realisation that the current arguments of the day in favour of belief, such as the cosmological and ontological arguments were not sufficient to convince everyone. The wager asserts even if we cannot prove god through reason one ought to wager on God existing and in favour of belief because you stand to gain everything (eternal bliss) and lose nothing. Many critical analysis have revealed problems with the wager, perhaps most striking of all is the fact Pascal fails to take into consideration the possibility, no matter how remote, the existence of Gods alternative to his. This essay will examine the aforementioned objection, the many Gods objection, and the near fatal ramifications it has on Pascals wager.

Pascals wager is striking in its simplicity, direct and straight to the point. One is compelled to either wager for God or against God. It is essentially a 50/50 choice. However, the sheen of superficial simplicity soon disappears on closer analysis. Once the chips are down and we have made our wager for God, which conception of God are we to believe in? Pascals God or just an ill-defined ecumenical God, a being that is powerful on a godly scale and that is all; A god and religion without other well-defined properties, ethos or belief systems? The answer is quite clear when the context surrounding Pascals wager is examined; Pascal is arguing for belief in his God and the conceptions that entail that. Pascal recommends going to mass and using holy water (Pascal 1660 #223) as a method to believe in the God of his argument, thus, it is quite clear that he is trying to convince people of his particular conception of God. As Pascal states himself “How I hate these follies of not believing in the Eucharist, etc.! If the Gospel be true, if Jesus Christ be God, what difficulty is there?”(Pascal 1660 #224).

For Pascal these there are only two legitimate choices, atheism or belief in his God. Pascal creates a false dichotomy in his argument, considering only two choices when there are in-fact, many. In addition to this black and white reasoning, he dismisses many alternatives out of hand with very little argument to back them up. Pascal does not consider agnosticism since we are compelled to wager. Pascal seems almost certain of the fact that his religion is the correct one. Pascal is not at all fond of paganism and seems convinced that it has no chance of being true. He is somewhat kinder to monotheistic Abrahamic religions like Islam but later on goes to discount these as well, essentially accusing Muhammad of being a false prophet and an instigator of war (Lumbard 2009, Oakes 2011).

His idea was based on the fact you either choose his God or atheism. There was no middle ground in his view. In reality, there are many thousands and thousands of actual God's and belief systems out there and probably many thousands more you could probably conceive in your mind. Indeed, it seems there could be an a very large or infinite amount of Gods and possible belief systems. Unless otherwise prudent, it seems that they are all equally as probable as each other (of course zeus literally living on mount olympus is less probable...), its hard on a casual glance to say Judaism has a higher chance of being correct than Shinto.

So, many, many choices are all equally likely to be true. The more choices there are, the less probable any one religion you pick being right is. If we have 50 religions its 1/50 or 2% chance of each being right. Obviously there are a lot more than 50 religions, both past present and future religions to come. We can't immediately assume that the true God has actually revealed himself to us yet, the rest could be just human myths like we treat the ancient greek religions now. Say we put it at 10 000, 1/10 000 = 0.01% . Thats a pretty shockingly low chance of being right.

We just cant assume because Christianity is more popular or more talked about that it can be more right than a tribal religion practiced in Papua New Guinea. Who knows, their God could be the true God and you never could of heard of him! What if one of the now extinct religions was the true religions, no one (or almost no one) believes these anymore, we all could be damned. Not all the religions in the past have been documented either, what if the one true religion and the one true God just happened to be lost to the sands of time?

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

True, all religions cannot be right, but what you're saying above sounds like if two of your friends go to Dubai, and on returning describe it in different ways, you will say that Dubai does not exist.

Oh, i definitely agree. The simplistic version of the upside down pascals wager i presented above didn't take this into account. I didnt take into account that the true God out of those 10 000 religions would actually accept all the other believers of all the other religions too. Maybe he might accept a few of the other faiths. Who knows, maybe he is an evil God and only rewards those who don't have faith in him or sends those with faith in him to hell. We literally can not know the truth just based on our reasoning, thats where my objection lies.

This method is a horrible way of choosing, it barely reduces the probability at all, if anything, its worse than using a dart board or picking them out of a hat. You use your cultural biases and ideas of what God should look like from what you know in this time to choose a God. You totally discount whole categories largely just based on pure reason alone.

If their descriptions of Dubai differ a little thats fine. If one comes back saying Dubai is constantly covered in Snow and one in Sand...thats a quite different matter. They're contradictory. A lot of Gods are contradictory and exclusivist as well. The Dubai thing can be empirically observed and checked by you (back to my belief in empiricism), its a bit hard to empirically know whether there is one true God or there are multiple true Gods or there is one true God but he has many forms or that God is in a certain place...or that God is everywhere..or that God is everything. Clearly, only one set of beliefs in this case can be true and can lead you to the true God. You have no way of testing or observing this besides using rationalism, which is pretty much just picking out of a hat. You have no proof one way or the other if you soley use your head. You have it on no authority but yourself these things are the true things.

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

This is also like saying 'some climate scientists believe the world is going to be warmer by 2 degrees in 50 years, but others say 1.58 degrees, yet other say 2.1, and the remaining claim 1.8 degrees; therefore, it's not going to get warmer'.

Temperature can be a continuous value, God is a discrete value. They're totally different examples.

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I believe that any person in any age who thinks hard enough will not accept the sun or other things like it to be God.

You believe but can you prove? You may believe something but it doesn't mean its true or reflect reality.

We have archaeological evidence these kind of things were prevalent in times gone by. The ancient Egyptian tradition is exceedingly well documented for example.

Before we knew anything about science or how the sun works, it seems entirely reasonable at that time, to me, for someone to believe the Sun is a God. For someone to believe there is a rain God that brings the harvests. Things like that.

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

As an example, you should read prophet Ibrahim (Abraham)'s story where he carefully thinks and observes things around him, and is thereby led to the conclusion that God has to be greater than the things he can physically see.

Well, its just that, a story. We have no objective proof Abraham even existed outside the sacred texts. In other threads i've traced back the geanology of the prophets using Quranic and Biblical sources and worked out roughly the time Abraham lived if the Quran and Bible are to be trusted about life-spans and events. We know from objective, archaeological evidnece around this time, lots of people worshipped things that werent the one God you describe. You have the golden calf for example.

Even if Abraham did exist, which we cant possibly know and even if he did turn to monotheism, so what? One man, i dont think we should assume he was more right than any other man. He was clearly the minority too, it doesnt make him wrong but it illustrates what people thought around that time.

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

By studying and comparing them, and thinking.

You will get to *a* religion perhaps but the chances you reach the true religion through this method is small.

We have very little evidence for any of the things in the texts actually happening, how do we know which ones we should just accept happened without any evidence? What if theres nothing to study or as i say, the religion of the true God has been lost to time or yet to be revealed?

[aliasghark]

kingpomba, on 07 March 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Haha, thats quite far from the truth. I'm more of a perfectionist. I actually most of the time dont change what was previously written(you can even watch if you dont believe me), i just add more (which is why my posts are quite long).
I am being consistent, i'm just see something i forgot and add more but very rarely i actually change what was already present, almost never.

I remember your changing existing text more than once.

Why don't you just compose another message if you have to add something?

In fact in this specific thread, you have even replied to a post after yours, by editing your earlier post (your post #9), which makes no sense at all. Please try to be more honest.

Quote

My issue is the fact you are manufacturing a human created God in your head with no evidence or basis for it besides what is contained in your head.

I had said "I don't understand your issue with this. You should be independent-minded - think about things freely, and form your own opinion or hypothesis first. After that, go out and look for evidences. It may be that you got everything right, or somewhat right, or neither."


Of course many people like to stick to baseless ideas (the militant atheists for instance, with their belief system that there is no God), but if you're sincere, objective and open-minded, you will not stick to your original ideas just because you thought of them first. Sure, many people do wrong things. So what? Just because they do does not mean that that is the correct thing to do.

In most of the rest of your post you're going around in circles clinging on to your original few fallacies.

If one thinks deeply, lets go of cultural and local biases, we won't even need a formal religion - we will come to the same basic conclusions ourselves.

[Pascal]

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

I remember your changing existing text more than once.

How much? Probably not enough to change the point, certainly not after i read what someone wrote about one of my ideas without saying it was added on (which ive only done once..here). I say this is true, you can believe me or call me a liar, i dont really mind which you choose.

I edited the other post because i didnt want to derail the thread but we've already started that...so no point now..


I had said "I don't understand your issue with this. You should be independent-minded - think about things freely, and form your own opinion or hypothesis first. After that, go out and look for evidences. It may be that you got everything right, or somewhat right, or neither."

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Of course many people like to stick to baseless ideas (the militant atheists for instance, with their belief system that there is no God)

All ideas about religion and lack of religion are empirically baseless anyway.

Theism is a positive thing though, you set out to prove it. Prove something exists out of nothing.

Atheism, all i need to do to have strong reason to believe the God of the bible can't exist is find arguments against such a God. That way i can be reasonably convinced it is false.

I dont take the position no Gods exist or a God *cant* exist, thats why it says "Agnostic Atheist" somewhere around here.

I can't be sure God doesn't exist but i can knock out existing religions which dont make sense and the God and texts associated with them.

If we're talking just a generic God where i cant use textual criticism or anything like that, You've got about as much weight in proving it as i do in disproving it. I dont argue against religion very much, even less i argue against *any* God, i argue against specific Gods. I look at their properties and argue about their properties. If you just say theres a God out there and he's an all powerful being, without any other properties or claims i can do relatively very little to argue against it. I could say theres no proof he exists but i cant prove he doesn't exist.

If you say an all perfect God created us, i can argue against that. An all perfect being does everything perfect, all his machinations are perfect. It is impossible for a perfect God to create something imperfect on purpose, he just cant do it. I contend we have imperfect design and so do other things, so, we're either accidents or this God almost certainly doesnt exist with the stated properties. I cant prove it though. I cant be sure im believing the truth nor can i prove it. I can personally believe it with a high probability but thats where it stops.

My problem with your idea is the use of it for finding the true religion, it clearly isnt great for this purpose for all the other things i mentioned in the previous post, you really ought to just thin out the obviously absurd ones then go to the dart board.

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

but if you're sincere, objective and open-minded, you will not stick to your original ideas just because you thought of them first.

You'd think so but psychological research shows otherwise.

People are very reluctant to change their views, the average age of conversion for example is something like 14.

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

If one thinks deeply, lets go of cultural and local biases, we won't even need a formal religion - we will come to the same basic conclusions ourselves.

Its very hard if impossible to let go of our biases. We just cant switch them off, they infiltrate all our thinking. Even the language we speak shapes how we think. What do you believe these basic conclusions will be?

[aliasghark]

aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:
but if you're sincere, objective and open-minded, you will not stick to your original ideas just because you thought of them first.

Quote

You'd think so but psychological research shows otherwise.

Again, the same argument. What does psychological research show? Many or most people stick to their original ideas? So what? Your retort is not logical.

--

Quote

Theism is a positive thing though, you set out to prove it. Prove something exists out of nothing.

Nope. You're pre-supposing that there is something to prove out of nothing. A more open-minded person would say there may be evidence to prove God's existence.

--


aliasghark, on 07 March 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:
Of course many people like to stick to baseless ideas (the militant atheists for instance, with their belief system that there is no God)

Quote

I dont take the position no Gods exist or a God *cant* exist, thats why it says "Agnostic Atheist" somewhere around here.

Then don't respond to that part of the sentence that is in the brackets. The point was something else, you're trying to respond to something that you don't even have anything against.

Quote

My problem with your idea is the use of it for finding the true religion

Can you do a thought experiment? I know you're not sure, but for a moment consider God exists, and he sent down a religion to guide people who don't think very much, towards good things and avoiding bad things (good and bad defined as what improves people's lives overall and worsens it (such as cleanliness and smoking), respectively). How would you suggest people who don't know about God or the right religion, to go about finding it out?

--

And I hope you haven't ignored this part:

Quote

Why don't you just compose another message if you have to add something?
In fact in this specific thread, you have even replied to a post after yours, by editing your earlier post (your post #9), which makes no sense at all. Please try to be more honest.

[rehman]

Quote

your looking at the wrong places then,, and no thats not what we believe,, when Imam Mahdi ATF arrives there would only be 313 Generals,, but the actual army would be of 1000`s and 1000`s of people,, and not all would be Muslims,, they might be Christians because they have DEEN,, which is obedience,, a non-muslim can be closer to Allah to a muslim,, from there actions,, there is this following Hadith,, "An Ignorant (another religion) person who is generous is more beloved to Allah than a worshiper (muslim) who is stingy",,,,,,, that way the Non-Muslims deserve to be in the 313 than the actual Muslims,,

Imam Mahdi will come with 313 generals, and 10,000 people under each general, which if you do the math is just over 3 million people. This is an obviously small minority. I don't get where you are getting the rest of your info about Christians being in the Imam's army. What I had always heard as a Muslim was that as soon as he comes, he will mass murder all non-believers (but first he'll ask them to convert, if they don't then he'll start slaughtering them). He will also kill every Muslim over the age of 20 who doesn't know properly the rules of Islam. This is what my dad told me when he wanted me to read the law books, I would love it if you could prove that this is false.

Quote

u didnt understand what i meant,, if a Christian or a Jew followed there Book correctly,, meaning believed in ONE God,, they believed in the day of Judgment,, and they did good deeds,, then they have nothing to fear,, most Christians and Jews dont follow there book properly,, the same as Muslims,,

Again, this is what you have probably been told to believe. As kingpomba quoted before me,
And whoever inequitably seeks for himself as a religion other than Islam, then it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter (he) will be among the losers. How does Allah guide a people who have disbelieved after their belief, and bore witness that the Messenger is true, and the supreme evidences came to them? And Allah does not guide the unjust people. Those will have their recompense in (that there will rest) on them the curse of Allah and of the Angels and of mankind all together, Eternally (abiding) therein. The torment will not be lightened for them, and they will not be respited. (3:85-88)
Emphasis on NOTHING other than Islam will be accepted. If there is some other verse somewhere else that says otherwise, then that is proof of self-contradiction in the Quran.

Quote

and u cant judge Hijab on what people do on the plane,, because its there choice,, if there is a girl who who connects with Allah spiritually but doesnt put scarf on,, it will be better than someone who puts it on just for a show,,

Exactly, its their choice and it should be their choice, just as you CHOOSE to wear Hijab. My problem is why it is an obligation. Do you not know what Allah will do to these women for CHOOSING not to wear Hijab? That's equivalent to saying "Hey, I heard your wallet might get stolen. Here, take this lucky rabbit's foot... or else I'll shoot you. In the leg. In a dark alleyway. And watch you bleed to death. But only because I love you."

Quote

when u start mentioning trees talking then u seriously believe everything,, the miracles in the Quran were revealed before science technology could prove it,, and u should know better than to believe most things from facebook,, but WHY should Islam be based on these dumb things u see and read who r from people who dont even know there religion to start with,,

lol, I'm talking about the Quran. The Quran mentions inanimate objects and animals talking, another thing most Islamic scholars will choose not to tell you about. The thing on facebook was just an example to show how blind religion makes you.

Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant said: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving. And (Solomon) smiled, laughing at her speech, and said: My Lord, ... (27:18-19)

Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly." (41:11)

Indeed, we offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, and they declined to bear it and feared it; but man [undertook to] bear it. Indeed, he was unjust and ignorant. (33:72)

So not only do inanimate objects talk, they also have feelings. How adorable. All of my points are directly either from the Quran or otherwise well-known parts of Islam, which being an ex-Muslim I've heard many times myself, and I'm sure you have too. I'm not talking about anything hidden in some dark corners somewhere.

@aliasghark
Can you please reply to some of my questions too instead of being overly critical of someone editing their posts? Do you think I'm not worthy of your intellect? My problem isn't with God or belief in God, I choose to still believe in him just because I prefer creationism's theories of the origins of the universe over atheism. My problem is with Islam as the "complete and only religion/way of life". Are you a Muslim, or someone who just wants to believe in God like I do?

Quote

The problem with not being a Muslim anymore is how do you justify things you use to use Islam to justify?

How do you justify not drinking for example? I know plenty of Atheists and Christians that don't drink, so, its by no means an exclusive thing to Islam.

To be honest, I never really used Islam to justify anything. It's not today that I suddenly decided to leave Islam, I've been thinking and reading up on the points I've mentioned throughout for at least a couple years, I actually started losing faith in Islam a long time ago. And I'm still not getting any straight answers so I know I've made the right decision. Whenever anyone asks me why I don't drink, I just tell them I don't want to, not that it has anything to do with my religion.
I don't know what I'm going to call what the rest of my life is based on, and I don't want to spend too much time on that either. I'm just a regular care-free person, much like an atheist but still believing in God without needing a reason to justify it, because it doesn't affect my behavior in any way. I don't need books that tell me how to act, I trust my own morals to make me act even better than I did as a Muslim. If I wasn't born a Muslim I would probably eat pork anyway, but thats one of those things that kind of stick, because its a justifiable part of Islam. Pigs are gross.

You guys can stop thinking about what is the "right" God, just go with whatever description fits into your head. My ideas of justice are different than kingpomba's for example, I love eye for an eye justice if that is what the victim really wants. Maybe thats just another cultural thing I have, growing up in a Muslim environment. Just don't let any kind of God influence who you are and what decisions you make. That is your job to decide your morals.